GOA Alert: URGENT!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If what you told that Veteran yesterday is what Gun Owners of America told you, no wonder he is disturbed. You certainly can disturb even more veterans by spreading that GOA misinformation and distortion.

But why would veterans or anyone else object to a bill that:

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
Click to expand...

Why tell veterans (or anyone else) that they should be alarmed by a bill that amends the system so as to help them by prohibiting obsolete or inaccurate information from being used against them. How does a veteran (or anyone else) benefit from lobbying for the right to have wrong information retained? Just because GOA says otherwise doesn't make it so.

Read the bill.

A youngster who has been treated for ADHD by his physician at her parents' request has not been adjudicated or received mandatory (i.e., court ordered) treatment and would be unaffected by this bill. A veteran (or anyone else) who had been adjudicated and did receive mandatory (i.e. court ordered) treatment would be removed from NICS and the information destroyed. How could there possibly be any benefit to any veteran in having obsolete information remain in NICS?

Is it possible that the people objecting to this bill don't know what the word "adjudicated" means?
 
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=484a4496-802a-23ad-43e7-77043a9f39a2&Issue_id=

Majority Democrats in the Senate were poised as early as this past Monday to bring the bill to a vote until Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected.

Coburn says he has concerns that billions of dollars of new spending in the bill is not paid for by cuts in other programs. And he says the bill does not pay for appeals by veterans or other Americans who feel they have been wrongly barred from buying a gun.
"As Congress prepares to raise the debt limit once again, it is not too much to ask politicians to do the job they were elected to do and make choices," Coburn said Wednesday. "Veterans, or any other American, should not lose their Second Amendment rights if they have been unfairly tagged as having mental health concerns."
Click to expand...

If for no other reason Schumer and McCarthy being in favor of it ought to set off a fellows warning sirens, not to mention the voice vote passage in the house of HR2640. GOA may well be a little over the top but this whole thing does not pass the smell test.
 
Last edited:
Larry, it's reasonable for Coburn to object that "the bill does not pay for appeals by veterans or other Americans who feel they have been wrongly barred from buying a gun." But that's nothing like what Gun Owners of America is saying.

GOA is proving itself untrustworthy and unreliable through its tactics. Gun owners who adopt them look really bad too, even to other people who enjoy Hank Williams.
 
I cannot support this bill. In spite of all that seems good about it, it does nothing but bolster and further entrench unconstitutional law - namely, the Brady BS.

Congress knows that those who cannot be trusted with arms(so adjudicated) belong in prison, executed, or institutionalized. The immature - the young - are under the guardianship of their parents. The whole body of unconstitutional law; state, local, and of the Union; that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms needs to be trashed. Do that and there will be no need to pass law that "does good", for there will be no law doing bad in the first place.

Can't get any more simple than that.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
This issue was on Glenn Beck's radio how this morning. He had Wayne LaPierre on, who stated that the bill had been "hi-jacked" and modified to the extent that the result was worthy of passage.

As Robert said, read the bill. Crying Wolf gains us no credibility...
 
Don't forget that Ted Kennedy opposes this bill because Pat Leahy attached expanded LE concealed carry.
 
What's The Next Step?

My fear is that this will be expanded to include anyone who is being treated for a mental illness, not just those who have been declared incompetent by a judge.
The majority of Americans will suffer a significant depressive episode sometime in our lifetime.
 
By the way, the current status for veterans is often that a diagnosis of PTSD by the VA may get your name on the NICS Denial list - even though there has been no adjudication that you are a danger to yourself or others. This has been the case since the Clinton Administration and is one of the elements this bill is attempting to correct.
 
But, Bartholomew, that almost sounds like GOA is against giving these veterans a chance to have their rights restored. :confused:
 
Jorg, I don't think that Gun Owners of America is against giving these veterans a chance to have their rights restored. From what I can see, Gun Owners of America just isn't concerned with the interests of those veterans or other gun owners either way. It's obvious, I think, that Gun Owners of America is more concerned with fighting against the NRA than it is with fighting for the interests of those veterans or any other gun owner.

Read the bill. It does not say what Gun Owners of America says and does not do what Gun Owners of America says it does.

