McCARTHY BILL RAMMED THROUGH THE HOUSE WITH NO RECORDED VOTE

[HiSpeed]

McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark

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

Thursday, June 14, 2007


Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

[pickenup]

[Marlin T]

Nice, no vote huh? What a shame and totally ridiculous. The most ridiculous part is that beings those traitors at the NRA are backing this bill, it will most likely pass the senate too.

[polishshooter]

Is this the bill that makes it uniform how the states report "treatment for a mental disorder" to NICS instead of the "hodgepodge" it is now?

Now yeah, I don't want anybody to pass ANYTHING without me reading the ENTIRE bill first, too many "unintended consequences" in the past, BUT all I have heard so far is that it's pretty "clean," and only adjusts the state's reporting of information that would disallow people that have been TREATED for mental illness across the board, not only in some states like it is now, with no rhyme or reason.

In the wake of VT, I'm kinda happy if that is ONLY what they try to "ram through," and you know you have to "pick battlefields" carefully...if this truly IS the only thing in the bill, then this just MIGHT be a good move for the NRA to back...politically speaking...especially in THIS climate.

You have to remember, what Von Clauswitz said....
"Try to defend EVERYTHING and you defend NOTHING."

Don't be so quick to slam it...YET.

[Rommelvon]

concerning mental illness and persons that have or are being treated, where does it draw the line.....if a person gets grief counseling is that considered mental illness, what about anxiety, social phobia etc......this bill is a crock, it seems if anyone has sought help for any kind of mental illness at all they are being punished, I have a very close friend who has anxiety issues, he is also a gun owner...I trust him more than most people, according to this bill, because he sought help he will not be able to buy a gun now?...there has to be definitive lines drawn, this bill will also keep people from seeking help if they need it.....out second amendment rights are drifting away....

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by Rommelvon

concerning mental illness and persons that have or are being treated, where does it draw the line.....if a person gets grief counseling is that considered mental illness, what about anxiety, social phobia etc......this bill is a crock, it seems if anyone has sought help for any kind of mental illness at all they are being punished, I have a very close friend who has anxiety issues, he is also a gun owner...I trust him more than most people, according to this bill, because he sought help he will not be able to buy a gun now?...there has to be definitive lines drawn, this bill will also keep people from seeking help if they need it.....out second amendment rights are drifting away....

Any erosion in rights (real or imagined) will be able to be traced directly back to a mentally ill immigrant who bought two hand guns LEGALLY and mowed down a lot of bright young Americans with them. You ought to be figuring out a way that this tragedy can be avoided in the future rather than writhing your hands and gnashing your teeth about loose ends and non-uniformity in background examinations nationwide being remedied.

I asked elswhere - in another thread - what types of mental illnesses, and to what degree, do you think should disqualify someone from purchasing a weapon? Surprisingly, few were willing to translate their caterwauling into specifics that everyone could read and respond to. Perhaps I could better appreciate your position if I understood it better. Will you answer the question I've posed?

[SouthernMoss]

Pat, I tend to stay out of political discussions because, quite frankly, I detest politics. However, my position on this issue, or ANY issue that involves laws attempting to control my rights, can be boiled down to a couple of quotes.

Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


1952Sniper:
I'd rather live in an unsafe world where I'm free, than a safe world where my rights are not absolute. Risk of harm is the price of true freedom.


I have a right to own a firearm. When you start legislating that right, you turn it into a priviledge rather than a right, and priviledges can be removed.

Do I personally want a mentally unstable person to own a firearm? No, of course not. Do I want the government to define what "mentally unstable" means and legislate gun ownership? Absolutely not.

Others mention the "slippery slope." To me, it's not a slope, it's a cliff. The minute you give the government power over your rights, you've already lost them. And I'm just not willing to give up my rights to anyone, especially a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats who have already demonstrated beyond question that they can be bought and are not trustworthy.

So, if it comes down to mental unstables with guns, or handing over my rights on a platter, I'm afraid I have to choose my rights. And if my world is more dangerous because of my choice, then so be it.

