Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[Mike128]

It would be nice to have the NRA go on the offensive for a change. Get some of our bills in and have the anti's do some comprimising and backpedaling. How about attaching some of our poison pills to the anti's bill? The NRA does seem to temper bills but we are still loosing ground one baby step at a time.
How about finding out what goals the NRA is setting to ADVANCE firearms owners rights? National CCW, no ammo restriction, fifty caliber freedom, ect.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't...

Again, John, the NRA backed instant check last time around and it turned
into instant registration. I fail to see how the NRA helped.

 

[JohnBT]

Where is the instant registration? I must have missed it in the law. Can you give me link to it?

Meanwhile, the instant check/NICS system is an improvement over the Brady's 5-day waiting period.

John

 

[alan]

If this thing passes, and we might well be quite some distance from that, the following comes to my mind.

Beware of the "little noticed clauses" those inserted by unnamed person or persons, spelled congressional staffers, little noticed clauses that might well impact with hellish force on the heads and backs of the law abiding. I submit that the record of The Congress re this sort of thing is less than encouraging. I submit that this is something that a whole lot of people need to be careful with and attentive to, before ink is applied to paper.

 

[Art Eatman]

Okay, alan, but what the NRA has been doing is working to obviate those "little noticed clauses".

The next phase is the Conference Committee. There, the NRA (or anybody else) can do little or nothing. Conference Committee is where the anti-full-auto stuff snuck in. And, for that matter, many of the bad things of the Brady Bill.

For all that the "hard core" 2A folks rail against the NRA, I'd like to know what legislative effect at the national level has been accomplished by GOA, CCRKBA, 2AF or JFPO? SFAIK, the NRA and only the NRA has ever had any effect on Congress.

I'm not saying these other groups have not had any effect, but in the last forty years I've not heard of nor read of any. And I've been a supporting member of CCRKBA and 2AF for a couple of dozen years or so...

Art

 

[TrybalRage]

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.

You see, now you are starting to give the NRA the same sort of characteristics that the antis do. The NRA has no power. All they do is tell us when something happens, and ask us, the voters, to complain to the right people. It is not a faceless thing that should be making deals. If the NRA had so much power, where the heck were they over the last 7 years?

Now with the far reaches of the internet, I usually hear about anti-gun legislation days or even weeks before the NRA says a word. By this time I have already done my part.

If the NRA ceased to exist tomorrow, we would still be heard just as loudly.

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.

Sorry, Art, but from where I'm sitting it looks like they need us to pass anything, not the other way around. Otherwise they would just pass their little bill without asking. This is just trying to get the votes to pass their mental health bill, and the NRA is offering to tell all us lemmings to support it if they give us a teensy bit in return.

How about no? How about the rules are already too restrictive as it is now? How about we not give the Fed. Government one more blackmailing dollar to cut off from states if they don't toe the line?

 

[Thin Black Line]

Where is the instant registration? I must have missed it in the law. Can you give me link to it?

After NICS went online during the Clinton era (the first one ), the electronic
records were not being destroyed. When this came to public attention, the
records were then destroyed. At least that's what we've been told. We might
as well put as much trust in that as believing that Social Security and Medicare
are going to be fully-funded for our grandkids, too.

 

[Silver Bullet]

You see, now you are starting to give the NRA the same sort of characteristics that the antis do.

I guess you forgot to read the link I provided.

 

[Caimlas]

"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.

I believe in AIDs, clap, and various other VD. Should I just accept it, and sleep with a woman who I know has one of them? It has nothing to do with believe; it has everything in the world to do with principle and not putting up with corruption and the forceful debauchery of our country's founding principles.

Or are you telling me that you're fine with compromise - with the steady and intentional (you can't be a lawyer and not know this stuff) erosion of our civil liberties as acknowledged in the Constitution?

 

[Thin Black Line]

I believe in AIDs, clap, and various other VD. Should I just accept it, and sleep with a woman who I know has one of them? It has nothing to do with believe; it has everything in the world to do with principle and not putting up with corruption and the forceful debauchery of our country's founding principles.

+1. But the business in DC is sleeping with every woman who comes along
and the founding principles have been traded for the principle of fondling.

 

[stellarpod]

From JohnBT:

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?

From Zundfolge:

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.

Again from JohnBT:

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.

And some sage words of wisdom from Silver Bullet:

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 !

There will always be those who take charge, get involved and work. And there will always be those who sit on the sideline, pissing and moaning about the work that's being done. I don't see this changing anytime soon.


JohnBT, Zunfoldge and Silver Bullet: Your comments could not be more true and they bear restating over and over.

stellarpod

 

[stellarpod]

And another thing...

As I sit here in Calgary, Alberta (I'm visiting from Oklahoma) it occurs to me how tragic it would be if the U.S. gun laws were to go the way of my brethren's laws in Canada. I believe the NRA is doing what they can to keep this from happening.

