Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Gun Grab In The Works, Already Passed the House HR 4757
GOA Gun Owners Of America ^ | 1-12-2002 | None

Posted on 11/12/2002 5:10:09 PM PST by chuknospam

Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership -- Immediate Action Needed

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

November 12, 2002

The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York, Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the Senate (S. 2826).

The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would 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 was "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance...."

The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight 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 a firearm 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 a firearm because of one slight offense committed in their past.

The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad" guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns. Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are.

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! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list? People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.?

H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to invading the privacy of all Americans.

A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the wrong hands?

ACTION:

Please contact your Senators and demand that this bill be stopped. A pre-written message is provided below. To identify your Senators, as well as to send the message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for self-defense. Those who would be banned present no greater risk of committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population. Are all the rest of us next?

Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Gun Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of Congress.

I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive increase in gun control.

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last
It only takes a second to fill out the online form & send a message, it works & I receive written replies from my reps, so they do receive & read the messages.
1 posted on 11/12/2002 5:10:10 PM PST by chuknospam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun.
2 posted on 11/12/2002 5:12:19 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It's in every free society's interest to prevent nutjob politicians from keeping tabs on who is and isn't armed.
3 posted on 11/12/2002 5:15:28 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun.

Is it in the interest of anyone to have a database of all this information on American citizens in Washington? Maybe we can find other uses for such a database?
4 posted on 11/12/2002 5:15:31 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Really, folks, why should American voters have to stand watch over the Capitol to assure that their own representatives are not putting them out of the freedom business?

Isn't it about time to invite people like Schummer and others of his ilk to leave the business of politics to other, more "American Minded" people? Who keeps electing these ouevos dormindos?
5 posted on 11/12/2002 5:16:25 PM PST by RISU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
BUMP
6 posted on 11/12/2002 5:25:01 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun.

So you basically assert that anyone who has any psychological treatment at any time is automatically not a law-abiding gun owner, or potentially one.

I would rather every nut in the country were given a gun, and all guns taken away from any member of the government or citizenry who takes part, at any level, in the disarming American Citizens, as you are for advocating it.

What is it you intend to do to these disarmed Americans?

Hank

7 posted on 11/12/2002 5:25:44 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Hate to be the one to break the news to you but if the Feds are lookiing for you they know exactly where you are...that is unless you have quit using your phone, checking account, computer or credit cards...
8 posted on 11/12/2002 5:26:24 PM PST by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RISU
Dead people, folks looking for a free cup of coffee and a doughnut, brainwashed college kids, "Do I gets a rock if I's votes?", ah the list is positivly endless!
9 posted on 11/12/2002 5:26:36 PM PST by cavtrooper21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
How did this pass the House? What is the President's position on this?
10 posted on 11/12/2002 5:26:42 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RISU
I understand 15 million american women own guns now!

PAXTON QUIGLEY Author of Armed and Female and Not An Easy Target

Tonight PAXTON QUIGLEY will be live on Unspun

11 posted on 11/12/2002 5:30:58 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
These clowns define anybody who wants to own a gun as a nutjob. No thanks. Anybody who wants a gun should have the right to buy one - no questions asked. That would at least put the rest of us on the same footing as the bad guys.
12 posted on 11/12/2002 5:31:32 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.

Did it pass some House Committee or has it been voted on in the whole House? What was the vote count?

13 posted on 11/12/2002 5:32:43 PM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
From a gun grabbers site ( neahin )

HR 4757, the Our Lady of Peace Act, was introduced in the 107th Congress by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell in May 2002.

(A companion bill, S. 2826, was introduced in the Senate in late July by Senators Larry Craig, John McCain, Charles Schumer and Edward Kennedy.)

The bill, which would "fix" the faulty records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has won the support of groups on all sides of the gun issue: Americans for Gun Safety; National Rifle Association; the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; and the Brady Campaign.

___________________________________
These may go nowhere, but let's keep an eye on 'em anyway.
14 posted on 11/12/2002 5:33:23 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun.

mvpel, You are hereby declared to be a "nutjob". Hand in your guns -- now!

How would you defend yourself against that accusation?

TXnMA (No Longer!!!)

15 posted on 11/12/2002 5:33:52 PM PST by TXnMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
The Lautenberg Amendment must be repealed. Taking 2A rights from Americans for pushing, shoving, or yelling would disarm virtually every American.