[inplanotx]

What SoMo said !

[HiSpeed]

Well said SoMo.

[Pistolenschutze]

Very well said, SoMo, and I completely agree. An armed man (or woman!) is a citizen; a disarmed man (or woman) is a subject. It seems to me that our own government has been busy for over half a century inexorably turning the people of the United States into docile subjects with neither the gumption nor the means to be individuals and free men. If this trend is not reversed, I fear greatly for the continuence of the Republic.

[Marlin]

What's that ole saying?

"Great minds run in......"

I agree with SoMo and Plano 1000% !!!

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by SouthernMoss

Pat, I tend to stay out of political discussions because, quite frankly, I detest politics. However, my position on this issue, or ANY issue that involves laws attempting to control my rights, can be boiled down to a couple of quotes.

Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


1952Sniper:
I'd rather live in an unsafe world where I'm free, than a safe world where my rights are not absolute. Risk of harm is the price of true freedom.


I have a right to own a firearm. When you start legislating that right, you turn it into a priviledge rather than a right, and priviledges can be removed.

Do I personally want a mentally unstable person to own a firearm? No, of course not. Do I want the government to define what "mentally unstable" means and legislate gun ownership? Absolutely not.

Others mention the "slippery slope." To me, it's not a slope, it's a cliff. The minute you give the government power over your rights, you've already lost them. And I'm just not willing to give up my rights to anyone, especially a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats who have already demonstrated beyond question that they can be bought and are not trustworthy.

So, if it comes down to mental unstables with guns, or handing over my rights on a platter, I'm afraid I have to choose my rights. And if my world is more dangerous because of my choice, then so be it.

As usual SoMO, you have been eloquent and persuasive. But your analysis will not withstand a rigorous examination.

I trust that you agree with the concept that 15 year olds cannot purchase handguns, yes? Then you have already contradicted the purist position of unlimited gun access and gun ownership. Let's take this concept a step or two further.

1. Do you believe that anyone should be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, when no fire actually exists?
2. What about posting derogatory, false, malicious allegations against a TFF member in this forum that would do severe damage to his/her reputation?

A restriction on scenario number 1 would seem to be an egregious violation of our right to free speech. But reasonable people agreed, long ago, that a stampede for the exits after someone falsely hollered "FIRE!" - and the ensuing deaths that would surely occur - were simply unacceptable and a grave danger to public safety. Any restriction on scenario number two would again seem to encroach upon the right to free speech were I to interpret the Constitution in an absolutist and purist way. Yet this too has been determined - by reasonable people - to be beyond the pale, morally wrong, and illegal.

I doubt that you would reverse any of the above by making shouting "FIRE", or libeling someone, perfectly acceptable and legal activities. So, my analysis is that you (any many other people here whom I greatly respect) are absolutists and reactionary only where the Second Amendment is concerned. And that, to me, is an oddity and an inconsistency. Either something is an unreasonable risk, morally indefensible, and/or a grave danger to the general public or it is not, no matter which Amendment it may relate to.

I believe your position is not without merit, but 180 degrees out of phase with the safety and security of the general public (that includes you and me!). 15 year olds buying hand guns is imprudent and foolish. And so is allowing mentally defected persons from buying dangerous weapons.

If you insist on digging your heals in and resisting common sense measures that allow for more thorough and accurate background examinations designed to keep a repeat of the VT shooting from ever happening again, you do more harm to our cause than you can imagine. There are vast amounts of Americans who are not active gunners but who regularly vote in favor of our cause and our candidates. If they get so turned off and repulsed by what will be surely portrayed as our tacit approval of the VT shooting happening again because we resist reforms designed to curb it, our little gun club is gonna lose a LOT of members. Then try to defend your rights. Then try to stop the onslaught. Then try to stop the restrictions. Then try to win the gun argument in the arena of ideas. We will have boxed ourselves into a lonely corner and we'll be hopelessly tagged as active contributors to a preventable bloodbath the next time a wacko legally purchases a gun and slaughters the innocent.

I wish to note, before I close, that not one person in the hallowed halls of TFF has chosen to list the mental illnesses that would be ACCEPTABLE to them for a gun purchaser to have. I find this most illuminating.

[SouthernMoss]

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

I trust that you agree with the concept that 15 year olds cannot purchase handguns, yes? ..... {snip} ..... 15 year olds buying hand guns is imprudent and foolish.

Actually, Pat, the majority of 15 year olds a perfectly responsible human beings, and I have no problem with them owning firearms. Now before you start going to down the road of "what about 12 year olds, or 6 year olds", let me say that even we "absolutists" as you call us believe in an age of majority. Let's not get distracted from the main issue here.

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

1. Do you believe that anyone should be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, when no fire actually exists?
2. What about posting derogatory, false, malicious allegations against a TFF member in this forum that would do severe damage to his/her reputation?

The difference here is that your two examples are acts performed with intent to cause harm. Owning a firearm is not an act performed with intent to cause harm.

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

Either something is an unreasonable risk, morally indefensible, and/or a grave danger to the general public or it is not, no matter which Amendment it may relate to.

And owning a firearm does not fall into that category.

You are falling into the common position taken by the anti's of blurring the line between owning a firearm, and using a firearm for a malicious or illegal purpose. I have no problem with taking away the rights of a criminal. But I DO have a problem with taking away the rights of someone whose only "crime" is falling into some arbitrary category established by politicians looking for "feel-good" legislation.

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

There are vast amounts of Americans who are not active gunners but who regularly vote in favor of our cause and our candidates. If they get so turned off and repulsed by what will be surely portrayed as our tacit approval of the VT shooting happening again because we resist reforms designed to curb it, our little gun club is gonna lose a LOT of members.

This is why we must educate them, and the rest of America, rather than try to tiptoe around the anti's and give in a little here and a little there. We must do a better job of informing America that it was the repression of gun owners's rights on the VT campus that allowed the situation to escalate like it did. Everyone seems to overlook the fact that the gunner had the guns on campus illegally. The law-abiding gun owners had left their guns at home, and had thereby given up their right to defend themselves and others. More laws taking away our rights is not the answer. We are not resisting reforms designed to curb the VT shooting. We are promoting our own reforms, designed not only to curb the VT shooting, but to give back the rights that never should have been infringed in the first place.

[SouthernMoss]

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

I wish to note, before I close, that not one person in the hallowed halls of TFF has chosen to list the mental illnesses that would be ACCEPTABLE to them for a gun purchaser to have. I find this most illuminating.

That's because you're missing the point (on purpose, perhaps?). You might as well say that it's ok for a gun purchaser to have a cold, but not the flu. It's ok to have brown eyes, but not blue. It's ok to be from the country but not from the city. Having a mental illness is not a crime. And purchasing a gun should not be a crime unless the purchaser is a criminal.

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by SouthernMoss

That's because you're missing the point (on purpose, perhaps?). You might as well say that it's ok for a gun purchaser to have a cold, but not the flu. It's ok to have brown eyes, but not blue. It's ok to be from the country but not from the city. Having a mental illness is not a crime. And purchasing a gun should not be a crime unless the purchaser is a criminal.

I'm not sure that I know how to properly respond. Was that first sentence condescension?

Your thesis is that until someone has been convicted of a crime, nobody should be restricted from purchasing a weapon. That is anti-intellectual, dangerous, forseeably wrong headed, and absurd. The greater good demands that we call a spade a spade... persons who have a serious mental defect, and thus not in full control of their faculties, presents an unreasonable risk for avoidable tragedy. If you think that this statement is crazy (no pun intended), then we are hopelessly poles apart.

When your children were very young, did you child proof the kitchen cabinets so that they did not have full access to chemicals, cleaning supplies and the like? Why? They had not yet consumed any Drain-O, so why the draconian restrictions? Because they didn't have the mental capacity to fully understand their actions. Their judgement was impaired by immaturity. Danger was an obscure concept. So it is with persons who have mental defects. We choose not to wait until they shoot President Reagan, or slaughter college kids, or even shoot themselves before we take action. I choose not to wait until Johnny takes a few swigs of Drain-O before I lock the cabinets - I can FORESEE THE DANGER and choose to err on the side of abundant caution.

I point out again that you are an absolutitst where the second amendment is concerned, but you're OK with public interest restrictions elsewhere in our Constitution. That's hard to comprehend. Even our Founding Fathers weren't absolutists.

Why shouldn't a 30 year old be able to run for President? Why shouldn't a foreign born person be able to run for President? What crime has been committed? None. But our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that most 30 year olds have not lived long enough, nor developed enough maturity and judgement to hold such an important high office. And the risk was too great that loyalties may be split, if a foreign born person were allowed to be President. Arbitrary, you say? Perhaps, but I would argue that it's timeless wisdom, and prudence in all its glory.

You, and others, take such a hard line because you think that it is the only way to effectively defend our Second Amendment rights - too bad if 30 young people are mowed down by a deranged college student in the process. That's an acceptable loss. I contend that we all have an obligation to rigorously defend our gun rights while at the very same time setting parameters that will keep our gun rights more impenetrable to its foes. When you cavalierly say to Americans "tough f***ing luck to the VT students. My unfettered gun rights are more important than their lives," you polarize our country unnecessarily, and sick the hounds of hell on our gun rights. In short, your beliefs are going to have the exactly opposite effect of their intended outcome.

God said "Thou shall not kill." But what does that mean to a mentally ill person in a cognitive fog? Even God didn't mean that you can't defend yourself from being killed, by killing your attacker. But if you are an absolutist, there is no room for such extra-biblical interpretations.

It's clear that we will never agree on this subject, and I think I'm awfully close to being nauseatingly redundant in my posts. So, I'll stop here. But please know this; you do not love the Second Amendment more than I do. You are not more aware of the anti-gun juggernaut than I am. I am a dyed-in-the-wool gunner who will fight to the death to preserve our gun rights, but I will use the senses that God gave me to curtail the rights of some if their capacity for sound judgement and reasoned thought has been seriously impaired.

[Marlin]

The 2nd Amendment does not read "......except those that we don't want to have them or for those that are mentally ill or otherwise."

Constitutionally, there are NO Restrictions.

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by Marlin

The 2nd Amendment does not read "......except those that we don't want to have them or for those that are mentally ill or otherwise."

Constitutionally, there are NO Restrictions.

There are no restrictions or exceptions on free speech to be found in the Constitution either Marlin, but you have sat on the judicial bench in judgement of people who have slandered others. Did you say at those times "I can find no restriction to free speech in the Constitution. CASE DISMISSED!"????????

C'mon folks. This is getting silly.

[SouthernMoss]

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

I'm not sure that I know how to properly respond. Was that first sentence condescension?

My apologies if that came across as condescention, as that was not my intent, but rather that perhaps you were intentionally trying to prolong the argument because you enjoy arguing your case.

too bad if 30 young people are mowed down by a deranged college student in the process. That's an acceptable loss.

Absolutely not! My point is that if gun owners' rights had not been compromised, 30 young people would NEVER have been mowed down. That young man went onto that campus knowing that there would be few, if any, weapons on that campus to prevent him from doing what he did. And he was correct. If gun owners had been able to excercise their right to carry weapons, he would have been stopped, perhaps even before he started, but certainly before 30 precious lives had been taken.

It's clear that we will never agree on this subject

On this we agree.

[SouthernMoss]

Originally Posted by Pat Hurley

There are no restrictions or exceptions on free speech to be found in the Constitution either Marlin, but you have sat on the judicial bench in judgement of people who have slandered others. Did you say at those times "I can find no restriction to free speech in the Constitution. CASE DISMISSED!"????????

C'mon folks. This is getting silly.

I again point to my previous remark that slander is an intent to cause harm, whereas owning a firearm is not. You are comparing apples to oranges, as the old cliche goes.