The NRA backed the effort last year regarding legislation to keep cities/states/et al from suing gun manufacturers only to pull their support when the antis tried to attach new assault weapon ban language. Those legislators who were concerned about losing favor with the NRA - or more accurately the voters who the NRA represents - promptly dropped their support as well. This would suggest to me that the NRA does enjoy a fair amount of legislative power - albeit indirectly.

And thank God they do.

stellarpod

 

[LAR-15]

but as of now it is just funding what was already the law.

Now don't bring the truth into this thread!

That's not allowed

 

[xd9fan]

Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system
Good for Vermont.

A quarter billion here, a quarter billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

yep I really do hope states start leaving the Federal Govt behind.
And go on their own like the paperless system. They need to leave the Federal Govt behind on other issues as well. They are just a drain on liberty and money. The more states that get this the better.

 

[TrybalRage]

I guess you forgot to read the link I provided.

Read it, and I'm missing your point.

The anti's seem to think that the NRA is some mighty sentient entity, and if it were gone, so would their troubles. I'm telling you they are wrong. WE would still be here.

 

[alan]

Art Eatman:

The points you make about effectiveness of the NRA might be correct, and you are certainly correct re your references to those "conference committees", who is it that determines their make-up?

Having said that, how many phone calls has NRA received from members, I spoke with them yesterday, who are less than pleased with it's actions? Additionally, how many e-mails, phone calls, smoke signals are directed toward members of congress from, what is it, 80,000,000 plus gun owning Americans?

Seems to me that re people who refuse to act in defense of what one would presume to be their own interests, we are looking at losers, whose rights will not long survive. It is, I suspect, these same loosers from whom the following is heard, Vote, I don't bother with that, besides, my vote doesn't count. Contact my congressperson and or senators, I don't have time, I don't know who they are, I cannot write, I guess they cannot use a telephone either, I don't know their address, it goes on and on.

So in the end, if gun rights, among other rights disappear, will it be that the anti rights cabal that has won, or will it be that the "owners" of the rights had lost, having essentially pissed their rights away, via lack of attention to them?

End of comment or "rant".

 

[Dave Workman]

Art Eatman wrote:

I'm not saying these other groups have not had any effect, but in the last forty years I've not heard of nor read of any. And I've been a supporting member of CCRKBA and 2AF for a couple of dozen years or so...

Hi, Art. Perhaps I can answer that. Much of the reason you don't hear about the activities of these two groups is that the press systematically neglects to mention their involvement.

For example: did you know that SAF is a full participant in the New Orleans lawsuit? Or that SAF actually initiated the groundwork for the current San Francisco lawsuit, based on SAF's earlier successful defeat of a 1982 S-Fran gun ban?

Did you know that SAF is currently involved in federal gun rights lawsuits in Texas and Ohio, and what amounts to a First Amendment lawsuit in Washington state?

Whenever the press reports that "gun rights organizations" are involved in some action, but then subsequently refers only to the NRA, they're frequently talking about "more" than the NRA, they're just too damned lazy to report it.

CCRKBA is more involved in grassroots activities, coordinating with state and local groups. SAF doesn't lobby at all because it is prohibited from that kind of direct political activity by law. But SAF goes to court.

Over the past couple of years, whenever SAF has issued a press release about its involvement in joint lawsuits, it has not failed to mention its partners, be they the NRA or whomever.

 

[gc70]

Here is the new bill, HR 2640.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Here is the new bill, HR 2640.

Oh thank god. That added in the bit about what 'mental defective' means by US law, and not some ambigous statement like it was before.

And now it gets rid of the formally 'permenant' disability...this is a real god send to my fellow vets to get their rights back.

So far so good. I am relieved somewhat.

Now this means perhaps that some people with years old Domestic violence records can get their rights back too. Definately a plus.

 

[TheOld Man]

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do they not understand?

 

[Caimlas]

Hmm. I don't know, TheOld Man.

It would seem to me that with those additions, that it's acceptable and within the guidelines of the 2A as expanded by the Militia Act.

 

[Fletchette]

By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

...and the media wonders why people call them biased. It never dawned on this "reporter" that perhaps Congress should not pass a new law after every crime. Perhaps they should repeal laws to allow teachers to effectivel defend themselves.

 

[Geister]

I will NOT support the NRA after this. I don't care if this only affects the mentally ill, the NRA has no business working with gun grabbers. It's pretty pointless that the organization claims "from my cold, dead hands" when they are willing to give the government power to regulate firearms.

 

[Geister]

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.

And if people like you were in the majority during the American Revolution or World War II, this nation would have ceased to exist long ago.

 

[jselvy]

I still say
NO COMPROMISE

I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals.
The NRA is aiding and abetting those that would strip us all of one of our most basic liberties. Collaborators are treasonous scum.


Jefferson