Ratzinger_p38
Member
Been the law here in Ohio for some time. I think it is on the federal level, but worded differently.
Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
- Thread starter orygunmike
- Start date
- Status
Been the law here in Ohio for some time. I think it is on the federal level, but worded differently.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
I am not sure where there is a compromise, except in our favor. Appeals? Didnt have those before.
romma
Member
The people that cut this deal for the NRA should be the first ones under the new law that should lose their RTKBA because they gotta be CrAzY...
Autolycus
Member
Ratzinger P38: I may have misread something earlier in the thread that stated the ability to have NCIS records "cleaned" was already in place but not being funded. I may not have read that correctly but I still feel that this was not a worthwhile compromise.
JohnBT
Member
"Nope, I'd say it's the position of people who are rightfully angry at something the state has no right to vote on, being voted on."
Fine, I'm angry too, but we can't let Congress pass laws without our input. And they won't listen to shouts of "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." They will just go about their business and stick us with whatever law they dream up.
The NRA is at least able to get time with them to talk a little sense and modify some of the proposals. For this they get blasted instead of thanked.
_______________
"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."
How? How can the NRA "get rid" of a law? They don't vote on laws, they can only lobby and arm twist. IOW, you're not making any sense.
_______________
"We can't even fire those who sold us out."
How have they sold us out? It's already against the law for anyone who has been involuntarily committed to own guns. Already against the law. Read it again, it's nothing new. Without the input of the NRA the gun grabbers would have made it worse, much worse. Like nationwide mandatory licensing if some of them had their way.
_____________
"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."
You are making this stuff up out of nothing. The federal law prohibits individuals ADJUDICATED mentallly ill. Not diagnosed by the doctor, legally adjudicated. It takes a court order, not some doctor's note or a code form from a billing clerk.
___________
"my state (IL) is going to start sending data on people as being prohibited for psych reasons"
The question is, will the federal system accept bogus information submitted by some clerk? The law says adjudicated, so 1) the feds shouldn't take it unless it's due to a legal proceeding, and 2) if they do accept the names it looks like a very nice case for a federal court, not your state court. It could work out for the best actually.
I give up for the evening. It isn't that complicated folks.
Fine, I'm angry too, but we can't let Congress pass laws without our input. And they won't listen to shouts of "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." They will just go about their business and stick us with whatever law they dream up.
The NRA is at least able to get time with them to talk a little sense and modify some of the proposals. For this they get blasted instead of thanked.
_______________
"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."
How? How can the NRA "get rid" of a law? They don't vote on laws, they can only lobby and arm twist. IOW, you're not making any sense.
_______________
"We can't even fire those who sold us out."
How have they sold us out? It's already against the law for anyone who has been involuntarily committed to own guns. Already against the law. Read it again, it's nothing new. Without the input of the NRA the gun grabbers would have made it worse, much worse. Like nationwide mandatory licensing if some of them had their way.
_____________
"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."
You are making this stuff up out of nothing. The federal law prohibits individuals ADJUDICATED mentallly ill. Not diagnosed by the doctor, legally adjudicated. It takes a court order, not some doctor's note or a code form from a billing clerk.
___________
"my state (IL) is going to start sending data on people as being prohibited for psych reasons"
The question is, will the federal system accept bogus information submitted by some clerk? The law says adjudicated, so 1) the feds shouldn't take it unless it's due to a legal proceeding, and 2) if they do accept the names it looks like a very nice case for a federal court, not your state court. It could work out for the best actually.
I give up for the evening. It isn't that complicated folks.
JohnBT
Member
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING
I just wanted to try and fit in for a moment. That was fun, but pointless. Hysteria usually is.
John
I just wanted to try and fit in for a moment. That was fun, but pointless. Hysteria usually is.
John
Silver Bullet
Member
There are instances where the NRA helped write legislation that would have been much worse if left to politicians. So, while the legislation was a step back for RKBA, it would have been several steps back if they had not stopped in. The NRA was not our enemy.
Yes, you are mistaken. The NRA was instrumental a few years ago in keeping the AWB from being renewed when Dems slipped it into the bill that would provide lawsuit protection for the firearms industry.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/siliconvalley/1805Results.html
Note in particular this quote from Feinstein (speaking of the NRA):
- Senator Feinstein as quoted in the NY Times 3/3/04
Instead of belittling the NRA, you should be sending them extra donations.
Meanwhile, could someone give me an example where the GOA or JPFO have done anything anywhere near this magnitude ? Wait, let's make it easier. Give me an example where they've done anything ... period. I want to compare their accomplishments with the NRA's.