Read the bill. Then read previous "urgent alerts" from Gun Owners of America. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day but for Gun Owners of America the NRA is never right. What the NRA supports, Gun Owners of America inevitably attacks with an "urgent alert."

Read the bill. What I and others here have posted are the relevant portions that contradict what Gun Owners of America claim. But don't think you have to trust any of us. Read the entire bill and come to your own conclusions. I'm confident that it won't be the conclusions you are told to make by Gun Owners of America.

Read the bill and trust your own eyes instead of what conspiracy theorists tell you. Remember what Trevelyan said, especially "Anger is a momentary madness, so control your passion or it will control you."
 
Robert, I'm afraid my cynicism for GOA's kneejerk reactions must not have come through properly. I was trying to capture GOA's gift for misdirection, misinterperation, misinformation, mischaracterization, and plain old oversimplification by restating their opposition of the bill in the same manner that they tend to use. I was taking a swipe at GOA and their (over-)reactionary tactics.

If the NRA opposed this bill, it would seem likely that GOA would latch on to the clause Batholomew mentioned and declare that the NRA doesn't support veterans.

While most groups rely on some level of FUD to garner support, it just seems that spreading FUD about everyone else is the biggest hammer in GOA's toolbox and the one they seem to reach for more often than needed.
 
Ah, you have read the bill and Gun Owners of America too. :) I should have realized that from your other posts, Jorg. Sorry. My face is red.

It's always a surprise to me when people believe the nonsense spread by that organization. Time after time it issues those "Urgent Alerts!" that serve no one's interests except its own. But it leads and, much to my astonishment, others clamor to follow. Disgraceful.
 
United we Stand, Devided we Fall

Childish Bickering will do nothing to help us.

GOA may or May not be correct, but that doesn't change our being wrong for behaving in this manner. (we are not taking the High Road here)
why not simply e-mail them to ask for Clarification on the obviously poorly written alert?

IE: Where are they drawing such conclusions from etc.

We need to stick together if we want any chance of surviving.

Publicly Shooting the Messenger as we have been will not do us any good.
(they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain)

also, Publicly Running down GOA or JPFO just makes the entire lot of us look like a bunch of 6 year olds.
 
Because they don't answer and they keep putting out these bogus/fabricated/histrionic alerts.

"(they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain)"

I don't think so. And if they are, stretching the truth to the point of fantasy is not going to get the message out. It only makes them look foolish. It makes the entire gun rights community look foolish.

John
 
Originally printed by GOA: But the chairman then also reopened a fight with Mr. Kennedy by including amendments to an existing law that allows retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

Enacted in 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act continues to meet resistance from states and cities, such as New York, as an intrusion on local control.

Mr. Leahy's proposed changes would make it easier for retired officers to get around these obstacles and also lower the years of service needed to qualify to carry concealed weapons from 15 to 10.
Click to expand...

No they are trying to impede states rights by doing this. The states should have the final say in who can and cannot carry a firearm right?
 
Originally posted by pdowg881: If it truly does bar people who were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood that's rediculous. Anybody who acts like a normal kid and likes to run around is diagnosed with ADHD these days.
Click to expand...

Do you have any sources to back this up? How about a good explanation of what ADD and ADHD are?
 
they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain
Click to expand...
If they are on to something that isn't in the alert, why did the choose to leave that information out and include what they did?

Publicly Running down GOA or JPFO just makes the entire lot of us look like a bunch of 6 year olds.
Click to expand...

No, it makes us look like a bunch of informed gun owners who won't tolerate inane calls to action from a group that seems more interested in issuing shocking press releases than doing anything more effective. You call for us all to stand together, why don't you take that challenge to GOA and see if they'll stand with the NRA?

While I'm all for solidarity among gun owners, that does not mean we should allow certain reactionary groups to spread FUD among us simply in the name of not rocking the boat.

Just because a group is a pro-gun doesn't give them the right to run around screaming the sky is falling with impunity.
 
