Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
"Nope, wrong again!" says Rafiki, the anthropomorphized monkey in The Lion King as he hits his wayward student on the head with his staff. Well, the so-called "no-compromise" NRA Bashers have again firmly sided with the extreme anti-gun movement in their opposition to the recently amended HR 2640, which now awaits the President's signature to become law. The NRA Bashers are wrong again and need a whack from Rafiki's staff. Here is the proof.
(Excerpt) Read more at pgnh.org ...
No. They are a danger to enemies of the US.
"So if say New York State sets up a "Commission" to determine who is a "danger" do you think most FReepers would be exempt from that definition?"
The State of NY doesn't have a license to practice medicine, nor the authority to make an official binding proclamation identifying who is an enemy of the US. The State of NY already forbids the people from possessing firearms. That's in clear violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
"We live in a world where 10 years old girls are charged with felonies for having a steak knife. "
That occurred in FL, where firearms are not banned and folks can carry weapons.
"a shrink would of had me committed."
No. In order to begin the process, you must be brought before the court for something you did, either criminal, bizarre, or both. What you thought, don't count, unless you had folks around you so scared, they filed commitment papers. Then you'd have to get an atty and defend against the charges.
"A very good friend of mine and an employee was in Walter Reed with PST from the Chosun Reservoir experience. He is the most normal guy I know. He just needed some time to get his head straight. Under this bill he would of had to petition a court to get his rights back."
If he was in there involuntarily, he must have done something bad. Else he was in there voluntarily, which is not a disqualifier. If someone provides evidence that their head's not on straight by their actions and they're disqualified, it makes sense they'd have to provide evidence that their head's right in a permanent way. Having to deal with communists under adverse conditions is not a valid excuse for life threatening behavior any more than alcohol, or drug abuse is.
"This bill can be knocked down under states rights issues and I hope it is."
No. Congress and only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.
"The Feds have no business in mental health."
They're not in the mental health business, but they can regulate it under the Commerce Clause.
""shall not be infringed"
Applies to the people, not to those that distinguish themselves from and threaten the people.
LOL!
AMEN!! and pass me another magazine!
Yup - and when we get "government health care" the "federally paid" doctors will become that "other lawful authority".
Do you think the Second Amendment was ever intended to honor the right of slaves to keep and bear arms? Or to allow weapons to convicts en route to the gallows?
The "People" of the Second Amendment are free persons. Any other reading would be nonsensical.
Joe, this is from OFF an Oregon gun rights organization:
HR 2640, The NRA’s Latest “Victory.”
“We commend the United States Congress for its action today to strengthen the Brady background check system.”
Those were the words of Paul Helmke the President of the Brady gun ban group. The action to which he was referring, as you no doubt know, was the passage of HR 2640, in lighting moves with no debate and no recorded votes.
Both the US Senate and the US House passed this bill on December 19th under “unanimous consent” agreements. That means it was not even discussed. In order for this to happen, the leadership of both parties had to agree to allow it.
We are not surprised politicians would push more gun control with no accountability. But what is greatly troubling is that the National Rifle Association was the primary force behind this latest attack on gun rights.
The NRA’s spin machine is operating at full capacity praising the passage of a bill written by the most anti-gun members of Congress.
The bill expands and extends the failed Brady background check system, a gun registration scheme which has cost thousands of qualified people the ability to purchase a firearm.
It is amazing the NRA would revive a bill that was going nowhere just to give more power to the people who are denying legitimate purchases now.
You will recall the NRA supported the original Brady Bill because they approved of background checks for gun buys. That a “pro-gun” organization could support prior restraint of a right is bad enough, but now, years after this system has been in place, the NRA joins forces with an organization that has raised millions to strip Americans of their Second Amendment right in order to expand this dangerous law.
The NRA has insisted that this bill, rammed though when they hoped no one was watching, is going to benefit gun owners. On their website, the NRA uses the following quote to prove what a great deal this is for gun owners:
“Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a yearfor any reason, including lack of fundsthe applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.”
A year? A person who applies for relief has to wait a year before they can demand that some action be taken? That’s a mighty long time to wait for the right to have a firearm ...especially if you need one. Oh, and then they get to go to court, to “seek” review. At their own expense of course.
Aside from the fact that the enemies of gun rights are crowing about this “victory” the biggest problem,(lost in NRA’s extensive justification for what CBS News called the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade,) is a simple reality the NRA refuses to acknowledge.
This bill turns over more power and more information to the very agencies which have used existing law to deny the rights of Americans or make it impossibly expensive to exercise those rights.
