Thanks NRA

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Rammstein, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    :(

     
  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    They know full well that it will not go through both houses unaltered.
     

  3. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    As I understand it just provides funding to enforce existing laws. As a formerly delayed AND denied NICS victim, I wish they really would update their information in the system.

    But it's BS... yeah. Not ALL BS. Frustrating though.

     
  4. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    They are actually trying ti increase the amount of data included. There is also some punishment for States that won't provide the newly required data.
     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    It is not newly required data. The law already says if you are adjudicated as menatlly defective that you are prohibited from purchase. Some states do not submit any or all of those people to the NICS database. This bill is supposed to fund states that dont.

    Virginia did not submit those that were adjudicated defective (danger to themself or others) and ordered to seek help but allowed to go home, which was why the VT shooter was allowed to purchase. Virginia was only half reporting those adjudicated as defective. They were reporting those the judge ordered committed to a hospital, just not those allowed to go home while reporting regularly to a Doctor.

    It is to encourage full reporting and to fund those states that do not yet have the technology in place to report their information.
     
  6. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    That isn't exactly correct. VA submitted exactly what the law required. This is an increase in information submitted and goes further into medical records. It isn't about funding anyone but punish those who don't listen to the master. Also this like all other laws relating to guns is simply unConstituional. read the preamble to the BOR. The BOR doesn't grant anything. My RKBA is a natural right and not granted by a piece of paper. the BOR is simply a set of restrictions against government that they have been ignoring for over 70 years now.
     
  7. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I am afraid not. Federal law required anybody that a judge determined to be a danger to himself or others to be reported to NICS to be banned from owning a firearm. The VT shooter was judged a danger to himself and was not submitted to NICS. Therefore federal law/regulation was not followed.

    Metally defective is the judgement rendered... ie a danger to yourself or others. The fact that you were committed or simply allowed to visit your doctor for help does not matter, it is the Judgement of a court of law that matters.

    Do I think a mental defective should be forever barred, no. The same for felons and drug dealers/users. But if right now you are mentally defective and a judge thinks you are a danger to yourself or others, then right now you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm (nor any toxic chemicals in bulk, or explosives... etc).
     
  8. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    No the law required anyone commited to be reported. He wasn't so was not required to be reported. Notice the date. This was not law at the time of the shootings. Read the second article. They are attempting to change the law to require persons determined to be a danger to themselves or others now be reported. Read the part about military members who would be reported under the new law. If you still think it was already Federal Law perhaps you could post that law?


    http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1554
    Virginia Governor Issues Order to Close Gun-Buying Loophole
    Date Published: Tuesday, May 1st, 2007

    Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine delivered on last week’s promise to close a significant loophole in the state’s gun-buying process. Kaine today issued an executive order that would require all persons who have been directed to receive involuntary mental-health treatment to be added to the background-check database used by gun retailers.




    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/06 ... alert.html

    OFF ALERT 06.10.07 Another "Deal" From The NRA

    Today's Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a "deal" with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.

    According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."

    As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.

    This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Oregonians attempting to make legal firearms purchases. In many cases, buyers have been told (illegally) they must wait weeks or more to take possession of firearms they have every right to own.

    Well, if Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.

    Cox reportedly said "if the legislation becomes a 'gun-control wish list' as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill." But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a "gun control wish list" and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.

    What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy? According to the Washington Post "Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. "

    Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don't get their names removed from government "no-buy" lists, they get the "chance" to "petition" to have their names removed.

    We are quite confident predicting that that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.

    According to the Washington Post "Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system"

    If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can't keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people's "mental health" records. The abuse and misuse of people's private information is nothing new and it's a very short trip from "court ordered drug treatments" to "has attended an AA meeting."

    No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone's mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.

    One of the legislators responsible for this "deal," anti-gun Congressman John Dingell ( who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time) said "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon." But of course, that's preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.






    Copyright © 2000 - 2007, Oregon Firearms Federation. All Rights Reserved.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    EOD, and anybody else interested in debating what happened with the guy who purchased a weapon before committing mass murder at VT, and whether Va did what was required, please post over here. http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... 5951#45951

    Let's keep this post about the new NRA bill.
     
  10. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    OK. I guess it won't come as a suprise to anyone that I am behind the NRA on this. BUT, I will go on record right now that I'm not behind them because I am a NRA Recruiter nor do I agree with everything the NRA does blindly. I truely feel that this is a positive move. It allows for folks that may have been barred to petition to have thier case reviewed. Right now, once your out your out for good, even if it was a mistake in the first place. It really does not place any further restrictions on gun owners, it simply provides a means (funding) for the laws already in place to be enforced. Plus it funds the NICS checks so no gun dealer can tack on another five to fifteen bucks to a puchase for the check any more. Some here have said that it can't pass without being changed. The NRA has already stated that it would pull it's backing if the bill were changed in any way that would be negative to gun owners.

    So there you have it. My feelings on the subject. Blast away, I have my kevlar screen protector on...
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    No need to blast away. Those sound like good things. What are the downsides?
     
  12. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    Peronally I don't see a downside. Unless you just happen to be someone who has be adjucated to be mentally unstable and a risk to yourself and others...
     
  13. EOD

    EOD New Member

    77
    0
    0
    The NRA has stated several times that it is for gun control. They fully supported and continue to support the NFA. They were responsible, at least in part, for the passage of the GCA. The AWB probably wouldn't have passed without their compromises. The Brady Bill is simply unConstituional in the first place. Shall not be infringed.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    Let's not expand this thread into "All The Evils of The NRA." Let's debate this bill.
     
  15. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    Would a downside be the time it takes to get a License?
     
  16. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    How would this bill effect that?
     
  17. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    From the verbage above it sounds like a win for pro guns folks - No new circumstances that are reported just funding to get states to enforce & comply with the existing law and a new means to get records cleaned off. That's a good thing.
    As long as the bit about nothing new being reported is correct and as long as nothing else gets added/modified to the Bill.

    That's my biggest concern given the way the legistature is handling the immigration Bill. I never trusted the politicians but right now I don't trust em even more... :evil:
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    What is GOA's newest take on this, now that the military veteran mental health thing has apparently been handled.
     
  19. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,287
    57
    48
    I'll admit that I haven't read the entire bill yet, but on the surface I agree with it. All it does is help enforce existing laws, and give someone who is wrongfully denied a method of appeal.
     
  20. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    What is their official definition of "mentally unstable or unsound"?

    Let's start there.

    ps. Don't tell me it's common sense. We all know there is no such thing when government hands touch anything.