Frank Lautenberg - "Don't you think, that is, wouldn't you agree that every American that has a semi-automatic weapon oughta turn that weapon in?"

16 posted on 11/12/2002 5:40:14 PM PST by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
If I am reading the Louseinberg Law correctly, it means that Clintoon cannot own or purchase a firearm because of the perjury case ????
17 posted on 11/12/2002 5:40:36 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Out of the comm. on crime, terrorism and homeland security.Rules suspended, voted and tossed in Senate lap. No vote record on Thomas.
18 posted on 11/12/2002 5:44:35 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: copycat
"The Lautenberg Amendment must be repealed."

Instead of repealing it, they're embedding it further in law.

19 posted on 11/12/2002 5:45:47 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
The House has passed

Gasp! But the House is controlled by the GOP. Hmmmmm. If Republicans are pro-RKBA, then why did they pass.......

Doh!!!

Be happy we have a Republican congress....no matter what they do.

20 posted on 11/12/2002 5:48:44 PM PST by ForOurFuture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
This must be more of those "common-sense" restrictions we keep hearing about. You know, the ones that allow the Gestapo to monitor your every move and to decide if the Second Amendment applies to YOU?
21 posted on 11/12/2002 5:56:39 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
"It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun."

Who defines 'nutjobs? Did you know that any veteran who ever filled out a form at a veteran's hospital and complained of stress caused by any reason will no doubt be classed as a 'nutjob' once their medical records become part of this proposed data base? There will be few veterans who will not be dis-armed. I ask again, who defines what a 'nutjob' is? How would you define 'nutjob?' If you're a vet, be wary of answering casual and suggestive questions if you ever visit the V.A.

I busted my butt getting to the VA in time for my appointment last year and the trip made my blood pressure go up a few points. The nurse commented about it, and I explained that my blood pressure is usually much lower, but that I've been driving for 40 minutes in rough traffic trying to get here on time and I was probably stressed out. Anyone who is late for a VA appointment knows they will wait another month for another one. The nurse turned her head, looked at me sidewise like I was some kind of a 'nutjob' and wrote down my comment, asking if I usually get stressed when I drive.? I looked at her like she was stupid and said, 'Hell, don't you?' I believe she wrote that down too.

There were other questions she asked relating to stress, reading from what must have been a special form, as I was never asked those questions before. Yeah. I'm paranoid. This form came out about the same time news broke about what was included in the Bill when it was written.

I can easily picture what will happen if this Bill becomes law. Especially since all medical records will become part of the data base. They won't have to ban guns. Few will be qualified to buy them. Punch a name into a computer, up comes a psychological profile along with a list of medications taken by the would-be gun buyer. You can bet that the use of any mood-altering or stress-relieving or chemical-balancing prescription medicines will dis-qualify the buyer, having been classified as, in your words, a 'nutjob.'

I would rather have a well-armed 'nut-job' at my side if push ever came to shove anyway. Certifiable psychos are able to get weapons regardless of laws, so why this 'nut-job' law?

22 posted on 11/12/2002 5:59:56 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Our Lady of Peace Act?

Our Lady of Peace Act??

Our Lady of Peace Act???

What's up with the title?

23 posted on 11/12/2002 6:03:40 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
In addition to calling my Senators I'll obviously need to call the NRA and ask them to be more careful in the legislation they endorse and to reverse themselves on this one.

I've been a Life Member of the NRA for over thirty years but I'm beginning to think I need to send more to GOA and less to the NRA. Maybe it's time to think about establishing Friends of GOA Dinners.

24 posted on 11/12/2002 6:04:06 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Funny how our fearless leaders...well protected with their private security and secret gun ownership..cant agree on Homeland Defense
But fall all over themselves disarming as many Americans as their hot little hands can manage..
Do I still have to pay the same amount of tax as Americans who have more "rights"?
25 posted on 11/12/2002 6:06:32 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Plus these databases don't work like intended. Even if John Muhammed bought the gun from the Tacoma, WA gun store (it sounds as if it was stolen) his recently filed restraint order by his wife wasn't in the system yet. In fact, they had a backlog of 18 months of restraint orders due to a computer glitch.
While I'm all for going against big brother, we can be thankful that big brother screws up most of what he does. That is unless you anger the wrong people.
26 posted on 11/12/2002 6:08:37 PM PST by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Isn't it great that the republicans are in control? How long did they wait to pass anti-gun legislation? A week? I'm sure though that Homeland security can't possibly work without this legislation.
27 posted on 11/12/2002 6:12:12 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
The GCA of 1968 was endorsed by the NRA. It is well past time to tell the NRA to shove it.
28 posted on 11/12/2002 6:13:31 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Define "nutjob."