In Oregon, countless qualified buyers are denied purchases because of the intentional obstruction of government agencies who maintain these records. But it is even worse than that.
The original Brady Bill allowed for an end to the mandatory waiting periods when the availability of records allowed for an “instant” background check. We have long since passed that point, but for far too many people the background check is anything but “instant” stretching to weeks and months for many. How can the NRA and its apologists believe that the abysmal record keeping (or the outright obstruction of some agencies) is going to improve by handing these bureaucracies more power and personal information?
The NRA, in an article entitled “Clearing The Air On The Instant Check Bill “ said the following:
“In the late 1990s, gun buyers often experienced ridiculous delays while NICS sorted through cases of mistaken identity or incomplete police records. Many purchasers were wrongly denied and forced to go through a cumbersome appeals process. At the same time, state officials testified before Congress about woefully incomplete records they provide to NICS—a problem confirmed in recent reports by the U.S. Department of Justice”
Well someone needs to alert these guardians of our gun rights, that nothing’s changed. And now we are well passed the 1990’s. Gun owners are still being delayed and denied and still face cumbersome appeals processes. If you are delayed without cause, it’s your tough luck. The so called “safeguards” built into the law are meaningless and ignored. Sure, the law says if you don’t get an approval within three days, a firearms transfer may take place, but just try it.
Now NRA wants to solve the problems they created with Brady by giving us more of the same. They are telling us that the government bureaucrats will now be using accurate records, we should all be thankful and this is a great step forward.
In the world of gun rights, “good intentions” don’t cut it . As poorly kept and abused as the records of criminal behavior are, at least crimes are generally easy to quantify. “Mental illness” is far less black and white. You will recall the Bush efforts to screen the entire US population for “mental illness.”
The NRA has joined forces with politicians and organizations who have declared their intention to end gun ownership in this country. They have rammed through legislation that requires that more records be handed over to people who have proven they cannot be trusted with them. They have asked that gun owners believe that the same people who defunded the process to allow people to get their gun rights back under the current law won’t defund the lengthy process to get your rights back under this new law.
If you believe that more records in the hands of more government operators is a good idea, you may want to think about the first act of the Clintons when they took over the White House. The FBI record scandal proved beyond any doubt how unscrupulous and criminal political operatives can bypass the law to ruin people’s lives.
In an alert title “Outrage of the Week” the NRA has invited readers to share their “weekly outrage.”
They say “If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate for the “Outrage of the Week!” section, please send it to: freedomsvoice@nrahq.org.”
We think the sneaky passage of NRA/Schumer/McCarthy bill more than qualifies.
Copyright © 2000 - 2007, Oregon Firearms Federation. All Rights Reserved.
No, but that is irrelevant. Persons released from the stocks were never disbarred the use of arms, and slavery is a non-sequitor since we haven't had slavery in 154 years
I don’t believe that’s so, and niether should anyone else. Your medical records are all considered private and there is a big liberal lobby to keep it that way. No one is fighting to open them because it isn’t in anyone’s interest.
It’s only when the court gets involved and makes it maktter of public record that there is an issue.
They're private until a doctor "feels" that you are a danger and then he can petition a judge to remove your rights.
Art. I, Section 9, Constitution for the United States of America
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Common law, English or Scottish, does not override the written Constitution.
Slavery is permitted as a punishment for serious crimes, per the Thirteenth Amendment. While one could argue that before disarming a felon a state should judicially declare him to be a slave of the state, the concept of people forfeiting rights as a consequence of criminal conviction was anticipated in the Thirteenth Amendment.
Only through the individual due process of their trial and sentencing.
"Felon" includes the 20 y/o who gets caught having carnal knowledge of his 17 y/o "intended", along with a host of much more trivial offenses.
Pretty soon, we'll all be felons for one offense or another...be afraid........VERY AFRAID.
The law merely says "(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;"
Doesn't say for how long. And it also doesn't define the terms, except to say they have the same meanings as in Title 18 Section 922(g)(4), which also doesn't define them, nor does section 921, which contains the definitions applying to Chapter 44 (Firearms) (section 921-931)
Interestingly the review/appeal procedures. (section 101 c (2) A) only seem to apply to cases where a federal agency is the one doing the "adjudication". I'm sure most such "adjudications" are done at the state or local level.
Why would they do that? The Supreme Court isn't (supposed to be) influenced by billboards.
They are planning on filing an amicus brief in the case. That could at least potentially have an effect.
Who gives a sh!t? Doesn't change the fact that if a criminal is too dangerous to buy a gun, then said criminal should not be released into society because he will damn sure get one if he wants. And, conversely, if the criminal has paid his debt to society, and is no longer a danger, then he should be able to defend himself same as anyone else.
