McCarthy & Schumer Duping Pro-gunners Into Supporting Gun Control

GOA Alert ^

[Stew Padasso]

McCarthy & Schumer Duping Pro-gunners Into Supporting Gun Control

-- Bill to bar millions more from gun ownership Gun Owners of America

ACTION: Please urge your Senators and Representative NOT to cosponsor the Schumer-McCarthy bill. Don't think that just because your congressman is "pro-gun" that he won't sign onto this bill. Some relatively good legislators have been duped into cosponsoring it. So your elected officials need to hear from you. After reading the alert, please send them the pre-written letter below. You can contact your Representative and Senators by visiting the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send them a pre-written e-mail message.

(Tuesday, September 30, 2003)

Remember the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act" from last year? Well, Our Lady is back, but under a new name.

Two notoriously anti-gun legislators have teamed up again to deny millions of additional Americans their right to keep and bear arms. They are Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

What makes this bill so dangerous is the fact that many Congressmen who are perceived to be "pro-gun" are supporting the bill as well.

According to CNS News, a current NRA Board member, together with a former board member, appeared at a press conference last week to support the Schumer-McCarthy legislation. Specifically, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) lent their visible support on Thursday in favor of the "NICS Improvement Act."

NICS, of course, refers to the National Instant Check System -- a key component of the Brady Act which forces honest citizens to prove their innocence to the FBI before they can purchase firearms from gun dealers. The Brady Act, named after anti-gun lobbyists Jim and Sarah Brady, requires gun purchasers' names to be given to the FBI, thus creating the potential that the feds could keep an illegal registry of firearms owners.

As of today, this new bill still does not have a number. However, it is expected that it will be almost identical with its earlier incarnation, H.R. 4757, from last year.

As such, the bill could require states to turn over vast numbers of records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records -- often containing sensitive, personal information -- could include ANY state record relevant to the question of whether a person is prohibited from owning a gun.

This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the FBI could also require that a state forward all of its employment and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens. It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in order to determine whether a person is "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance...."

GOA opposes adding mental health records because psychiatry is one of the most anti-gun professions of all. Consider the recent study published by the American Psychological Association. In the press release announcing the study, two Berkeley professors likened "right-wing conservatives" like Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan to Hitler and Mussolini. Huh? These shrinks are the people we want to determine who should own a firearm? The Second Amendment should never be in the hands of this profession.

Regardless, one must realize that this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys and wackos from getting guns. Bad guys and wackos will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are.

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing firearms, because they were guilty in the past of committing minor misdemeanors. You might remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own firearms for self-defense.

But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does not access all of these records when screening the background of someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. The McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of decent, peaceful citizens from owning firearms because, in each case, of nothing more than a single, minor offense committed long ago.

This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more Americans to legally own guns!

Already, the Brady Bunch is crowing that passing this bill "would represent the first substantial piece of federal gun legislation since at least 1996" and that such passage would "explode the myth that nothing can be achieved on guns in [a Republican] Congress."

They might well get their way since prominent Republicans like Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah are supporting the bill.

The Schumer-McCarthy bill is an anti-self-defense piece of legislation that will only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to invading the privacy of all Americans.

------ Pre-written message ------ Dear Representative ______________,

I urge you NOT to cosponsor the Schumer-McCarthy bill, which has been dubbed the "NICS Improvement Act."

The Brady Act has been a complete failure, and it does not need to be improved. Not only does this bill violate the Second Amendment, it creates the very real potential that the FBI would illegally maintain a gun owners registry -- despite existing prohibitions in the law. (Remember how the FBI illegally provided files on prominent Republicans to President Bill Clinton in 1996?)

More to the point, the Brady Act has not stopped criminals from using guns in crime. One of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association (August 2000), found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates.

It's no wonder. Criminals don't obey gun laws. Plus, laws such as the Brady Act have utterly failed to put criminals behind bars. In a fact sheet entitled "Instant Registration Check Threatens Gun Owners' Rights," Gun Owners of America notes that in the first five years the Brady Act was in force, eight people were prosecuted under the Act and only three were sent to jail. So while the Brady Law has been a failure at stopping bad guys, it has succeeded in giving gun owners' names to the FBI.

Regardless, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution -- a document which includes a protection stating that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." But the Schumer-McCarthy bill is an infringement! Among other things, this bill will result in millions more Americans not being able to own guns, simply because they committed a Lautenberg-type offense, such as pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member.

Finally, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that this bill could give the FBI access to all of my private tax and financial information. This is a dangerous expansion of federal power, and it is decidedly un-American.

Again, I hope that you will NOT cosponsor this bill. And I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive increase in gun control.

Sincerely,

[Puppage]

the American Medical Association (August 2000), found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates.

So, let's give away our Constitutional rights for NO REASON AT ALL.Even IMAGINED ones..

It just FEEEELS good.

[HangFire]

bump

[Deathmonger]

I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'.

[tomakaze]

bump

[Eaker]

I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'.

Who has asked you to do this????

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'." You are not pro-second amendment, you are merely a dupe who marchs to the antis drum beat. I think maybe you are depressed with the state of things and should maybe talk to a mental health professional. And by the way, now that we have declared you be referred to be clinically treated for your mental state, turn in all your guns under the new bill you supported, you Psycho.

[Stew Padasso]

Who is going to decide whether someone is mentally fit to defend themselves or not? The AMA?

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'." You are not pro-second amendment, you are merely a dupe who marchs to the antis drum beat. I think maybe you are depressed with the state of things and should maybe talk to a mental health professional. And by the way, now that we have declared you be referred to be clinically treated for your mental state, turn in all your guns under the new bill you supported, you Psycho.

[Joe Brower]

"I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'."

And no one's asking you to. Look beyond your knee-jerk perception into the deeper truth here. Once this legislation is passed and millions of folks who once got a prescription for Valium are now considered "mentally unfit to own a firearm", where does it end? More and more people will be reclassified to fit this new restriction, and gun control strides forward.

Ultimately, in true Catch-22 fashion, pretty soon the argument will become, "Well, crazy people can't own guns. And you'd have to be crazy to want a gun. Ergo, no gun for you, citizen."

Neat, huh?

[RogueIsland]

Ultimately, in true Catch-22 fashion, pretty soon the argument will become, "Well, crazy people can't own guns. And you'd have to be crazy to want a gun. Ergo, no gun for you, citizen."

It'll go like this: "You want a gun for self defense? Why? Do you perceive some sort of threat? Even though no one has actually threatened you? Oh wait, I see here you are active on an Internet site and have posted items that expressed fear of a tyrannical government. Does the government seem tyrannical to you? Is it your perception that you are threatened and oppressed? You appear to have some paranoid tendencies..."

[Atlas Sneezed]

I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as anybody but you are not going to see me marching under a banner reading 'Guns for Psychos'.

---

Then merely join me in supporting the policy of keeping guns away from people who are committed to mental hospitals becasue they present a risk of violence to themsleves or others. They are not allowed to possess their guns until they are healthy enough to be released.

But if the government can't convice a judge to lock you up, then it can't deny you the right to defend your life and that of your family.

[apillar]

These laws are nothing but a joke anyway.

Anybody in this country that wants a gun can easily obtain one by hook or by crook, and no law is ever going to change that.

I know of one local fellow that was convicted of domestic battery and is "banned" from owning guns. He has one of the larger gun collections in the area, none registered in his name, all purchased with cash from individuals. According to the government "computers" he doesn't own and has never owned a gun.

I imagine the rate of gun ownership among convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers and other banned groups is as high if not higher than the general population.

[Redcoat LI]

Good point,just because the "slippery slope" arguement is a bit of a cliche, it is true,none the less.Once they come up with a threshhold for denying us our 2nd amendment rights,they will work even harder to expand it,which is the motivation behind most gun regulation.

[Deathmonger]

I'll meet you halfway. Limit it to people who have been treated for violent psychopathic behavior. I am not sure I agree with you that once such people are cured they should start packing. That's a bit like handing drinks to cured alcoholics or having cured pedophiles as scoutmasters.

This is separate from the issue of how exactly this should be implemented, i.e. whether the government should collect all of this information on everybody, psycho or not.

[cruiserman]

How could anyone be fooled into thinking a bill with Schumer's name on it would be pro-gun?

[El Gato]

These laws are nothing but a joke anyway.

Only to criminals. To the honest law abiding citizen they are a severe threat to his/her RKBA. They are also one more nail in the coffin of the "gun culture".

[Deathmonger]

Judges declare people insane based on medical diagnoses all the time. Otherwise there would be a crazy in your house right now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Not every "mental illness" makes you a Charles Manson. Most people with mental illnesses live normal lives.

I can guarantee that if you are EVER given any type of label as having ANY type of mental illness, including "depression", for any reason, at any time in your past (even 40 years ago), or if you EVER took any drug that is even remotely related to a mental illness, that your right to self defence will be immediately stripped from you and you will NEVER be allowed to own a gun ever again.

It doesn't matter to the freedom haters that you were depressed over a child's death and the doctor prescribed a mild anti-depressant 25 years ago.

It doesn't matter if you have been declared completely and forever cured.

It doesn't matter if you were 18 and arrested for having a single marijuana cigarette 30 years ago, given a $50 fine and let go, and haven't had one since.

[Deathmonger]

If the bill does not carefully define what classes of mental illnesses are covered then I agree with you.