Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate

This is a discussion on Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Any bill touching the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Congress wishes to pass that does anything other than only ...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Any bill touching the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Congress wishes to pass that does anything other than only remove other law that is unconstitutional is bad. Even if a bill were to say we can now buy new machine guns but they must be registered, that bill is just as unconstitutional as the NFA. In order for such a bill to be constitutional, it would have to repeal the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the FOPA of 1986, and who can forget the Brady Bill of 1993. Period.

    All this chatter on the efficacy of HR 2640 is moot in the light of the unconstitutionality of the NICS to begin with. That's where we should be doing our railing.

    Then, let the courts, Congress, and the several state legislatures decide what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because government doesn't want to prevent crime by keeping these people locked up.

    Woody

    Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Agreed; although, making sure the senate does not pass H.R. 2640 in the interim is of extreme importance...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Constitution Cowboy View Post
    Any bill touching the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Congress wishes to pass that does anything other than only remove other law that is unconstitutional is bad. Even if a bill were to say we can now buy new machine guns but they must be registered, that bill is just as unconstitutional as the NFA. In order for such a bill to be constitutional, it would have to repeal the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the FOPA of 1986, and who can forget the Brady Bill of 1993. Period.

    All this chatter on the efficacy of HR 2640 is moot in the light of the unconstitutionality of the NICS to begin with. That's where we should be doing our railing.

    Then, let the courts, Congress, and the several state legislatures decide what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because government doesn't want to prevent crime by keeping these people locked up.

    Woody

    Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood
    Now that's an interesting perspective, and one that I'd been thinking about lately. After a person has committed a crime, they either are or aren't safe to release into society. Releasing people as half-citizens doesn't make legal sense, just as releasing people who probably can't function in society. Should a person who can't be trusted with a gun (or a vote) be allowed back into society at all? This is an excellent point!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    I agree with Luke, while this may not be a "disarmament" bil, it deserves close observation. The NICS program does need drastic improvement but let's make sure the improvements don't give the anti's any loop holes.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    I look at it this way, any change in law gives them an opening to make other changes later. Each time making it worse for law abiding citizens. The only bills I will support are repeals to current laws.
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas, by God!
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I agree with Luke, while this may not be a "disarmament" bil, it deserves close observation. The NICS program does need drastic improvement but let's make sure the improvements don't give the anti's any loop holes.
    +1. I also agree totally with Constitution Cowboy

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Ask the 100,000.00 and growing number of veterans whom had their names added to the existing NICS with no due process and now the burden of proof is upon them; to justify why they should have their names removed...

    Oppose all new gun control! only support repeal of existing constitutional infringements!

    Oppose H.R. 2640 and any bill submitted by BAN ALL GUNS Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and vote this wench out!

    On the bright side Mike Huckabee Opposes H.R. 2640! as does Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter of course...

    Although, all the democrats support it and Rudy, John, Mitt and Fred do as well...

    May be why they are crashing in the polls and the 2nd Tier canidates are becoming America's canidates!

    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

    I Like Mike

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Thumbs up

    Being a current member of the NRA I am disgusted by their position on H.R. 2640...

    H.R. 2640 is yet another piece of anti-gun legislation in a long line of such constitutional infringements by Anti-Gun Zealot Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) whom ran for congress just to push her anti-gun agenda on us.

    The NRA has gone to great lengths to try to pull the wool over our eyes on H.R. 2640 and would have us believe such pieces of fiction as:

    1. "The NICS Improvement Bill: Myth and Reality"
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=221&issue=018

    2. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act"
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

    3. "Clearing the Air on the Instant Check Bill"
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...=246&issue=018

    4. "H.R. 2640: Sensible Solution or Trojan Horse?"
    http://www.claytoncramer.com/Popular.../HR%202640.htm

    5 ."Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran"
    http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15...,00.html?wh=wh

    6. "Enough NRA Bashing"
    http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

    The cold hard facts are that the NRA will not insist that the following amendments be added to H.R. 2640 before they support it; they think it is ok the way it is...
    H.R. 2640 is intentionally ambiguous in order to leave the loop holes that the following amendments would close...

    Amendment A

    At the appropriate place, add the following:

    "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Act, the name of a veteran, disabled child, or other person suffering from a disability may be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) only pursuant to a finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority. It shall be unlawful for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to maintain the name of any veteran who was discharged under honorable conditions and who has not been subject to a finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. Any person whose name continues to be unlawfully retained by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in violation of the provisions of this paragraph may, beginning on the day six months from the date of enactment of this Act, bring an action against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in the district court for the district in which such person resides, and, upon a finding that such person's name has been unlawfully retained, shall be awarded actual damages, attorneys' fees, and liquidated damages of $5,000."

    Amendment B

    "A person shall not be prohibited from acquiring, possessing, or selling a firearm under subsections (d) and (g) of section 922, Title 18, United States Code, because of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."

    Amendment C

    In section 203, paragraph (2), strike "on the date of the enactment of this Act" and insert in lieu thereof "on July 26, 2007".

    EXPLANATION: This amendment would prohibit BATFE from changing the terms of the statute by changing its regulations between now and enactment.

    Amendment D

    In section 203, before the period at the end a semicolon, add the following: "provided, however, that a soldier or veteran, honorably discharged, is not, by virtue of his service and the trauma suffered in connection with his service, prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, receiving, selling, or disposing of a firearm under paragraph (4) of section 922(d) and 922(g) of title 18, United States Code."

    EXPLANATION: This amendment would make it clear that veterans suffering from PTSD are not prohibited persons.

    Amendment E

    In section 203, before the period at the end a semicolon, add the following: "provided, however, that a person who, having been a child participating in a program under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, shall not be prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, receiving, selling, or disposing of a firearm under paragraph (4) of sections 922(d) and 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, by virtue of a diagnosis in connection with such program".

    EXPLANATION: This amendment would make it clear that a kid in the IDEA program wouldn't have his diagnosis make him a prohibited person.

    Do not be snow balled on H.R. 2640 by the NRA and others; let your representatives in Washington know that you want them to oppose this anti-gun legislation without the aforementioned amendments to clarify its current ambiguity and hidden anti-gun loopholes...

    Contact info for your representatives, local and federal:
    http://www.gunowners.org/cci.htm


    Gun Owners of America

    "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
    -Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

    Educate yourself on H.R. 2640:
    http://www.gunowners.org/

    Statement on NICS HR 2640, by US Rep. Ron Paul:
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act, and I urge caution.

    In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment...
    Read his full statement at:
    http://www.reasontofreedom.com/state..._ron_paul.html
    www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/
    www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

    Mike Huckabee opposes H.R. 2640:
    http://thinknewt.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

    Ted Nugent opposes H.R. 2640:
    http://www.tednugent.com/

    NOTE: Ted Nugent is on the Board Of Directors of the NRA and is not with them on H.R. 2640

    Gun Owners of New Hampshire oppose H.R. 2640
    http://www.gonh.org/

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •