Ratzinger_p38
Member
Flat out myth created by GOA.
Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
- Thread starter orygunmike
- Start date
- Status
Flat out myth created by GOA.
JohnBT
Member
"In the 1930s, the United States faced a run of much-publicized gangster violence, led by such well-known criminals as John Dillinger, AL CAPONE, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde. The sensationalistic aspect of their crimes convinced the administration of President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT that something needed to be done to control the spread of weapons into the general population. U.S. Attorney General HOMER CUMMINGS and his staff began the process of drafting recommended legislation that would achieve this goal." - West's Encyclopedia of American Law
THANK YOU Attorney General Homer Cummings.
Aren't facts interesting. The government decided to tax machine guns. Gee, the NRA put in it's 2-cents worth. Surprise. You think the NRA should have stayed on the sideline while the feds plowed ahead with it?
John
THANK YOU Attorney General Homer Cummings.
Aren't facts interesting. The government decided to tax machine guns. Gee, the NRA put in it's 2-cents worth. Surprise. You think the NRA should have stayed on the sideline while the feds plowed ahead with it?
John
A matter of concern
As someone who has been concerned about Mental Health issues and gun rights. There may still be a good deal to be concerned about. I have filed several FOIAs with the Veterans Admin. about submitting lists of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the prohibited list. This based on information from the Neal Knox website. According to the late Neal Knox, the Clinton Admin was having problems showing the Brady Act was working because privacy laws were preventing the States from submitting most mental health records. So Clinton ordered the Veterans Admin to set up a beauracratic system which would bypass the law requiring appearing before a judge(adjudicated) to be included in the prohibited list. My conversations with the relevant office in the VA have confirmed this process continues. I will be filing a another FOIA monday to get a current copy of that policy. So lets be clear: Since 1999, the VA has been violating the law as a matter of policy. Most veterans included in the FBI/BATFE prohibited list were never adjudicated incompetent but were submitted by a VA medical review board, a violation of the law. Hence the reason for my concern. I will be posting a copy of the FOIA as soon as I receive it.
As someone who has been concerned about Mental Health issues and gun rights. There may still be a good deal to be concerned about. I have filed several FOIAs with the Veterans Admin. about submitting lists of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the prohibited list. This based on information from the Neal Knox website. According to the late Neal Knox, the Clinton Admin was having problems showing the Brady Act was working because privacy laws were preventing the States from submitting most mental health records. So Clinton ordered the Veterans Admin to set up a beauracratic system which would bypass the law requiring appearing before a judge(adjudicated) to be included in the prohibited list. My conversations with the relevant office in the VA have confirmed this process continues. I will be filing a another FOIA monday to get a current copy of that policy. So lets be clear: Since 1999, the VA has been violating the law as a matter of policy. Most veterans included in the FBI/BATFE prohibited list were never adjudicated incompetent but were submitted by a VA medical review board, a violation of the law. Hence the reason for my concern. I will be posting a copy of the FOIA as soon as I receive it.
SoCalShooter
Member
I understand the PR move and I understand the compromise I still do not like it though it ticks me the hell off, the question is what will they tag on to it as a rider (AWB)?
Ratzinger_p38
Member
Wasnt it guys who had post-traumatic stress disorder? I cant remember the details of who they were adding.
RealGun
Member
Please explain, cite supporting material, whatever. Maybe you're both wrong.
Neo-Luddite
Member
The NRA-ILA needs the anti's to keep the money flowing.
Sure, I'm a member. Life is a compromise, ain't it. Doesn't mean I can't gripe about it also.
Sure, I'm a member. Life is a compromise, ain't it. Doesn't mean I can't gripe about it also.
ryan in maine
Member
two questions...
1). is the "appeal process" free?
2). would the appeal apply to the ownership of firearms only, or also CCW?
1). is the "appeal process" free?
2). would the appeal apply to the ownership of firearms only, or also CCW?
