GOA IMMEDIATE ACTION Notice

[Marlin]

House Moves McCarthy Bill To Give The FBI Access To Billions Of Your Personal Records -- In Order To Seize Your Guns

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


ACTION: Gun Owners of America alerted you to the dangers of HR 1415
in early June. While the bill has lain dormant since then, it is
scheduled for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday.
So please contact your representative and ask him to oppose this
bill. This is legislation that we've been able to kill in the past,
but it's important for us to rise in opposition once again.

We have reprinted the gist of our previous alert to help explain the
problems with HR 1415. Contact information and pre-written text are
included at the very bottom.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Anti-gun zealot Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is going after your guns...
again. HR 1415 was reported out of a House subcommittee in May and
is now scheduled for a full committee vote on Wednesday.

When you look at the list of cosponsors on HR 1415, you find a "Who's
Who" of the anti-gun Democratic elite: Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA),
John Conyers (D-MI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Barney Frank (D-MA), Zoe
Lofgren (D-CA), and Pete Stark (D-CA) among others. They are all
F-rated Representatives.

HR 1415 -- the McCarthy bill -- would require states to "make
electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to
a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing
or receiving a firearm under [federal law]" [Section 102(c)(1)(A)].

Among other things, the bill will help FBI officials to effectively
stop thousands upon thousands of Americans from purchasing a firearm.
Already, millions of Americans have been disarmed by the Lautenberg
Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996.

Because of the Lautenberg 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. Consider just some of the many
examples:

* A Delaware member of GOA testified in Congress as to how the
Lautenberg gun ban had disarmed him for life -- simply because he
swatted his child with an open hand on the buttocks. At the time,
this father was going through an ugly divorce, and so his estranged
wife, with the encouragement of her mother, reported the man to the
police for child abuse. After a nasty court battle, this father was
forced to accept a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. He has
sold his firearms collection and is now disarmed for life by the
Lautenberg gun ban, simply because he spanked his child.

* In Fairfax County, Virginia, a wife (Judy) was carted off to the
police station for slightly tearing her husband's pocket -- even
though her husband refused to press charges. The husband, Tom,
states he had only called the police to get "documentation in a
custody dispute." Nevertheless, Virginia's zero-tolerance law
requires the police to press charges in such cases. For Judy to
plea-bargain to a misdemeanor and pay a minimal fine means that she
forfeits her Second Amendment rights forever because of the
Lautenberg ban.

* The Lautenberg gun ban has even slapped sons and daughters with a
lifetime gun ban, for nothing more than the slightest of infractions.
The Washington Post Magazine reports that twenty-one year old Lora
lost her temper and flung an empty water bottle and her car keys.
Unfortunately for her, the car keys landed near her mother. For
that, Lora was arrested, booked, and told she must not have any
contact with her mom for three days, even though she was still living
at home. Officer Mike Twomey, who assisted in the arrest, remarks
that "in the old days, the proper response would have been to say,
'hey, ladies, cool it.' Now, arrest is the only option."

Let's not forget, that because of the Lautenberg domestic violence
MISDEMEANOR gun ban, the "new days" means that if Lora pays a $25
fine -- just to get the issue "behind her" -- she loses her gun
rights forever.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

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.

So HR 1415 will grant millions of dollars to the states to improve
their criminal records. Specifically, the bill would send taxpayer
monies to the states so they can provide the FBI with the names of
those people who are disqualified by the Lautenberg gun ban.

Obviously, this starts with a huge computer network of felonies and
misdemeanors -- with the FBI trolling through records of bar fights
or domestic disputes to determine if you spanked your kids or yelled
at your husband and are therefore disqualified from owning a gun
under the Lautenberg amendment. Congress should be repealing the
Lautenberg gun ban, not extending it to disable even more people from
owning guns.

But the problem is much broader than that:

* Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns [18 U.S.C.
922(g)(5)]. But, in order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant"
records could mean that the FBI would demand state tax returns of ALL
American citizens, employment records, or even library records -- all
in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.

* And did you know that veterans who have suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally
"incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(4)? Records of those instances certainly exist; and, in 1999,
the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of
veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check
system.

The bottom line is this: The "Instant check" program has hardly
worked well enough to justify giving the Attorney General the right
to go on a fishing expedition through EVERY personal record on every
citizen in your state. This bill would expand the power of the
federal government in the most ridiculous of ways.

