HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream (NRA Director Opposes McCarthy Veteran Disarmament Act)

www.tednugent.com ^ | 07/11/07 | Ted Nugent

[Copernicus]

"...with ATF harrassing the [deleted] out of numerous mom & pop gunshops in SC, ID & elsewhere, this is THE American issue of alltimes. I pray to God ya all hammer relentlessly." -Nuge

McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE

Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in jeopardy once again!

You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640) without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it on the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.

An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.

But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!

[Copernicus]

Ted Nugent is on the Board Of Directors of the NRA and apparently has broken with the NRA-ILA Talking Points about the blessings and benefits of NRA sponsored gun control.

Best regards to all,

[sure_fine]

[Army Air Corps]

Thanks for the nightmares. The terrifying, cold sweat fueled noghtmares that I am going to have because of that photograph.

[mad_as_he$$]

You a Nugent fan?

[G8 Diplomat]

Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in jeopardy once again!

That's a great line!...but since when does Congress work?

[EagleUSA]

An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.

But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!
:::::::
The liberal socialists continue their efforts to harass and disarm the LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC...without due process in the Congress, and in any sleazy, underhanded, anti-American way they can. CLEARLY, Washington is out of control. Where are the voices and action from those that still care about America, its Constitution, and the liberties and RIGHTS of the People ???

[wastedyears]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I practically did a wheeze laugh when I saw that. Thanks

[Lancey Howard]

Is that Janet just after leaving Clinton’s Oval Office?

[Lancey Howard]

[NonValueAdded]

I agree with Ted and disagree with the NRA’s stand. There is too much left to interpretation in the law and while those pooh-poohing our concern say it takes a court adjudication, the bill says a “court, board, commission, or other government entity determines ...” Sorry, but all it takes is one liberal judge to make a doctor’s raw diagnosis sent into that “other government entity” (can you say BATFE?) to run roughshod over everybody. Who is to say that a 20 year old mild depression when mom died diagnosis wouldn’t qualify? Prima facie evidence is that Chuckie & co. is happy with the bill. That should scare the ever-loving crap out of anyone.

I am not opposed to true mental illness being a disqualifer for firearms ownership with the proper safeguards in place, but if you want the basis to be a court order SAY THAT AND ONLY THAT. "Or other government entity" leaves it WIDE OPEN and you might as well try to convince me to vote for Hillary as to swallow that phrase as being no problemo.

[dljordan]

Oh geez man! Speaking of old Janet, you don’t hear a lot out of her these days. Of course if I was her I’d keep a low profile too.

[ought-six]

“Where are the voices and action from those that still care about America, its Constitution, and the liberties and RIGHTS of the People ???”

Not in Washington, you can bet on it.

[processing please hold]

On the HR 2640 is this

(a) In General- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a State shall be eligible to receive a waiver of the 10 percent matching requirement for National Criminal History Improvement Grants under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601) if the State provides at least 90 percent of the information described in subsection (c). The length of such a waiver shall not exceed 2 years.

Here is (c)

(c)

Assurances

(1) In general

To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a State shall provide assurances to the Attorney General that the State has the capability to contribute pertinent information to the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note ).

(2) Information sharing

Such assurances shall include a provision that ensures that a statewide strategy for information sharing systems is underway, or will be initiated, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on integration of all criminal justice components, law enforcement, courts, prosecution, corrections, and probation and parole. The strategy shall be prepared after consultation with State and local officials with emphasis on the recommendation of officials whose duty it is to oversee, plan, and implement integrated information technology systems, and shall contain—

(A) a definition and analysis of “integration” in the State and localities developing integrated information sharing systems;
(B) an assessment of the criminal justice resources being devoted to information technology;
(C) Federal, State, regional, and local information technology coordination requirements;
(D) an assurance that the individuals who developed the grant application took into consideration the needs of all branches of the State Government and specifically sought the advice of the chief of the highest court of the State with respect to the application;
(E) State and local resource needs;
(F) the establishment of statewide priorities for planning and implementation of information technology systems; and
(G) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this subchapter with other federally funded information technology programs, including directly funded local programs such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program (described under the heading “Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance” of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105–119)) and the M.O.R.E. program established pursuant to part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 [42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.].

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00014601----000-.html

Read the entire link I posted.

[Liberty Rattler]

This is quite interesting.

A week ago, or so, a friend, after hearing of HR2640 asked if, “It could be for real that the Congress would try to pass a law disarming the veterans?”

My responce to him was:

“Why do you act so astonished?

First thing you need to realize is that the anti-gun folks won’t be satisfied until EVERYONE ( I should say everyone but them) is disarmed.

The second thing you need to realize is that the rabid gun-banners despise veterans above all others, because they know veterans have already demonstrated their willingness to use force (not to mention their patriotism).

I’ll look into this.”

After a little googling, here was the rest of the responce to my friend:

“Here are some links of interest on this subject:

These two are from the NRA website. They seem to confirm some of the basis for the claims in this article but the practical effects regarding vets diagnosed with PTSD in specific are not addressed:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3097

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018

BTW, even though I do believe in the NRA and consider them a valuable organization, I don’t always agree with their decisions, and they have been known to make compromises for political reasons that I don’t believe are always in the interest of the general gun-owning public.

Here’s a link to more info than I have time to read right now:

http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

Here’s one where you can get info on the actual text and status of the law in question:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02640

I’d like to say, though, before I’m done tonight, that any gun law that is sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy, as this one is, I’d be very skeptical about. Not to mention that the list of co-sponsors is a who’s who of anti-gun politicians.

It don’t look good!”

After reading some of the info on the Gunowners.org site, I have to say that I am disapointed in the stand the NRA has taken.

This last year, due to a family member’s illness, I had to drop my membership in all clubs and organizations and devote my time and resources to remedy that situation. Now that I am getting past that crisis and considering once again contributing to the NRA, the stand the organization has taken, on this subject, I’ve found disapointing.

Now I find it very curious that Ted N. is coming out in appearent opposition to the NRA’s official stand.

I urge all to check out the links I’ve included here.

It will be interesting to hear what others think on this subject.

[Clemenza]

All this b-tch ever does to get her name in the paper is sponsor anti-gun legislation, and she still gets reelected thanks to the symphathy vote. She's also not the brightest bulb on the lamp.

Man, for the days when my childhood district was Norman Lent. When Lent ran for his first congressional campaign against socialist and closet homosexual Allard Lowenstein in '72, his slogan was "Give up Lowenstein for Lent."

[processing please hold]

Here's the bill. Click on links provided in the bill.

HR 2640

[stevio]

Love the slogan. It doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies when you look at where we are in history with this current bunch of politicians.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I got a signed photo of Lowenstein. It’s worth a lot of money. He was murdered by one of his own groupies.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Correction, Lent first ran in 1970. If that useful idiot McCarthy lasts another decade, she’ll tie his 22 years in Congress.

[Clemenza]

Lowenstein was effectively killed by two things:

A. Redistricting. The Fourth District lost SE areas of Queens (Springfield Gardens, Cambria Heights, Rosedale, etc.), which at the time were in considerable racial transition (from Jewish/Italian/German to black). After 1970, it became an all-Nassau district. All the Dem votes in the Five Towns couldn't hold up to the pubbie votes in Garden City, Franklin Square, Rockville Centre, etc.

B. The backlash against bussing and Lowenstein's antiwar stance.