Neo-Luddite
Member
The real reason I'm currently ticked about the present compromise--my state (IL) is going to start sending data on people as being prohibited for psych reasons---allowing any med professional to 'turn a patient in' for any reason of un-fitness wihtout further liability or explanation. A state bill is going to feed right into this. This will (my bet) happen in the more progressive states. The Fed list isn't just going to be the seriously mentally Ill, but an increasingly capricious list of citizens who sought help for minor psych issues who were added to the list by the actions of the front office clerk who also handles the billing at the local clinic. And once you're on that list for psych reasons--good luck getting off.
We got nothing for it--it wasn't compromise. Compromise would have been, say, carry reciprocity nationwide. This is a potential black hole for a lot of good people with minor psych problems--MANY vets in that number.
We got nothing for it--it wasn't compromise. Compromise would have been, say, carry reciprocity nationwide. This is a potential black hole for a lot of good people with minor psych problems--MANY vets in that number.
stellarpod
Member
Neo-Luddite:
I understand your frustration. But, it would appear that perhaps the bulk of your wrath should be focused on your tainted state government. The anti's appear to be in complete control there - to the extent that they are ready, willing and able to completely disregard the HIPPA legal concerns. The only hope then would be that the legal ramifications of ignoring doctor/patient privilege would ultimately prove fatal to the practice of wholesale divulging of medical records. Of course, how many lives will be unduly soiled before this obscene practice is stopped?
I really do have respect for those of you who somehow maintain an existance in the more "enlightened" states. I'm afraid I would have to cut and run.
stellarpod
I understand your frustration. But, it would appear that perhaps the bulk of your wrath should be focused on your tainted state government. The anti's appear to be in complete control there - to the extent that they are ready, willing and able to completely disregard the HIPPA legal concerns. The only hope then would be that the legal ramifications of ignoring doctor/patient privilege would ultimately prove fatal to the practice of wholesale divulging of medical records. Of course, how many lives will be unduly soiled before this obscene practice is stopped?
I really do have respect for those of you who somehow maintain an existance in the more "enlightened" states. I'm afraid I would have to cut and run.
stellarpod
TrybalRage
Member
Thanks, NRA. Now I'm glad I didn't renew.
Compromise always means we lose a little more. You want to solve problems with NICS? Fine. Get rid of it.
Compromise always means we lose a little more. You want to solve problems with NICS? Fine. Get rid of it.
Zundfolge
Member
Yeah, then they can relegate themselves to useless obscurity like the GOA.
Ok, lets come back to reality. Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) are not going to just "get rid of it [NICS]".
The Dems started this ... they started to write a NICS overhaul that would have been very bad for us so the NRA gets in there, gets some compromises, gives some compromises and we end up with a bill that doesn't become a back door ban (which it would have become if the NRA would have just told the dems to "SUCK EGGS").
I too would love for Democrats to be told to "SUCK EGGS", but while they're in power all that does is lock us OUT of power and turns them loose to run roughshod over our rights.
So for all of you "NO COMPROMISE" folks, be glad the NRA doesn't think like the GOA or we'd probably have lost our gun rights long ago. (oh and the pathetic attempts to blame the NRA for the NFA are ridiculous ... the NRA isn't even remotely the same organization today as it was back then, keep in mind that the political lobbying wing (The NRA-ILA) didn't even EXIST until AFTER the '68 GCA.
Remember, if you're going to be all "ALL OR NOTHING" that means sometimes you get NOTHING. So unless you're ready to take up arms against the government [non high road comment removed].
Neo-Luddite
Member
Personally, I am pro- NRA for what it is and should be--a sanctioning body for shooting competitions, safety standards and a promotor of the shooting sports. It seems like GOA (and others) are forcing it to be more mainstream centrist in it's politics by nature of it's very existance. Maybe good in some ways, not in others. They scored alsmost a zero for this, and the thing may be torpedoed because someone will pull a stunt and the NRA will pull support. That would be A-OK---and maybe that's the actual agenda and I'm just a schmuck for going on about the thing. Yeh, Illinois is a rotten deal--and the bill I'm speaking of is a 'technical' bill--it has gone under everyone's radar.
Silver Bullet
Member
My point exactly.
On another thread, I invited anyone to tell me what the GOA or JPFO has done for us that compared with recent NRA triumphs of 1) keeping the AWB from being renewed in the first Senate bill that protected the gun industry and 2) getting the courts to slap down New Orleans for gun confiscations.
I don’t see where the “No Compromise” folks are getting anything useful done. So far, no one has responded to my invitation.
oldfart
Member
stellarpod, from here on in the Dems will shout about how the NRA backed this bill and no amount of denial from Cox or LaPierre will even be heard over the noise. The damage is done and we - that's you, me and the other 3.5million NRA members, now support this piece of garbage.
Worse yet, there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even fire those who sold us out. They've managed, over the years, to change the by-laws so they're completely insulated form any heat we might generate. Sure, some of us may quit sending our money to the NRA but most are all too happy to have their names mentioned as participating in some sanctioned match as if that sanctioning somehow makes them even better than the guy down the road who shoots better but isn't a member.
I called twice to voice my displeasure regarding their "helping" with this bill. It didn't make any difference in the end. I see little reason to support an organization that doesn't support me or my views. I quit!
Worse yet, there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even fire those who sold us out. They've managed, over the years, to change the by-laws so they're completely insulated form any heat we might generate. Sure, some of us may quit sending our money to the NRA but most are all too happy to have their names mentioned as participating in some sanctioned match as if that sanctioning somehow makes them even better than the guy down the road who shoots better but isn't a member.
I called twice to voice my displeasure regarding their "helping" with this bill. It didn't make any difference in the end. I see little reason to support an organization that doesn't support me or my views. I quit!
Ratzinger_p38
Member
oldfart, I wouldnt go too far. The NRA is only supporting the bill if it remains the same...IE the law is the same, but now it is funded to keep it updated. I dont know about you, but I like, and I think we need the appeal process to get names removed. Dont you want the vets to be able to get their names removed? Glad I never had PTS when I was in the service...or I would be screwed too.
I'm so glad that the NRA is helping to bleed the Constitution white one drop at a time.
If the antis made an all-out grab all at once I think more people would react against it. How many more "Reasonable Restrictions" can there be before it is a ban?
Only white, middle class, republican, non-smoking, protestants, that have never taken a sick day can own a .22 bolt action rimfire but only after a Military T.S. type clearance check for which he will pay the "reasonable" tax of $500.00?
No Compromise. Not One More Step Back.
Jefferson
If the antis made an all-out grab all at once I think more people would react against it. How many more "Reasonable Restrictions" can there be before it is a ban?
Only white, middle class, republican, non-smoking, protestants, that have never taken a sick day can own a .22 bolt action rimfire but only after a Military T.S. type clearance check for which he will pay the "reasonable" tax of $500.00?
No Compromise. Not One More Step Back.
Jefferson
TrybalRage
Member
Silver Bullet said:
NRA triumphs? That's funny, I thought it was the voters who stood up and were heard. I must have been mistaken.
Your (and the NRA's) ideas of 'compromise' have led us further and further along, incrementally, losing our right as we go. Enough. This whole concept of being on the defense for our rights stinks, and we keep losing. Perhaps the GOA does not have the clout that the NRA does, but now they have a little more and the NRA a little less by 1 member.
Compromise is the ideal of people already defeated in their minds.
So now we can petition to have inaccurate info taken off our record AND the Fed. gov is permanently banned from charging a fee for background check??? That sounds like some pretty good concessions to me. I don't see any new "thresholds" for what constitutes mental defective here. It sounds like a funding bill to get states to report what they should have been reporting anyway. That's not to say that the Dems won't try to tack something on, but as it stands, how (or why) would the NRA oppose this?? Do you think the NRA would gain any ground by supporting the rights of delusional psychotics to keep and bear arms??????
The NRA (and many state assosciations) have done a pretty ok job the last few years with gun rights. A little over ten years ago, a normal citizen couldn't carry here in Texas. Now, over 250,000 do. They managed to help keep the AWB from getting renewed. I realize that there's been some bad laws made on the state level (Cali, Illinois, NJ, etc.) over the past few years, but name ONE significant piece of NATIONAL gun ban legislation that has been passed in the last ten years.
Join the NRA! Join your state association! Join other groups, too (SAF, GOA). Write letters to your local newspaper, congressman, state reps, etc. Most of all, STOP IT with the "screw it all" attitude!! If our forefathers could sacrifice their lives for freedom, the least we can do is sacrifice $50-$100/year and 5-10 minutes/week on letters (NOT letters to internet gun boards, but to newspapers and elected officials). The NRA can be "reasonable" as an organization, while we all can be more radical as individuals.
Rant off
The NRA (and many state assosciations) have done a pretty ok job the last few years with gun rights. A little over ten years ago, a normal citizen couldn't carry here in Texas. Now, over 250,000 do. They managed to help keep the AWB from getting renewed. I realize that there's been some bad laws made on the state level (Cali, Illinois, NJ, etc.) over the past few years, but name ONE significant piece of NATIONAL gun ban legislation that has been passed in the last ten years.
Join the NRA! Join your state association! Join other groups, too (SAF, GOA). Write letters to your local newspaper, congressman, state reps, etc. Most of all, STOP IT with the "screw it all" attitude!! If our forefathers could sacrifice their lives for freedom, the least we can do is sacrifice $50-$100/year and 5-10 minutes/week on letters (NOT letters to internet gun boards, but to newspapers and elected officials). The NRA can be "reasonable" as an organization, while we all can be more radical as individuals.
Rant off
Zundfolge
Member
Oh, so you're saying we can turn back every gun control law passed during the 20th century whenever we want but our self defeat causes us to compromise with the gun grabbers?
The GOA are a great bunch of guys and I strongly agree with their positions on the 2A, but they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting ANYTHING done.
The options are:
- Work within the system (which will involve compromise sometimes)
- Work outside the system (which will involve killing a lot of people and blowing a lot of stuff up, and for many of us, dying before there are any positive changes).
I prefer the first one as I really don't want my country to look like the Balkans, but I'm sure I'm already defeated in my mind here
No Compromise is the ideal of dreamers, angry teenagers and people willing to kill everyone that gets in their way.
NRA + Compromises = Normal
But if you think of things this way..
If the USA or UK had Compromised in WWII, all of Europe would bean extension of Germany including part of the UK, and at least part of the USA would be under Japanese rule.
As long as the NRA contenue's thier practice of Compromising, they won't get one cent out of me.
IMHO the NRA seriously needs to grow some Teeth.
But if you think of things this way..
If the USA or UK had Compromised in WWII, all of Europe would bean extension of Germany including part of the UK, and at least part of the USA would be under Japanese rule.
As long as the NRA contenue's thier practice of Compromising, they won't get one cent out of me.
IMHO the NRA seriously needs to grow some Teeth.
Autolycus
Member
Zedicus: While I agree with you about the NRA compromise I do not think comparing this compromise to World War II is in any way logical.
I really disagree with the NRA. How many compromises must we make and what compromises have the antigunners made? I know that the ability to have NCIS records expunged was a concession. However that battle was won prior to this and there should have been funding. However this compromise is not worth the paper it is written on.
I am sorry but the more I learn about this the more I see it as a victory for antigunners and a false victory for us progunners. I would suggest that we start to push something good for us such as national reciprocity, NFA registry, or other compromise that was made.
I really disagree with the NRA. How many compromises must we make and what compromises have the antigunners made? I know that the ability to have NCIS records expunged was a concession. However that battle was won prior to this and there should have been funding. However this compromise is not worth the paper it is written on.
I am sorry but the more I learn about this the more I see it as a victory for antigunners and a false victory for us progunners. I would suggest that we start to push something good for us such as national reciprocity, NFA registry, or other compromise that was made.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