But McCarthy, who could care less about raising the debt limits in
this country, would take an already financially-overburdened
government and slap it with additional burdens, requiring millions of
dollars to be spent on tracking the personal information on millions
of law-abiding Americans. That's the "carrot" for the states:
update your records, provide them to the federal government, and get
millions of dollars in return.

Well, if the Second and Tenth Amendments were to be obeyed, the
Federal government would be prohibited from passing laws that allow
the FBI to search through the records of HONEST, LAW-ABIDING
citizens.

Never mind the fact that all this data is handled with less care than
the records of a farmer's livestock. Consider that CNSNews.com
reported in June that 25 million Social Security number records of
veterans were recently hacked. The more that our private data gets
added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our
identity compromised.

ACTION:

1. Please forward this alert to as many as you can, so that your
friends, acquaintances and family members can also contact their
Senators and Representatives. Congressmen must hear that this
legislation is unacceptable.

2. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via
e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website.

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

Dear Representative:

I am outraged that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is trying to prohibit more
Americans from owning guns with her HR 1415. This bill spends
millions of dollars to further prop up the unconstitutional Brady
Law, but there is no authority for the Federal government to do this
under the Second and Tenth Amendments.

Section 102(c)(1)(A) of H.R. 1415 would allow the federal government
to troll through state misdemeanor, diversion, psychiatric, tax, and
even library records -- all for the purpose of finding new reasons to
seize guns from law-abiding Americans.

The Instant Background Check should be banned, not expanded. We
should be focusing attention on crooks, not on law-abiding citizens
like my friends, my family and me. And Congress should be repealing
the Lautenberg gun ban, not extending it to disable even more people
from owning guns. H.R. 1415 is a simply an extension of the hated
Lautenberg gun ban.

Please oppose H.R. 1415.

I would appreciate hearing whether you plan to oppose this bill. Gun
Owners of America will keep me informed about any votes on this
dangerous measure.

Sincerely,


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

[henry0reilly]

Email sent to Steve Buyer.

[rosierita]

thanks for the heads up marlin! i had an alert in my email box this morning too.

[Marlin T]

Did done, but thanks anyways!!!

[pickenup]

Bump.

[southernshooter]

I love my GOA e-mail's

[MidnightRambler]

Email sent to Julia Carson, for all the good it will do.

[Huck Finn]

This is the kind of stuff that happens when people defend things like the Patriot Act! People who think "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" are allowing this to happen. All the gun grabbers have to say is that this bill will help to identify, capture, disarm the terrorists and it will sail through being passed. It all started with library records and phone calls being opened to prying eyes.

[Marlin T]

Dear Mr. Marlin T:

Thank you for contacting me regarding firearms legislation
pending in the 109th Congress. I appreciate hearing from you on this
important issue.

The House of Representatives is currently considering several
proposals concerning federal firearms regulation and related issues.
The
first of these is H.R. 1415, the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System Improvement Act of 2005. Representative Carolyn
McCarthy (NY) introduced this bill on March 17, 2005. H.R. 1415
would require that all federal agencies release information to the
Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS). That information would be used to
ensure that no one can obtain a firearm if federal or state law
prohibits
him or her from doing so. Additionally, H.R. 1415 directs the Attorney
General to make grants to state and tribal governments to establish and
improve systems for recording and providing information for firearms
eligibility determinations. The bill also provides for annual
evaluation of
NICS operations. Upon introduction, H.R. 1415 was referred to the
House Committee on the Judiciary, and subsequently to the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The
Subcommittee reviewed the bill, and forwarded it back to the full
committee on May 18, 2006. Since that time, no further action has
occurred.

Another pending bill is H.R. 1384, the Firearm Commerce
Modernization Act. This bill would amend the Gun Control Act to allow
federal firearms licensees to transfer firearms to out-of-state
residents as
long as those transfers comply with the laws of both the licensee's and
the recipient's home states. In addition, H.R. 1384 would allow
federal
firearms licensees to conduct business at out-of-state gun shows or
similar events as long as those transfers comply with the laws of both
states. Under current law, federal firearms licensees are permitted to
display and take orders for firearms at out-of-state gun shows, but
they
must return to their business locations to initiate the subsequent
transfers
of those firearms. This bill was introduced by Representative Phil
Gingrey (GA) on March 17, 2005. Upon introduction, H.R. 1384 was
referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and subsequently to
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The
Subcommittee held hearings on the bill, and referred it back to the
full
committee on May 18, 2006, where no further action has occurred.

A final firearms bill, H.R. 5551, the Firearm Transfer
Improvement Act of 2006, was introduced by Representative Rick Renzi
(AZ) on June 7, 2006. This bill allows in-person interstate firearms
sales
between a federal firearms licensee and a nonresident purchaser to be
governed only by the state law of the licensee. Currently, such sales
must comply with the state laws of both the licensee and the purchaser.
Upon introduction, H.R. 5551 was referred to the House Committee on
the Judiciary. No further action has occurred since that time.

You may also be interested to know that during the 108th
Congress I was a cosponsor of a related bill, H.R. 218, the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This bill allows qualified current or
former law enforcement officers who possess photo identification from a
law enforcement organization to carry a concealed firearm. This bill
was
introduced on January 7, 2003. It came before the full House on June
23,
2004 and was agreed to by a voice vote. The Senate passed the bill on
July 7 and the President signed it into law on July 22, 2004.

I believe that the Second Amendment gives us the right to
personally own firearms for the protection of self, family, and
property,
and for sporting purposes such as hunting. For generations, many New
Mexicans have exercised this right in a responsible way and should be
able to continue to do so. At the same time, it is my belief that our
community has an obligation to protect its citizens from senseless gun
violence. I believe the right to own firearms can be reconciled with
reasonable and limited safety measures that do not infringe on the
constitutional rights of any Americans. Please be assured that should
any
of these bills, or other related legislation, come before the full
House for
a vote, I will be certain to keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel
free to contact me with concerns about any federal issue. You may
visit
my website at www.tomudall.house.gov for more information.


Very Truly Yours,

Tom Udall
Member of Congress

Emphisis add by me.


A couple of keywords that he used, that means he is full of you know what.

First the phrase """I believe that the Second Amendment gives us the right""" He is full of it, I KNOW this because of his voting record.

Second phrase """sporting purposes""" This shows me that he believes I'm stupid and have no grasp on the history of this counrty. Sporting has nothing to do with keeping a govt. that isn't a tyrant.

Third pharse """senseless gun violence""" Once again he is showing his true liberal colors. We don't need more laws, just enforcement of the ones we have now.

Fourth phrase """limited safety measures that do not infringe on the
constitutional rights of any Americans""" I ask, what do you not understand about shall not infrinded?

Fifth phrase """I will be certain to keep your views in mind.""" What am I to make of this? That he will be flipping me the middle finger while he votes against me?

He is another reason why I say. Typical Democrat.

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

This is the kind of stuff that happens when people defend things like the Patriot Act! People who think "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" are allowing this to happen. All the gun grabbers have to say is that this bill will help to identify, capture, disarm the terrorists and it will sail through being passed. It all started with library records and phone calls being opened to prying eyes.

Oh yeah because everyone knows they never tried to grab guns before the Patriot Act. Its not the people who support the Patriot Act its the antigun leftys. I see a lot of Ds after the names of those who want this to pass.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by satellite66

Oh yeah because everyone knows they never tried to grab guns before the Patriot Act. Its not the people who support the Patriot Act its the antigun leftys. I see a lot of Ds after the names of those who want this to pass.

I don't know, this whole thing of going through peoples private lives sure smells like the Patriot Act to me. But, like the people who support the Patriot Act like to say, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about". But we don't have anything to worry about anyway, we have a republican Congress, so it will never pass and if by some miracle it does pass, we can count on GW to veto it, so nothing to worry about!

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

I don't know, this whole thing of going through peoples private lives sure smells like the Patriot Act to me. But, like the people who support the Patriot Act like to say, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about". But we don't have anything to worry about anyway, we have a republican Congress, so it will never pass and if by some miracle it does pass, we can count on GW to veto it, so nothing to worry about!

How many times are you going to repeat your objection to the Patriot Act and try and tie it into what is clearly a democrat proposal? A proposal that is being made by a dem who did not support the Patriot Act.
These are the people you champion pushing to take away your gun rights. This bill is an amendment to the Gun Control Act which was put forth by the swimmer to make sure that blacks could not arm themselves. Really great record on protecting rights the dems have.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by satellite66

How many times are you going to repeat your objection to the Patriot Act and try and tie it into what is clearly a democrat proposal? A proposal that is being made by a dem who did not support the Patriot Act.
These are the people you champion pushing to take away your gun rights. This bill is an amendment to the Gun Control Act which was put forth by the swimmer to make sure that blacks could not arm themselves. Really great record on protecting rights the dems have.

