Say No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban" - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Say No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban"

  1. Gladly signed the petition.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Signed it.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328

    Got this Today from NRA-ILA in my email

    THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL: MYTH AND REALITY

    Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.
    The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
    Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.

    MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."
    FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons." The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
    Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.

    MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
    FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
    A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.
    Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website www.vawatchdog.org) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh.)
    Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

    MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."
    FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."
    Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."
    They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.
    Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

    MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.
    FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

    MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."
    FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.
    Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.
    Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR%202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.

    MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.
    FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.
    Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.

    MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.
    FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.

    MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.
    FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

    MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."
    FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)
    After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  5. #14

    Thumbs up

    This is a NRA sell-out...

    I am a member of the NRA and I am disgusted by their position on it...

    Read what GOA has to say about it...

    An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community
    Gun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
    Springfield, VA 22151
    (703)321-8585

    Thursday, October 4, 2007

    It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

    Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

    So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

    In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

    But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

    Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

    Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

    But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

    Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

    Understand this:

    * Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

    * Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

    * Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

    * We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

    Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

    We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

    And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it onto your friends and colleagues.

    Sincerely,


    Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
    Founder and Chairman

    Larry Pratt
    Executive Director

    Michael E. Hammond
    Legislative Counsel

  6. #15
    Did you know that the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership all oppose the Veterans Disarmament Act, sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640) and shepherded by Chuck Schumer in the Senate?

    Last week, the American Legion stated that it "strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640... that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

    Senator Tom Coburn wants to offer a series of amendments to this obnoxious bill. I hope that you will stand with Senator Coburn and defend the constitutionally protected rights of all Americans. And by "stand with," I mean supporting ALL of Coburn's amendments -- not just one or two.

    http://www.gunowners.org/

    If we do nothing, we have already lost... George Washington

  7. #16
    As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
    Of Relief For Gun Owners

    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

    Wednesday, September 5, 2007


    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the
    lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but
    by the past. -- Patrick Henry, in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me
    Death" speech of March 23, 1775

    Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to
    make the same mistakes in the future.

    Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun
    ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns
    out of the hands of criminals.

    But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even
    when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics
    who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that
    millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy
    guns.

    For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy
    bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick
    Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce
    a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of
    thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy
    and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator
    Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years
    past.)

    Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun
    owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun
    owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners
    (and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill
    that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament
    Bill now.

    Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of
    goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to
    screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their
    constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to
    all kinds of abuses.

    The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses.
    After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like
    McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when
    they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question
    answers itself.

    TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS

    Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun
    owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially
    millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and
    then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain
    the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?

    Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop
    criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding
    folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue
    that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament
    Bill) to fix the problem!!!

    So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very
    limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they
    never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

    The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners
    who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:

    * As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be
    prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of
    post-traumatic stress disorder;

    * Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection
    seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the
    family inheritance);

    * Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a
    diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by
    the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and
    bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny
    guns to as many people as possible.

    GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD

    A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a
    significant number of Americans from buying guns because of
    outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting
    Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were
    for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than
    felony convictions.

    Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners
    inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when
    those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).

    Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms
    because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of
    their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season
    this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which
    is illegal.

    And then there's the BATFE's dastardly conduct in the state of
    Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after
    legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy
    firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of
    1996.

    Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has
    seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court
    opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v.
    United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction
    which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be
    considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of
    owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling,
    and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's
    gun rights.

    Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the
    McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been
    enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions
    of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.

    The new language on the 4473 form asks:

    Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
    a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
    authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are
    incompetent to manage your own affairs)....

    Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful
    authority."
    Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court
    "ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to
    judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA
    psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.

    This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the
    BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This
    means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying
    a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress
    Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a
    potential danger to themselves or others.

    No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the
    McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For
    the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose
    a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

    MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF

    Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises
    from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does
    the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored --
    even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's
    VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy
    piece entitled, "Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640,"
    which can be read at http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm on the GOA
    website.

    In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
    the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
    Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
    has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
    opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
    congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
    relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

    Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability
    to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was
    always an
    expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans
    Disarmament Act will be the same.

    Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with
    the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at
    the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have
    provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security.
    The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.

    If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath
    waiting for the promised relief.

    ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You
    can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
    visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
    are also available).

    to be continued...

  8. #17
    ...continued

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

    Dear Senator:

    While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
    competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
    they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick
    Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).

    Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the
    Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
    opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the
    first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
    lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." Gun owners don't want
    to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is
    simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no
    due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.

    Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens
    who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I
    don't believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters
    are promising.

    After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
    the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
    Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
    has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
    opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
    congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
    relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

    The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it
    tells me you don't care about a little thing known as the
    Constitution.

    Sincerely,


    .................................................. .................................................. ...

    To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
    http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
    address may also be made at that location.

  9. #18
    http://www.gunowners.org/

    Gun Owners of America

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

  10. #19
    Could you guys start a HR 2640 thread? I opened the thread expecting to read about HR 1022...

  11. #20
    We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition: No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban"
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •  
Quantcast