All gun control does is impede (and infringe) the rights of the honest law abiding. LIke I said before I'll take my chances with the unorganized criminals rather than further empower the biggest extortion organization of all.
That's not right, but one thing all the psycho mass killers seem to have in common is they threatened to kill people multiple times before actually going through with it.
From #97
A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature that effects, or more persons in particular by name. Attainder is not the same as a Bill of Attainder. An ex post facto law is a criminal law that has effect prior to the date of enactment and publishing.
Re: A felon abrogated their own rights when they committed the crime..
"Only through the individual due process of their trial and sentencing."
No. Their right to vote and all other rights are lost and only remain by the grace of the legislature.
""Felon" includes the 20 y/o who gets caught having carnal knowledge of his 17 y/o "intended", along with a host of much more trivial offenses.
There's no "host" of "much more trivial issues" that are felonies! Your example only holds in some states. That's a separate issue.
" The law merely says "(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;" Doesn't say for how long. And it also doesn't define the terms, except to say they have the same meanings as in Title 18 Section 922(g)(4), which also doesn't define them, nor does section 921, which contains the definitions applying to Chapter 44 (Firearms) (section 921-931) Interestingly the review/appeal procedures. (section 101 c (2) A) only seem to apply to cases where a federal agency is the one doing the "adjudication". I'm sure most such "adjudications" are done at the state or local level.
I gave you where the terms are defined: 27CFR478.11, and you were given the essential requirements and process for involuntary commitment. The judicial act is indefinite and lasts until such time another court reverses it.
I thought not.
You got that right.
Slaves were not considered part of "the people". Felons however where, and got their rights restored after serving (usually) their full sentence. The notion of stripping them of their RKBA forever originated with the 1938 Federal Firearms Act. (it also instituted the notion of a federal license to sell arms. It cost $1).
Is not the law, it can be changed by executive fiat. That is by observing the proper procedure, publishing the proposed change or new regulation, and then taking public input (which can be ignored). Then after the proper amount of time, it's the new regulation.
Their right to vote and all other rights are lost and only remain by the grace of the legislature.
Including presumably their right to speak in public, their right to publish what they wish, and their right to exercise their religion?
With due respect, there is a problem with your interpretation.
The founders considered disarmament itself akin to slavery.
By their definition, to take away one's gun(s) was to enslave them, not just metaphorically but literally.
Read just about any of the founders, and there is sure to be a statement or reference about the nature of man to be free.
Even Jefferson, a slave owner, considered his owning slaves to be a "distasteful" necessity.
Concerning slaves and guns however, while maybe not common, many slaves were allowed to keep and bear arms, not only for hunting, but for protection of the owner's land and property.
And let's not forget that both free blacks and slaves fought for the south during the civil war.
Yeah, it is.
"it can be changed by executive fiat."
No. You ignored what I said about it above. The definition in 27CFR411 is based on the way medical opinions and those adjudications and commitments work in the US, not how the bureaucrats think it ought to be.
"Including presumably their right to speak in public, their right to publish what they wish, and their right to exercise their religion?"
That's correct. Note that in many states a felon can not profit from their crime by writing and speaking about it. The courts and legislatures have otherwise found that restricting their speech has no justification, or significant effect. Note that punishment is not a justification here. The idea is that a felon has proved some propensity for criminal behavior and an unwillingless to control it. With regard to religion, the courts have held that one's religion should not be largely stripped away, even in prison.
IOWs shooting off one's mouth has no real physical consequences with regard to health, safety, ect... Shooting off a gun does.
The NRA for years has tried to de-rail pro-gun stuff in Richmond, Virginia. Basically they were trying to discredit VCDL. I dropped my membership at that point. However, after the crap they tried to pull (and Wayne LaPierre admitted to trying) with the Heller case, I don’t care what happens in the future, the NRA will never get a dime from me or any kind of support. My rights are NOT theirs to compromise away and their attitude and actions offend me greatly. This road they have chosen to travel down will lead to civil war and bloodshed unless they stop and really fight.
ANY kind of gun control is bad for this nation and everyone in it. The NRA is not the gun owners friend and never has been. I know people in ILA who have said the exact same thing. The NRA is a professional lobbying group not a pro-gun group. Their support of the Veterans Disarmament Act proves it.
Oh yeah, just for note, I am not a member of any pro-gun or anti-gun organization. I do however assist with several pro-gun groups that truly do support everyones 2nd Amendment rights.
Mike
Same here in Atlanta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.