Are you worried that the republicans can't or won't stop this? They have the majority and the presidential veto, Nothing to worry about!

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

Are you worried that the republicans can't or won't stop this? They have the majority and the presidential veto, Nothing to worry about!

Are you not worried that the dems keep putting up these bills aimed at gun owners? I have less concern about the pubs doing something like this than I do the dems. Don't you?

[Marlin T]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

He is another reason why I say. Typical Democrat.

This really is disturbing. What happened to the Democrat party of my Grandparents?

This kind of crap wouldn't have flown.

Huck you said """...we have a republican Congress...""" This isn't a good mindset to have. Because one of these days there won't be republican congress to defend against liberalism. In todays world, and the extreamists that are running the democrat party it makes me worry about an other revolution.

The bad thing is, is that the muslim extreamist will all be on the dems side!!

[gunfreakboy]

I send my emails all the time but unfortunately, I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears seeing how Schumer and Hillary get it.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by satellite66

Are you not worried that the dems keep putting up these bills aimed at gun owners? I have less concern about the pubs doing something like this than I do the dems. Don't you?

No. Both sides push gun control. Ronald Regan pushed very hard for the Assualt Weapon ban, if it wasn't for RR's arm twisting it may not have passed. Bush promised to sign the AWB extention if it hit his desk. If he really wanted to defend RTKBA why didn't he make it very clear that he would never sign it, instead of promising to sign it. When guns were being illegally confiscated in the after math of Katrina, why didn't he step in to stop it??? How about H.R. 3199, which GOA warned
"allows the FBI to
get secret court orders to seize ANY business records it believes
would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without
having to make the case that the records they're confiscating have
any connection to a suspected terrorist.

All along, the concern has been that "business records" can be
interpreted to mean "gun records." The FBI has been making this
assertion already, even though federal law doesn't specifically state
they have the authority to do so. (In fact, the McClure-Volkmer law
states that the feds cannot retain firearms records at all.)

Well, H.R. 3199 would change all that. The bill clearly states that
"firearms sales records" are now fair game for the FBI, in essence,
overturning the prohibition on gun registration.
This bill was sponsered by Rep. Sensenbrenner R-WI & pushed through by Frist. It became Public Law No: 109-177 on 09 Mar 06.
My point is that we can't trust either party to protect our gun rights. The only difference is that the Democrats are more open about it. Republicans will sacrifice our 2ndA rights at the drop of a hat if they think it will cost them votes. That's why we have to keep reminding our elected officials how important ALL our rights are to us and that it will cost them votes every time they vote to limit our rights. I live in a very blue state that hassome of the most liberal gun laws in the country.Our state has more liberal CCW laws than Texas and many other red states. That's because our elected officials (on the state level) have gotten the message loud and clear. Unfortunately, our Federal reps haven't gotten the message yet. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop reminding them how important our 2A rights are.

[45fullmoon]

Thanks for posting this. I don't recall hearing about it before. Has the NRA alerted its members to this?

Looks like I may need to join GOA as well...

[satellite66]

Huck lets see the bill that this thread was about is HR 1415 sponsered by a dem. You bring up the Patriot Act which has nothing to do with it. You bring up Reagan who has not been prez in almost 20 yrs and then use the old standby "both parties" to defend and spin the fact that the dem party has no agenda of gun control.

Wake up and see the reality. Dems are trying to take our guns and gun rights away from us. They are not pro gun owner. They have even admitted that they were to public with their gun control agenda and have since advised their candidates to gloss over it. Why because they know it cost them votes in the last few elections. Check the ratings of candidates provided by gun owners groups and you will see the majority of dems get F.

You hate Bush and are a dem true believer that is great but don't pretend that dems are not against guns.

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by satellite66

You hate Bush and are a dem true believer that is great but don't pretend that dems are not against guns.

From my last post,
"My point is that we can't trust either party to protect our gun rights. The only difference is that the Democrats are more open about it."

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

From my last post,
"My point is that we can't trust either party to protect our gun rights. The only difference is that the Democrats are more open about it."

Your trying to draw some kind of equivalence between dems and pubs over guns to make dems look better and pubs look as bad.
Whatever the motive pubs have always been pro gun and have proven it by word and deed. Dems have proven by word and deed to be antigun and their motive is control.