New Gun Grab In The Works, Already Passed the House HR 4757

GOA Gun Owners Of America ^ | 1-12-2002 | None

[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.

[Alan Chapman]

...do you not think that some people, such as the mentally deranged, should not have guns?

Giving a gun to an insane person is as much a crime as giving an insane person razor blades and knives, or allowing an insane person to drive a car.

This issue isn't about gun ownership. It's about wreckless endangerment on the part of a steward or guardian.

[Kerberos]

"This issue isn't about gun ownership. It's about wreckless endangerment on the part of a steward or guardian. "

Well I didn't say insane, I said mentally deranged. And many of these people do not have stewards or guardians. If you have doubts just spend some time downtown on the streets of any major city.

Should these people have a right to carry firearms?

[m1911]

Mmmm, you serve such yummy crow!

That's pretty embarrassing, since I use Thomas a lot and I know better than to jump to conclusions without at least trying to read the bill.

My only (lame) defense is that I assumed (I know, I know) that it used the same definition as 922(g), which is no definition at all.

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

[logic101.net]

As I have been trying to tell you, a LP has no chance at high office the way you guys are doing it. Your result is only to split the conservative vote, often giving a Democrat/Socialist a victory. This does not advance your agenda.

Your best bet is to infiltrate the Republican party, run your candidates under the Republican banner for the lower offices allowing them to develop campaign skills and get name recognition. As the candidates get known, then you run them for progressively higher offices.

However, you ignore this advice since you can't understand that we can't roll back 50 years of Socialist advances overnight! Since you can't make this change overnight, you help the Socialists make more advances? Is this logical? Nope, it is childish; just as it is to insist, against all facts that there isn't a difference between Republicans and the Democrat/Socialists.

You advance none of your agenda by helping the Socialists; yet in your fantisy world facts don't matter.

I see no point in even trying to break into your fantisy world with facts anymore. I hope most LP'ers have a more firm grip on reality than you seem to.

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[philetus]

Are all the rest of us next?


Yepper

[inquest]

There are no exceptions to the right to vote, but felons, who were duly convicted under due process of law, are denied the right to vote as part of the penalty for their anti-social actions. There is no exception to the right to keep and bear arms, but the situation is similar.

Wrong. There's a very important difference: there's no provision in the Constitution providing for an absolute right to vote.

[inquest]

They should have all the same rights that the rest of us have - including the right to the means of self-defense - until such time as they've been adjudicated incompetent to remain free in society.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

However, Schumer and his ilk are in office. They have the clout. Their type is growing in number and influence. They cannot govern by earning our respect, love and admiration. That is not their "agenda." As a result they fear an armed citizenry. Thus, they want to take firearms from Americans. Once firarms are effectively removed they and their supporters shall address us in quite a different and harsher tone.

[Alan Chapman]

...I didn't say insane, I said mentally deranged.

What's the difference? In either case the people in question are incapable of advocating their own rights.

If you have doubts just spend some time downtown on the streets of any major city. Should these people have a right to carry firearms?

I have to wonder what insane people are doing wandering the streets.

Anyone who lacks sufficient mental capacity to advocate their own rights, or who is incapable of appreciating the consequences of their actions, should not be permitted to have a weapon of any kind let alone a gun. Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime.

[m1911]

Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime.
Uhhh...

That's what this law is about.

[Alan Chapman]

Your result is only to split the conservative vote, often giving a Democrat/Socialist a victory. This does not advance your agenda.

As it has been so frequently pointed on this forum Libertarians are not Conservatives.

Voting Republican does not advance my agenda. Voting Republican rewards Republicans for making government bigger and intrusive. It says to Republicans, "I like your prescription drug program. I like your interventionist foreign-policy. I want stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control). I want the government to continue to meddle in education and health care. I want to preserve Social Security."

Your best bet is to infiltrate the Republican party, run your candidates under the Republican banner for the lower offices allowing them to develop campaign skills and get name recognition.

Libertarians neither need nor want any help from Republicans. We want Republicans to simply continue doing what they've always done. That's all the help we need.

...you can't understand that we can't roll back 50 years of Socialist advances overnight!

Oh, but we can roll it back overnight. We need people with integrity like Ron Paul who will vote consistently against big government.

...you help the Socialists make more advances?

The last Republican president to preside over a reduction in the federal budget was Warren G. Harding 80 years ago. Since then we've had 9 Republican presidents all of whom have made government bigger.

Republicans held a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Were they working to roll back 50 years of Socialist advances?

[Alan Chapman]

Uhhh...That's what this law is about.

Uhhh...It's already a crime to give an insane person a weapon. We don't need any more laws.

[m1911]

So you'd prefer to charge a shopkeeper who gave an insane person a gun, even though you won't give him an effective way to find out if the purchaser is insane?

[Alan Chapman]

So you'd prefer to charge a shopkeeper who gave an insane person a gun, even though you won't give him an effective way to find out if the purchaser is insane? [emphasis added]

I won't give him an effective way?

I'm reminded of something a wise man once said.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

The purpose of this law is to jusfity bigger, more intrusive government. It is intended to make certain politicians look like they're tough on crime. As with every government program it will invariably fail, facilitate misuse and abuse, and give politicians a reason to increase funding in the future when it doesn't produce the desired results. It will become a political football. Once it gets enacted it will become nearly impossible to repeal. Any attempt to cut funding will bring accusations from the opposition of being soft on crime or of being gun fanatics.

[m1911]

Yeah, he was a clever cookie alright.

Of course, many people educate their children, go to church, give to the poor, and raise food without the government.

How many keep lists of those commited for mental problems?

You still haven't given a viable solution for the shopkeeper's dilemna. You agree it should be a crime, thereby putting the responsibility on him to determine mental fitness, so you've already loaded the weight of the state on his back, but without giving him any tools to comply with the law. Oh dear, I said "giving" again.

To paraphrase that wise man: "The state is that great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks enforcement of those gun laws with which they agree at the expense of someone else."

[mvpel]

But since we are on the subject, you say that the government should be able, via background checks, to screen out criminals from owning a firearm. What is your definition of a criminal?

My definition is irrelevant. Here's the definitions that matter:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The restriction also applies, under 18 USC 922(n), to anyone under indictment for a felony.

In other words, convicted felons and abusers, fugitives, illegal drug users/addicts, mental defectives or those who have been committed to a mental institution, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged ex-military, those who have renounced their citizenship or are under indictment for a felony, and those subject to certain types of restraining orders where the restrained person was found by a court to pose a credible threat.

[mvpel]

What is your definition of a criminal?

By the way, if I was king, I would at the very least modify the language of 922(g) to apply only to those convicted of violent felonies, or something along those lines.

[m1911]

Agreed!

[Alan Chapman]

This law represents a political solution going in search of a problem. There isn't now, nor has there ever been, a crisis involving insane and deranged people buying guns. It used to be possible to buy guns anonymously through the mail.

The increase in crime in this country is primarily attributable to the War on Drugs and gun-control. Ending the war on drugs and repealing all gun-control would result in an enormous decrease in violent crime. Open-carry and concealed-carry should be allowed without the need for a license or any government interference whatsoever.

It's misleading to say I don't want to give somebody the means with which to accomplish something. Government is not the fix-all, cure-all for societal problems. Appealing to government for help is asking for trouble. No law or program will ever be written and enforced exactly the way you imagined it. It will invariably result in waste and abuse for the reasons I previously outlined.

Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions.

[Eagle Eye]

I think that we, as peaceable citizens, should hold the legal authority as a society to disarm those who are not peaceable, just as we hold the legal authority to deprive them of their freedom or, in many states, their very lives.

Would the Sons of Liberty be considered "peaceable"? How about the TRT?

It seems to me that you are using the Founding Fathers words to support today's gun control. That is not honest use of their words.