I have money to spend here, folks. I've already spent money on my annual NRA renewal, but I've still got some money left over. I could spend it on a GOA membership, or I could send it as additional donations to the NRA. What should I do ? Which organization is actually getting things done ? Which organization understands that "No Compromise" (ooh, aah) actually means "Not a player" ? Decisions, decisions.
jnojr
Member
What is the "deal"? Did the Dems agree to not seek any more gun control, ever again?
No?!?!?! Then what's the point?
No?!?!?! Then what's the point?
fast eddie
Member
Fburgtx,
Keep ranting, you're spot on.
Keep ranting, you're spot on.
I Disagree, the two are quite similar in more ways than most would realize.
WWII was in many places a war for the freedom of numerous Occupied nations(France, Polland, etc etc), and in the USA's case it was us defending ourselves from a foreign Agressor.
Fighting the Gun control Crowd is a War for the freedoms of the citizens of the USA, Guns are the last line of defense of those freedoms which so many take for granted/ignore.
We are Fighting an Aggressor that's Ideas are Foreign to the ways of our country and who's Goals appear to be the same/similar as that of Foreign Aggressors such as Hitler/Stalin/Mao/the last Japanese Emperor (who's name escapes me).
WWII & Gun Control compare quite well.
stevelyn
Member
Compromise means that both sides have to give something up. The antis don't have anything to give up. So everytime the NRA compromises with them, they gain something.
Each and everytime the NRA has jumped into bed with the antis to appear "reasonable", the resulting love child has been hiddeous.
Each and everytime the NRA has jumped into bed with the antis to appear "reasonable", the resulting love child has been hiddeous.
How frustrating. This is all a bunch of nonsense.
If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm, then they are too dangerous to drive, own cutlery, possess or consume alcohol, and be out in public. Firearms do not make a person inherently more deadly or dangerous. So why aren't they locked up?
OHHHH that's right! This is about pre-crime not about crime; there's nothing about this law which prevents anyone from doing anything they couldn't before, and does little but pave the road for labeling anyone with the slightest mental "irregularity" as unfit for firearm ownership.
Exactly. And there is no indication that this will be any different, either.
Compromise is asking your rapist to cuddle afterwards.
I don't know about that. It seems to me that the NRA is a bit like the guy standing on top of an ocean wall with a bucket, saying, "don't worry guys, I'm taking care of it". Sure, he might be able to make the leaking seem mostly un-noticeable, but in the long run, a torrent of water comes through. Same thing here: if the NRA hadn't been getting in the way of encroachment, the creeping incrimentalism would be a torrent and we would all know we need to act immediately, or else.
That's why I'm kind of against political action groups like the NRA - at least in principle. It would be better to have just the Constitution sitting there for the corrupt politicians to look at instead of an immense, officiating policy group like the NRA, with known stances on certain items which will compromise to a certain degree. If we could keep the politicians constantly guessing and not have a unified and identifiable front, things would, I think, be much better for liberty.
If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm, then they are too dangerous to drive, own cutlery, possess or consume alcohol, and be out in public. Firearms do not make a person inherently more deadly or dangerous. So why aren't they locked up?
OHHHH that's right! This is about pre-crime not about crime; there's nothing about this law which prevents anyone from doing anything they couldn't before, and does little but pave the road for labeling anyone with the slightest mental "irregularity" as unfit for firearm ownership.
Exactly. And there is no indication that this will be any different, either.
Compromise is asking your rapist to cuddle afterwards.
I don't know about that. It seems to me that the NRA is a bit like the guy standing on top of an ocean wall with a bucket, saying, "don't worry guys, I'm taking care of it". Sure, he might be able to make the leaking seem mostly un-noticeable, but in the long run, a torrent of water comes through. Same thing here: if the NRA hadn't been getting in the way of encroachment, the creeping incrimentalism would be a torrent and we would all know we need to act immediately, or else.
That's why I'm kind of against political action groups like the NRA - at least in principle. It would be better to have just the Constitution sitting there for the corrupt politicians to look at instead of an immense, officiating policy group like the NRA, with known stances on certain items which will compromise to a certain degree. If we could keep the politicians constantly guessing and not have a unified and identifiable front, things would, I think, be much better for liberty.
Last edited:
Compromise happens on the legislative level. It just does. We need to accept that to some extent and start learning some lessons from the liberal playbook. Look at what they've done on the issues of immigration/freedom of speech/gay marriage/etc. We need to be using the legal system more to our advantage. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why states should be able to get away with charging a fee for a background check. We have 2nd amendment rights just like we have the right to vote. This "fee" should be just as illegal as "poll taxes" were when it came to voting. THIS is where the NRA should be radical!!! The same goes for the "one gun a month" law. THIS is restricting interstate commerce. Take 'em to court!!!
We need to spend more time defeating these bad laws on the legal level, while making friends on the legislative level.
On another note, I get angry every time I go to a gun show. Why???? Because there is NEVER anyone there trying to register voters!!!! You have a huge amount of folks who would likely support pro-2nd amendment candidates, and NO ONE is there getting them registered!!!!
These would be my main gripes with the NRA. They need to do more on the legal/grassroots level (beyond instruction/matches). When the anti-gun legislators start to see that all their legislation is getting shot down quicker than they can pass it, they'll hopefully start backing off (like the realistic Republicans have on anti-gay/anti-abortion bills to some extent).
Lifetime NRA member
TSRA member
We need to spend more time defeating these bad laws on the legal level, while making friends on the legislative level.
On another note, I get angry every time I go to a gun show. Why???? Because there is NEVER anyone there trying to register voters!!!! You have a huge amount of folks who would likely support pro-2nd amendment candidates, and NO ONE is there getting them registered!!!!
These would be my main gripes with the NRA. They need to do more on the legal/grassroots level (beyond instruction/matches). When the anti-gun legislators start to see that all their legislation is getting shot down quicker than they can pass it, they'll hopefully start backing off (like the realistic Republicans have on anti-gay/anti-abortion bills to some extent).
Lifetime NRA member
TSRA member
oldfart
Member
fburgtx said: "A little over ten years ago, a normal citizen couldn't carry here in Texas. Now, over 250,000 do."
Yeah, and the state knows where every one of them is. People who apply for and get CCL are just swapping one boogyman (the occasional gangster) for another (the perpetual state.)
Yeah, and the state knows where every one of them is. People who apply for and get CCL are just swapping one boogyman (the occasional gangster) for another (the perpetual state.)
Regarding concerns from a number of posters that Illinois wants to allow doctors to arbitrarily add people to the prohibited persons list.
Couldn't they do that now anyway, with or without the bill being discussed? If I'm not mistaken, the mechanism for doing so is already in place, it's just that most States don't use it, no?
Couldn't they do that now anyway, with or without the bill being discussed? If I'm not mistaken, the mechanism for doing so is already in place, it's just that most States don't use it, no?
Ratzinger_p38
Member
Yes, but once again I dont see what it is we are compromising on, at this moment. Sure with the socialists in power that could change, but as of now it is just funding what was already the law. Right now, it swings in our favor. Being able to remove your name from the list is a big victory. So far it sounds like they get nothing.
RealGun
Member
Yeah, then they can relegate themselves to useless obscurity like the GOA. - Zundfolge
I am about to write a check to that useless obscurity's political action fund. What do I know?
I am about to write a check to that useless obscurity's political action fund. What do I know?
Thin Black Line
Member
This story has now gone global
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1912986.ece
Ah, yes, I can see it all now --bill gains traction, snowballs, other measures
get tacked on and the NRA throws up its hands saying "That's not what we
talked about!"
Will be a good test of your so-called reps both on the Hill and in the NRA.
Who really is your friend? Maybe it'll come down to two votes and a filibuster
that could have killed the whole thing like back in 94. What a geat time
for "let's make a deal"!!!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1912986.ece
Ah, yes, I can see it all now --bill gains traction, snowballs, other measures
get tacked on and the NRA throws up its hands saying "That's not what we
talked about!"
Will be a good test of your so-called reps both on the Hill and in the NRA.
Who really is your friend? Maybe it'll come down to two votes and a filibuster
that could have killed the whole thing like back in 94. What a geat time
for "let's make a deal"!!!
JohnBT
Member
"Compromise happens on the legislative level. It just does."
Exactly, even though some folks refuse to believe it. Or maybe they're just stubborn. Or maybe they just don't know.
So what's the point? That was a question asked. The point is that without somebody - the NRA - sitting down with the members of Congress who were working on this bill we'd likely be stuck with a worse bill containing more restrictions. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
To me it looks like Congress compromised with the NRA, not the other way around. Congress didn't have to give up anything - they write the bills and pass the laws, not the NRA. I know, many of you think the NRA team members should have packed their briefcases and boycotted the talks, but that would have left Congress operating with input from only the other side - Brady etc. Is that what you really wanted to happen?
John
Exactly, even though some folks refuse to believe it. Or maybe they're just stubborn. Or maybe they just don't know.
So what's the point? That was a question asked. The point is that without somebody - the NRA - sitting down with the members of Congress who were working on this bill we'd likely be stuck with a worse bill containing more restrictions. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
To me it looks like Congress compromised with the NRA, not the other way around. Congress didn't have to give up anything - they write the bills and pass the laws, not the NRA. I know, many of you think the NRA team members should have packed their briefcases and boycotted the talks, but that would have left Congress operating with input from only the other side - Brady etc. Is that what you really wanted to happen?
John
Thin Black Line
Member
John,
Some of us have just really long memories such as when the NRA supported
Instant Check which under a previous president turned into Instant Registration
until it was "discovered", back-pedaled, policy supposedly changed and records
supposedly destroyed.