Then wonder to yourself how that definition can be expanded upon.

29 posted on 11/12/2002 6:14:26 PM PST by dbwz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
BUMP IT BABY
30 posted on 11/12/2002 6:18:34 PM PST by flamingbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Seems blasphemous, doesn't it?
31 posted on 11/12/2002 6:20:52 PM PST by pocat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
From my cold dead hands!

This statement could make some people think that you're a nutjob.

Never get stuck in a building when they come for your guns, instead get them stuck in a building.
32 posted on 11/12/2002 6:24:41 PM PST by Crusader21stCentury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Time to buy another weapon. Everytime the politicos introduce one of these bills, I buy another weapon. When they eventually do away with our rights I can still stand up to them.
33 posted on 11/12/2002 6:25:48 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
This legislation will only discourage people who need mental health treatment from seeking it.
34 posted on 11/12/2002 6:27:06 PM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
On October 16, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote legislation authorizing funding to ensure that states and
localities report the names of individuals "adjudicated as mentally defective" with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NCIC). Sponsors of the legislation, known as "Our Lady of Peace Act" (HR 4757/S 2826), attempted to expedite
Senate passage late last week but were blocked in their effort to achieve unanimous consent. Since then, both the House and
Senate have recessed until at least the week of November 18 when members of Congress will return for a post-election "lame duck"
session. It is expected that sponsors of HR 4757/HR 2826 will again attempt to push the bill through the Senate and on to President

Bush's desk where it likely would be signed into law.

During the current congressional recess, NAMI will be attempting to force changes in the current version of the "Our Lady of Peace
Act" to address concerns raised about provisions in the bill that would erode the privacy of individual's mental illness treatment status
and reinforce existingstigma regarding people with mental illness. NAMI will also be urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to
convene hearings on the bill to examine the potential impact on privacy rights of individuals with mental illness and likelihood that
potential disclosure to the federal NCIC database might deter individuals from seeking treatment.

To date, neither the House nor the
Senate have held hearings on HR 4757/S 2826.

In an E-News message circulated on October 2, NAMI outlined a range of concerns about HR 4757/S 2826. Included below is
additional background material and a restatement of the impact this legislation could have on individuals with mental illness.
During
the current recess, NAMI advocates are encouraged to share these concerns with their U.S. senators and urge them to amend the
current version of this legislation to ensure that the privacy rights of consumers are not unfairly compromised as part of the effort to
ensure appropriate screening of individuals seeking to purchase firearms. All members of Congress can be reached by calling the

Capitol Switchboard toll free at 1-800-839-5276 or at 202-224-3121 or online through www.congress.org.

Background on "Our Lady of Peace Act"

Since 1968, federal law has required state and local government agencies to report the names of persons "adjudicated as mentally
defective" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for conducting the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NCIC) for people seeking to purchase firearms. However, most states and localities have never complied with this
law.

HR 4757/S 2826 authorize a set of incentive grants to state and local agencies to report these names. Although NAMI
recognizes the importance of screening individuals who wish to purchase guns, there is mounting concern that this legislation
contains overly broad language and has potential to reinforce stigma and compromise the privacy of individuals with mental
illnesses.

The term "adjudication as a mentally defective," as defined in HR 4757/S 2826, encompasses a variety of categories. While it is
much narrower than all individuals diagnosed with a mental illness, it does include all individuals that have been involuntarily
committed to a psychiatric facility, without regard to functional impairment, when the commitment occurred or the reason for the
commitment.

Additionally, any determination (formal or otherwise) by a governmental agency that a person is a danger to themselves
as a result of a mental disorder or illness would serve as a basis for reporting their name to the FBI's NCIC. Likewise, a determination
that a person lacks capacity to contract or manage their own affairs would also trigger a disclosure to the NCIC.

