1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

NRA shows common sense

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by revsublime, Jun 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Am I mistaken or was there a lot of gun rights advocates not happy with the NRA for the NICS legislation?
     
  2. ChuckG

    ChuckG TS Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    If you like trapshooting and the rest of the shooting sports as much as I do, it would be a good idea to join the NRA, as they are supporting your right to own firearms and go trapshooting. There are too many others who believe that the shooting sports and responsible firearms ownership should not be part of our freedoms and allowed in the U.S.A. The NRA is our last bastion of defense against those who do not want us to enjoy this sport.

    As an aside, I hope that everyone had a chance to see Wayne LaPierre on the national news this morning. He supports and endorses the expansion and cooperation of the NICS program, and voiced the NRA's position very well, in my opinion.
     
  3. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The GOA is on the warpath about this, and a lot of gunowners are upset. I wonder if the GOA might pick up NRA defectors like they did in May of 1986?<br>
    <br>
    My biggest objection to this is that it empowers the anti-gunners, giving them a feather in their caps. They simply need to be marginalized, made ineffectual and be defeated.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House -- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark<br>
    <br>
    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert<br>
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br>
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br>
    http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm<br>
    <br>
    Thursday, June 14, 2007<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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).<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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."<br>
    <br>
    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?<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
    the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.<br>
    <br>
    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?<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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."<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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).<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
    the years to come.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    Stay tuned. There is more to come.<br>
     
  4. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    i thought there might be a little more to it than first revealed.
     
  5. larryjk

    larryjk Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    519
    What is the H.R. bill number of the bill that passed on voice vote? H.R.1022 is the bill that McCarthy was pushing that expanded the semi-auto, assault ban list. There is another H.R.bill that adds the adjudication of mental deficiency to the disqualifying statements on a Form 4473 and allows that part of a medical record to be used for disqualification. That is the bill the NRA wrote and Charles Schumer said that is really needed if he and the NRA agree.
     
  6. jimbotrap

    jimbotrap TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    791
    I cannot get to excited about the NRA support of shooting venues. We just lost the use of our facility. After 81 years (at the same location) the City of Sacramento decided to rezone to property for use as an automobile distributorship. After promises from the NRA of support we were told they would not assist in any way. Their comments were "SORRY", period.

    This might have been an excellent opportunity for them to get involved. But alas, as one NRA employee told me, at the Grand last year, the NRA is only interested in controversial issues. That will assist them in raising monies.
    They do not have time to represent those of us that support the sport of shooting. They seem only interested in supporting those that want automatic weapons or semi-auto weapons with large compacities.

    With this said, I am a current NRA member and will continue to support them.
    But with the desire they start supporting the average shooter/gun owner not the
    rebels they seem to support today. - Jim Elliott
     
  7. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    At the club level the NRA doesnt have the resources to fight legal battles and i am not certain they even make any money off membership fees

    Bottom line though is they are the only game in town to fight the fights on capital hill

    If you dont support them - you dont support the future of shooting

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    shootem you make some good points. Anything that is in any record will eventually be tapped by the government. In fact, part of the socialized medicine movement hinges on unrestricted government access to your medical files. While this bill APPEARS to be OK on the surface, it's being passed without any consideration to future encroachments on rights, and there will be. There are no checks and balances in it to protect your rights. THAT is where I take umbrage with the NRA. It's not that they tried to work on this bill that (supposedly) will not affect law abiding gun owners, it's that they have failed to go far enough to make sure this bill cannot be used to take rights away.
     
  9. Roger IL

    Roger IL TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    323
    FYI...................
    H.R. 2640, THE "NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT,"
    PASSES HOUSE BY VOICE VOTE


    On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).


    While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

    Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

    The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:

    Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
    Excluding federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
    Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
    Ensuring-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
    Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.

    Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:


    Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to any mental institution." Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
    Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a "commitment." Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose "unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct."
    In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

    This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.


    If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!


    For additional information, please click here:


    ...
     
  10. Rip12

    Rip12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    "Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court."

    Key word here is "Participating".

    I am a diabled Veteran and I am concerned that this bill might screw an entire generation. Lots of the boys in this war are getting PTSD! How are they going to be guarenteed not to get on this NCIS list!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN THE KEY WORD ABOVE IS, "Participating federal and State agencies."

    I do not like the sound of this at all!
    So if this gets passed is the NRA going to start a capaingn of litigation of every Frederal and State agency that does not participate?????????????????
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    "Participating" means exactly squat. Zilch. Zero. Nada.<br>
    <br>
    BATF is authorized to process requests by individuals seeking relief from certain felony convictions to get their gun rights back. These are felonies like failure to pay child support, etc.<br>
    <br>
    Conveniently, no money was made available to run this program, and on that basis, BATF refuses to process these requests.<br>
    <br>
    So when someone tells me that a proposed law will have a vehicle that allows someone to petition to get their rights restored, red flares start going off.<br>
    <br>
     
  12. Alaskamodel12

    Alaskamodel12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Whether we do or do not wish we had different facts, the NRA remains the one potent protector of gun rights. If they are off the mark by a few degrees on one issue or another then perhaps they were closer to the political problems of the moment; after all, Washington, DC has its own methods but all we see is what the mainstream media and various interest groups provide us. If the NRA seems to be headed in the wrong direction then gun owners need to contact board members, participate in elections and annual meetings, and help with election campaigns of pro-gun candidates for political office. Not everything the NRA attempts will be successful but they're the best we have, and if not for the NRA we would have lost our guns long ago.
     
  13. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Shootem, you want to hear totally screwed? Kip Kinkle, the kid who offed his parents then shot up a school in Springfield, Oregon, killing two students, is trying to get a new trial because he may not have been mentally stable enough to enter a plea. He has big money lawyers trying to set him free.<br>
    <br>
    As a gunowner, I am sick and ####ing tired of being blamed for school shootings, and having to give up MY rights, and now they want to let this cretin go? He should have been made an example of. Hell, he only got four 25 year sentences, instead of four life sentences.
     
  14. Easystreet

    Easystreet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,463
    I support the NRA's position on this issue. If we aren't going to support the idea of prohibiting "crazies" from legally buying guns, then we are essentially saying that we think that ANYONE should be able to purchase a gun.

    How many people here have said "Enforce the EXISTING laws instead of adding new ones"? This change that the NRA supported will simply make it possible for law enforcement to actually ENFORCE existing laws regarding people with serious mental problems.

    The alternative is to say that it doesn't really matter to you if "crazies" buy guns. Personally, I'd rather not try to defend that position.
     
  15. Easystreet

    Easystreet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,463
    "Who decides who is crazy? HUH?"


    It's not a matter of who decides who is crazy. It's a matter of making mental health records available to the people who perform the background checks for firearm purchases. It does society no good to determine that a person is (mentally) a walking time bomb if that information doesn't make its way into the proper hands.
     
  16. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    There's a lot more than what you see on the surface.

    Take a look at Lautenberg's S.1237, for example that give the AG sweeping power to declare ANYONE to be "suspected" of aiding terrorism and thus, have their gun transactions denied under NICS, their permits and/or guns confiscated WITHOUT Due Process, WITHOUT explanation.


    I'll give you an example, a fellow shooter on my CMP rifle team, ordered a large quantity of .30-06 M-2 ball surplus, sold by CMP to qualified members - a practice this and many other shooters have engaged in for ten years.

    Well, this time, FED-X reported the person as "suspicious" upon delivering the ammo and he got a knock on the door by local police with instructions to contact a certain detective by phone who grilled him thoroughly on the amount of ammo he had, why he had it, for what purpose and then wanted him to agree to a voluntary home inspection to take an inventory of his guns. He told them
    to F-off and that he had done nothing wrong, and unless he was being investigated for anything specific and they come to him with a search warrant signed by a judge - they have NO reason to bug him.

    Well, under S.1237 - YOU or I could be that person. Only the difference is under S.1237 - that "suspicion" will result in your guns, ammo and permit(s) being confiscated with FEDERAL agencies involved and you have NO RIGHTS, NO RECOURSE, NO QUESTIONS, NO EXPLANATIONS, NO RETURN of property - - - all under the guise of "National Security"

    Now, imagine a Billary Clinton, Chewbacca-bin-laden white house and a Chuckee Screwmer AG in office in 2009. How do you suppose they would utilize such power?

    S.1237 - another Lautenberg surprise - from the same New Jersey A-hole who in 1996, disarmed Police Chiefs, Navy Admirals and Army; Air Force & Marine GENERALS RETROACTIVELY because of some scrap they may have been involved in during the 1950s or 1960s when they were 18 yr old E-2s; or slapped an ex wife across the face during a domestic in nineteen seventy f-ing three.

    Don't rest easy, this is a new tactic the gun grabbers are using.
     
  17. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    And - another thing.............

    Don't think the final vote will include just a release of mental health records. They'll slip something else in, like HR 1022 that won't pass on a stand alone basis around page number 452 in an omnibus committee bill.

    Don't trust these F-ing bastards and the NRA is backing this nominally to save face since VT happened a month ago. They'll backpeddle on it as soon as the extra gun and or ammo bans are slipped in at the 11th hour before a final vote.
     
  18. Easystreet

    Easystreet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,463
    Go back and read the complete post by "Roger IL" posted on June 19. This is the bill that the NRA supported. It is not about semi-automatic bans. Nor is it about suspected terrorists. It's a clarification of mental health issues and which ones prohibit a person from buying/owning a gun and which ones don't.

    In fact, several provisions of the bill make it lawful for a person with certain mental health issues in the past to NOW own guns whereas previously they were prohibitted from owning guns. Read the details of what is and what isn't in HR 2640 before deciding that NRA screwed up based on allegations that aren't true.
     
  19. Easystreet

    Easystreet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,463
    "It is bull! They shouldn't have to check anyone's medical records."


    While we're at it, why don't we just skip checking their criminal records as well. After all, we wouldn't want to inconvenience any "citizens" now would we?

    It's really amusing how some people will change the subject or do anything to avoid discussing the specifics of what is proposed. Change the subject to 9/11/01..... or change it to "gun free zones"..... or change it to the immigration problem. Anything to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

    Of course if we limited the discussion to the issue at hand, that might require that we actually KNOW something about what's being discussed.... and we sure wouldn't want that would we?
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    After this "reasonable" law is passed, eventually the criteria for denial will be racheted up until anyone who ever took certain perscription drugs for depression, ADD, ADHD, etc., will be on the "no guns for you" list.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.