You'll have to pardon my lack of trust in backroom deal-making when so many
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents
and the membership. Normally we would use the word lie in situations like that,
but such direct language is not considered PC in America.
Some of us have just really long memories such as when the NRA supported
Instant Check which under a previous president turned into Instant Registration
until it was "discovered", back-pedaled, policy supposedly changed and records
supposedly destroyed.
You'll have to pardon my lack of trust in backroom deal-making when so many
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents
and the membership. Normally we would use the word lie in situations like that,
but such direct language is not considered PC in America.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
When an anti-gun political party has the majority of votes in Congress, lobbying for compromise is the ONLY thing any group can do: GOA, 2AF, CCRKBA, JPFO--and the NRA.
Anybody here who voted in the last elections in a manner to "teach the Republicans a lesson" contributed to the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate.
We're fortunate that the pro-gun efforts at the state level for CHL laws have made a change in the political parties' perception of the political power of gun owners. That enabled the NRA to obviate various "bad stuff" amendments to the Bill.
Digressing to the off-topic issue of the NFA: At that time, there had been little or no prior reason for the NRA to be involved in any great amount of effort to lobby against gun control laws. This was a new phenomenon. And, like many, it was believed that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA. The NRA was not to blame for the death of the plaintiff in the appeals process; his absence meant the court decision followed the fed's wishes.
Art
Anybody here who voted in the last elections in a manner to "teach the Republicans a lesson" contributed to the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate.
We're fortunate that the pro-gun efforts at the state level for CHL laws have made a change in the political parties' perception of the political power of gun owners. That enabled the NRA to obviate various "bad stuff" amendments to the Bill.
Digressing to the off-topic issue of the NFA: At that time, there had been little or no prior reason for the NRA to be involved in any great amount of effort to lobby against gun control laws. This was a new phenomenon. And, like many, it was believed that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA. The NRA was not to blame for the death of the plaintiff in the appeals process; his absence meant the court decision followed the fed's wishes.
Art
Zundfolge
Member
I guess I'd just like these "All or nothing" folk to give me a reasonable, likely "non-compromise" scenario that doesn't involve the pro-2A movement just packing their stuff and leaving Washington, or at the least excusing themselves from the table and waiting in the parking lot, and one that doesn't involve bloodshead.
We see these people in this forum all the time bashing the NRA for any compromise, yet none of you have the balls to take a rifle, head to DC and start cleaning house because dammit compromise is how a democratic political system works, the only alternative is war (especially when the anti gun folk have their people in charge).
Now I can understand criticizing the NRA if they make a stupid compromise (for example, agreeing to an AWB or handgun ban) but in this case, the NRA did well and got us some concessions from the antis that we'll benefit more from than had they taken the GOA/No Compromise approach and shouted obscenities from outside the building.
We see these people in this forum all the time bashing the NRA for any compromise, yet none of you have the balls to take a rifle, head to DC and start cleaning house because dammit compromise is how a democratic political system works, the only alternative is war (especially when the anti gun folk have their people in charge).
Now I can understand criticizing the NRA if they make a stupid compromise (for example, agreeing to an AWB or handgun ban) but in this case, the NRA did well and got us some concessions from the antis that we'll benefit more from than had they taken the GOA/No Compromise approach and shouted obscenities from outside the building.
JohnBT
Member
"You'll have to pardon my lack of trust in backroom deal-making when so many
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents and the membership."
Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't, I like having them in on the dealmaking. It appears the NRA introduced a little bit of reasonableness into the process. I can only imagine what the Democrats and the Bradys would have come up with in the way of a bill if left on their own.
John
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents and the membership."
Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't, I like having them in on the dealmaking. It appears the NRA introduced a little bit of reasonableness into the process. I can only imagine what the Democrats and the Bradys would have come up with in the way of a bill if left on their own.
John
Silver Bullet
Member
The situation we have now is there are about four million NRA members contributing time and money to try and improve things for RKBA.
There are another 76 million gun owners who are doing nothing but letting the other 4 million do the heavy lifting; in fact, all of the lifting. Worse, some of the 76 million are sitting around on a couch and criticizing the 4 million for not getting things done faster, instantly, Right Now !
I'll make an extra contribution this month to pay the way for a couple of you. Maybe some day you can do something for me. I hope not; it would be hard on my self-esteem.
There are another 76 million gun owners who are doing nothing but letting the other 4 million do the heavy lifting; in fact, all of the lifting. Worse, some of the 76 million are sitting around on a couch and criticizing the 4 million for not getting things done faster, instantly, Right Now !
I'll make an extra contribution this month to pay the way for a couple of you. Maybe some day you can do something for me. I hope not; it would be hard on my self-esteem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
