Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists

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/ordergoamem.htm

"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly
opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure
would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling
reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable
people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to
stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners
around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next
couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier
this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now
coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously
anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very,
very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and
the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago --
legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate
sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at
Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been
looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week,
Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun
control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had
previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress
to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable
limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think
certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable
limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the
McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun
control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed
and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed
the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot
potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get
this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically
means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting
blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if
this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM
responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday
that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle
Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited
persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three
problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding
citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they
can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights,
First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives
bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately
prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny
the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have
been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic
tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has
crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of
combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch,
he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented
numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad
guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert,
severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and
other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit
murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly
identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard
massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a
country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have
here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal
data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which
according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral
discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a
"prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in
their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have
complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal
information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of
information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from
warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the
Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the
country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest
Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more
private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the
Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with
no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest
gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the
private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's
only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and
criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your
medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic,
state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of
what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at
http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so
open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL
RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI
determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an
anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in
the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of
'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law
prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all
"relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But
what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be
relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not
relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 --
even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this
week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated
information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that
the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun
amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for
concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as
killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told
O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support
this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak
for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your
congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun
rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners
as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your
Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can
call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297,
the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and
urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow
other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban,
reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).

In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than
terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on
law-abiding Americans like me.

How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush
administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected
terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to
obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which
dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been
conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists
operating in the country.

And all of this personal information would be obtained by the FBI
with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun
owners is good?


Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America
will continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill.
Thank you.

Sincerely,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told
O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support
this." Can you believe that?
When one of the top guys at the NRA says it....I guess it's gotta be true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
I already dropped a letter to Hank Johnson about it yesterday. He has an open house Saturday which I might attend in order to address this with him. I don't know how realistic that aspiration is, though.

GFL, where art thou?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
The rep that replaced Cynthia McKinney in Dekalb/Rockdale?... Nevermind, the one that represents Decatur now.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,869 Posts
Senator Schumer is pushing to get
this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically
means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
Can they legally do that?

Besides, what are the chances of all the senators agreeing unanimously on anything let alone a gun bill. I doubt they could come to a unanimous decision on whether or not to wash their hands after wiping their a**es.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Yes they can.

It basically goes: "Do I hear any objections to _______? No objections heard, the motion carries."

Boom. Law.

It is used for stuff like voting in government people into certain offices and the like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
OK, wait, would it not also have to go to the congress then Bush?

"The Brady Law is a reasonable
limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think
certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable
limitation. We do it for cars."
Why do they keep saying this, a car is used on the road and registered for taxes and many other reasons not to keep them away from those that should not have them. Also a car is not even mentioned in any of the amendments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
his bill would allow the FBI to
obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which
dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been
conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists
operating in the country.
But all you gun owners are irrational to begin with, which shows a pre-disposition for going crazy! :evil:

This bill looks like it'll stretch to about 35 pages. If it wasn't for the ILA and GOA I wonder if more than a handful of (R) or blue dog democrats would even read the entire thing, but would vote for it because of the clever name... "NICS Improvement Bill." Assclowns.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,638 Posts
If it's a gun bill, it's amazing how fast they can get it passed into law. :roll:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
S&W 40 said:
Why do they keep saying this, a car is used on the road and registered for taxes and many other reasons not to keep them away from those that should not have them. Also a car is not even mentioned in any of the amendments.
Simple... It is a soundbite that ignorant and uninformed people can quickly process in their sheeple brains. Chuckie is a sneaky MF.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,974 Posts
Entire thing is a quote from Clayton Cramer

Thursday, April 26, 2007

HR 297

This is McCarthy and Dingell's bill concerning improving state reporting of information that might disqualify someone from purchasing a gun because of misdemeanor domestic violence or mental illness problems. Gun Owners of America is sending around an email warning that this is a horrible, dangerous bill:
HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal
data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.
As I said on a radio broadcast this morning, I support the concept of improving state reporting of disqualifying mental illness problems, but the devil is in the details. So I have been reading over HR 297, and I am having trouble finding where "this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information" about individuals. The bill doesn't even require states to provide information--it only sets standards for how much money the state can receive for improving its reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System based on its level of data that it reports.

Now, there might be something that I am missing hidden in the current regulations, but "State records of persons adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution" and reporting of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions doesn't immediately seem to be a fishing expedition.

UPDATE: A reader who is concerned about this bill points out that the bill requires states that are receiving federal funds to improve their ability to feed firearms disability information to the NICBCS to provide records. If you don't want to provide those records, you won't get any money to improve your systems for feeding NICBCS. And why is this is a problem? If you don't want to provide data to NICBCS, then you don't need federal funding to improve your ability to feed data to NICBCS.

The other objection is that one provision requires states to provide information that would allow determination of whether an alien is legally present in the country. Supposedly, this is a truck sized hole--one that allows the FBI to request vast quantities of information:

Bank records, marriage license, birth certificate, property tax records, credit card records... every single one of them could in some way be used to determine whether someone is an illegal alien or not, right?
Well, no. Birth certificate is about the only item that might be useful for determining whether someone is a citizen--and if they have a U.S. birth certificate, that makes them by law a citizen (with a few very weird exceptions involving diplomatic personnel). The rest of this stuff? I wish that it was different, but illegal aliens have credit card, bank accounts, pay property taxes, and marriage licenses.

True, there are abuse potentials with information gathering, but I am hard pressed to see that this bill opens any more doors on this than the PATRIOT Act has already opened. Net effect on the powers of the snooping federal government: zero.

Source
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,974 Posts
More On Mental Illness and Firearms Disability

I found this rather disturbing but not surprising news item about Russell Eugene Weston, Jr. In case you have forgotten him already:
[quote:2ry9l9qr]Russell Eugene Weston Jr. told a court-appointed psychiatrist that he stormed the U.S. Capitol last summer, killing two police officers, to prevent the United States from being annihilated by disease and legions of cannibals.

"He described his belief that time was running out and that if he did not come to Washington, D.C., he would become infected with Black Heva," wrote Sally C. Johnson, the psychiatrist who examined Weston last fall. Weston called this imaginary ailment the "most deadliest disease known to mankind" and said it was spread by the rotting corpses of cannibals' victims, Johnson wrote.

Weston told Johnson he went to the Capitol to gain access to what he called "the ruby satellite," a device he said was kept in a Senate safe. That satellite, he insisted, was the key to putting a stop to cannibalism.

The former mental patient told another doctor that he fatally shot officers Jacob J. Chestnut and John M. Gibson on July 24 because they were cannibals who were keeping him from the satellite.
The disturbing item that I found was this:

(CBS) Russell Weston bragged he was the son of John F. Kennedy, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart. He spoke to satellite dishes because he thought they carried his voice to Washington. He threatened neighbors. He'd been arrested and one day he was finally packed off by the state of Montana to a mental institution.

But despite all that, on the day of the Capitol Hill shootings, records show Weston had a valid permit from his home state of Illinois to buy all the guns and ammunition he pleased.

The reason for that according to Illinois State Police Dir. Gene Marlin, is that Weston lied on this gun permit application last year when he circled "No" to the question of whether he had ever been a mental patient. And when Illinois went to check it out, says Marlin, Montana's privacy laws forbid it from telling other states that, in fact, Weston had been ordered into a mental institution for a 90-day evaluation in 1996.

"The mental health laws in Montana are very strict, and they do not share those types of commitments with law enforcement in Montana, or with ourselves, obviously. So any checks we ran - which we did in Montana - came out negative," he said.

It happens all the time, say lawmen. Committment to a mental institution means automatic denial of a gun permit. However, states rarely tell each other about such records.
Weston spent 53 days locked up in a mental hospital, and from all accounts, should not have been released.[/quote:2ry9l9qr]

Source
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,974 Posts
Common ground: NRA, gun control advocates
In his first extensive interview since the Virginia Tech killings, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and CEO, said the association has always supported the inclusion of mental health information in federal checks.

"We've been saying for 15 years that the records of those adjudicated mentally defective or suicidal need to be given to the FBI for inclusion in the national instant check system," LaPierre said. "The NRA has been part of the national instant check system. We testified we were in favor of it."

Cho should have been labeled a prohibited firearms purchaser, said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It's interesting. [LaPierre] has been saying some helpful things in the last week," Hamm said.

"We believe that this clearly shows the . . .
Hamm said limited-capacity magazines could have lowered the death toll at Virginia Tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Mr. LaPierre is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If this were war his army would shoot him.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,624 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Hamm said limited-capacity magazines could have lowered the death toll at Virginia Tech.
Yeah, providing tactical vests/jackets are banned. Providing that Levis, Wrangler, and Lee stop selling jeans and pants with pockets. Providing all mag pouches and holders are banned. Oh yeah, no backpacks, bags, totes, duffles, purses, or fannypacks either. Because sooner or later people will figure out that they can carry more than one magazine when the "high capacity" mags are banned. SHHHHH!!!! :-$
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Can't have books in schools either.



Can you IMAGINE what could be hidden in here? *GASP*
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top