Second, as currently drafted HR 4757/S 2868 is lacking adequate protections to safeguard the privacy of individuals whose names
are reported to the FBI for maintenance in the NCIC system. Specifically, the bill directs the Attorney General to work with states,
local law enforcement and the mental health system to establish regulations and protocols for protecting privacy. However, the bill
contains no specific parameters or guidelines for doing so.

Finally, in NAMI's view the very use of the language "adjudicated as a mentally defective" in S 2826 is outdated and highly
stigmatizing of people with mental illness and would possibly deter some people from seeking necessary treatment.
35 posted on 11/12/2002 6:30:04 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Why did the Republican controlled House pass this??
36 posted on 11/12/2002 6:31:36 PM PST by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
How funny you should mention that, because while in DC last weekend I had lunch with a staffer and he invited a democr@p staffer that said everyone at FR were a bunch of...nutjobs. So, watch the stroke with which you broadly paint people's Constitutional rights and whom you ally yourself with.
37 posted on 11/12/2002 6:38:20 PM PST by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
"It is in every law-abiding gun owner's interest to prevent nutjobs from walking in and buying a gun."

Not everyone who winds up in a private mental health institution is a nutjob. Some of them are chronically depressed and sometimes suicidal kids who are fine once their problems are resolved. Sometimes, an adult has a nervous breakdown and checks his or herself in.

That's no reason for either not to own a gun. Heck...how do we know that every person who ever went for therapy for whatever reason...even marriage counciling, won't be denied a gun?? Anything Chucky Schumer is involved in CAN'T be inthe best interests of the people.

38 posted on 11/12/2002 6:38:43 PM PST by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Hey how bout those RAPE VICTIMS... brutalized traumatized terrorized...who had the temerity to go see a MD and deal with what happened...
Now at the Govts. discretion (or lack of) these same RAPE VICTIMS wont be able to defend themselves from another attack...and if they do mangage to get a gun or if they havent been informed that they are NO LONGER eligible to own one...well Uncle Sugar can send his goons to take care of our little armed female...and teach her what fer...hell they might even hep they selves to a little...after all whose gonna complain :)
39 posted on 11/12/2002 6:40:53 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I CCW a Bersa .380 a perfect fit for a ladies small hand.
40 posted on 11/12/2002 6:41:03 PM PST by GailA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
E-mails sent.
41 posted on 11/12/2002 6:43:59 PM PST by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Inclusion:

"There were other questions she asked relating to stress," shoud have been 'stress and depression.'

42 posted on 11/12/2002 6:46:34 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Sent. Thanks! Bump
43 posted on 11/12/2002 6:54:40 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
44 posted on 11/12/2002 6:57:54 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
Any returning combat vet..regardless of how much combat he or she has seen...
probably wont want to see an MD during service or after.. (Wasnt this the problem at Ft. Bragg not wanting to be stigmatized)...

To see the Doc they felt is the kiss of death..career wise...

So if a combat vet sees the doc ..after he or she gets out -these congress asses wont let he or she protect themselves or their familes from criminals or terrorists here at home?..(who have no problem breaking laws to get guns to use in crimes)

Talk about returning combat vets getting spit on ...only this time itll be Uncle Sam's ham handed henchmen our legislators.. (whose families are all protected)

A citizen is much better off not going to combat..if that combat leads to a Medical report that will eventually disarm you...and put your family at risk....

I want to thank all the Republicans I was stupid enough to vote for..
JR wont let me say what I think of the dems... just as well....
45 posted on 11/12/2002 7:13:27 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam

46 posted on 11/12/2002 7:19:07 PM PST by NWO Slave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
A good time to count every RINO!!
47 posted on 11/12/2002 7:23:42 PM PST by shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chuknospam
bump
48 posted on 11/12/2002 7:32:33 PM PST by shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I see the usual suspects are backing this:
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

49 posted on 11/12/2002 7:53:31 PM PST by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

The bill ... has won the support of groups on all sides of the gun issue: Americans for Gun Safety; National Rifle Association...

Yet another justification for my decision to discontinue my NRA membership years ago.

The NRA has ceased to represent responsible gun owners and now only represents certain special interests who have gained control over the NRA through the use of large donations.

Gun Owners of America truly is "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."

 

50 posted on 11/12/2002 8:07:47 PM PST by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson