IMPORTANT GOA Message

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Marlin, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,850
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
    -- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years

    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:

    1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
    which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
    Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
    but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
    Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
    have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!

    2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written
    letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
    alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
    remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
    crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
    law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
    Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding
    victims defenseless.


    Monday, June 18, 2007

    The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
    House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
    control law in over a decade."

    It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
    the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
    buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
    who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
    shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
    lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

    This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
    Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
    "No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

    But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
    list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
    that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
    with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

    Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
    Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
    come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
    background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
    passes [to impose additional gun control]."

    Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

    The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
    problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
    legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
    addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
    interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
    go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

    So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
    most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
    this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
    military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

    In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
    military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
    (PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
    were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
    them from buying or owning guns.

    For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
    illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
    future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
    her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
    of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

    Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
    -- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
    their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

    The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
    explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
    ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
    microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
    others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
    this.)

    How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
    from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
    to himself or others?

    And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
    looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
    then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
    clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
    which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
    are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
    repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
    name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
    be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

    So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
    charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
    "generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
    their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
    honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
    procedure created in 1986!

    But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
    debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
    have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
    even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
    bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
    yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

    Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
    unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
    SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a "diagnosis."
    Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
    cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
    finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
    shouldn't)?

    Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
    bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
    military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
    their rights restored!

    Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
    more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
    First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
    sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
    later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

    Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
    banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
    drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
    will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
    "adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
    referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
    of insanity.

    Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
    that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
    authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
    how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
    especially when it comes to banning guns?

    After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
    passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
    traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
    from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
    (See footnotes below.)

    So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
    a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble, and so
    are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
    Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
    could also apply to these kids.

    Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
    Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
    thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
    child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
    key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
    determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

    You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
    Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
    since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
    that has become the new standard for banning guns.

    But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
    fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
    are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
    permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
    guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

    So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
    (dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
    risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
    "substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

    Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
    playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
    a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
    been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
    LIFETIME gun ban.

    This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
    reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
    Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
    with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
    list" (S. 1237).

    While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
    terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
    owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
    or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
    headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
    right now.

    NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
    sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
    properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
    federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
    where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
    clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
    enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
    look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
    Section 3 of the bill.

    Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
    BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
    law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
    it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
    as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY"
    (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
    others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
    May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to
    be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all.
    How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
    doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

    FOOTNOTES:

    (1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
    people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

    (2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
    or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
    children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

    (3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
    PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
    or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

    CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
    Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
    the pre-written e-mail message below.

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

    Dear Senator:

    As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
    so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
    through the House last week.

    This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
    first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
    ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on
    the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).

    You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
    website of Gun Owners of America at
    http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.

    Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
    handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and object
    to any Unanimous Consent agreement.

    Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
    from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
    shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
    has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
    recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
    in England!

    If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
    consider this:

    "The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
    following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
    forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
    the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
    permanently removed from that system."

    Sincerely,


    ****************************
  2. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,850
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I have already contacted our two Mississippi Senators AND my good friends back in Alabama, too.

    Fortunately, we can count on positive action WRT these individuals.
  3. njretcop

    njretcop New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,538
    Location:
    NJ
    Forget NJ!!!! :mad:
  4. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,506
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
  5. HiSpeed

    HiSpeed New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Pace, Florida area
    Done. However, our two clowns in the DC big top will vote to ram it down our throats. Neither is up for election in 2008 so will think our memories are short. :mad: :mad: :mad:
  6. rowdyredneck

    rowdyredneck New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    215
  7. Crpdeth

    Crpdeth Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    8,283
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Thanks Marlin
  8. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,066
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Sent emails to both my liberal puke senators about this. I don't expect any support from them but I wrote anyway. I also wrote them about this BS immigration bill clay pigeon nonsense. :mad:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Important message for Texans Only... Mar 26, 2009
General Discussion VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE Aug 24, 2006
General Discussion giveaways # 12 and 16 * IMPORTANT * Feb 27, 2013
General Discussion How Important is your Job to you ? Jan 1, 2013
General Discussion The heart is the most important muscle - Dec 1, 2012

Share This Page