I think GOA understands that gun legislature is a slipper slope and they understand that vague laws can be used at the discretion of the enforcer. This law might not spell out what restrictions can or can’t be placed on people with ADHD, but it doesn't have to if the wrong person is running the country. I don’t think the Burden of Proof should be on the person seeking to exercise their RKBA.

Is this a reasonable regulation? Reasonable is a word that can change with the wind. Hilary’s definition of reasonable ultimately means that only governmental officials have the right to bear arms. Read this for a real world comparative demonstration of where reasonable gun policies end up.
 
Zedicus, it's most certainly not the high road for you to suggest that "GOA may or May not be correct" when Gun Owners of America is clearly incorrect and is just as clearly telling deliberate untruths that hurt gun owners.

You might as well say it "may or may not be true that two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." It happened. So did that GOA alert published here and elsewhere. And neither event is good.

Read the bill. The bill directly contradicts what Gun Owners of America has said in that "Urgent Alert!"

If you have read the bill and can still say Gun Owners of America "may or may not be correct" in what it says about it, you've travelled too far beyond the high road into a world of fantasy and delusion.

Asking Gun Owners of America to explain its distortions of one bill after another is not my responsibility. Perhaps it is your responsibility to do so because you have some reason to defend the indefensible. I don't have that responsibility. I read English and think critically about what I read. GOA can't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I heartily agree that "Childish Bickering will do nothing to help us." So stop your childish bickering, read the bill, and compare what the bill says with what GOA says it says.

If you find anything in the bill that supports the GOA claims about it, contribute your knowledge instead of telling people that its "childish bickering" to point out that GOA is misleading gun owners and creating a great deal of damage by doing so.

You say that the GOA alert is "obviously poorly written." That's an excuse? You might as well say that the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were "obviously poorly piloted." Take away the "obviously poorly written" parts of that GOA alert and nothing remains to justify an "alert."

Do you know of any bill of benefit to gun owners that Gun Owners of America has successfully supported into law? I don't. What GOA does is nothing positive, only what you describe as "childish bickering." The sky, according to GOA, is always falling and the fault is always the NRA's. In contrast the Second Amendment Foundation--a far more responsible organization--puts itself on the line to take positive steps for gun owners. The NRA and SAF together have made great contributions in matters such as challenging the gun confiscations in New Orleans by actually joining together to take legal action against the city and its administration. GOA, however, issued its "Urgent Alerts!" and nothing more.

Who needs a group that purports to represent gun owners but sounds about as smart as but not nearly so well informed as Carolyn McCarthy. She doesn't know what a barrel shroud is but wants them banned; GOA doesn't know what this bill does but wants it defeated.

Abraham Lincoln evidently was correct: it is possible to fool some of the people all the time.

Zedicus, the way to stop looking like a six year old is to start behaving like a rational adult. No one else can do it for you, although some of us are trying hard to help. And none of us ask you for money.
 
ServiceSoon, perhaps you don't realize that this bill is an amendment to an existing law. Your "slippery slope" argument can't possibly be relevant to this situation because there's no new law being proposed, only changes to a law that already exists and rules every gun owner in America.

It's simply irrational to argue that this bill is a new law that takes us down a "slippery slope" when the bill so obviously attempts to reverse the slope in the existing law.

The best way to recognize it is to read the bill.

Look, guy, if we're trying to pull the wool over your eyes we would have to be pretty stupid to keep telling you to read the bill. We wouldn't want you to read the bill if we were trying to mislead you. That's what GOA is doing: telling you what to think and what to do instead of asking you to read the bill.

Please read the bill.

This discussion is incredible. People actually have the opportunity to see what the bill says and what GOA says about it but can't or won't think for themselves and see the discrepancies.
 
This law might not spell out what restrictions can or can’t be placed on people with ADHD, but it doesn't have to if the wrong person is running the country.
Click to expand...

Except that it DOES spell out the restrictions. :rolleyes:

It reiterates the terms under which a person's right may be restricted for mental health reasons. They must have been either adjudicated mentally deficient or involuntarily committed. Both of which, by legal definition, mean they have appeared before a judge with full due process. This is current law BTW, all it does is say that those rulings must be reported to NICS, ie the law as it has been since the 60's be enforced and reported properly.

Even if a future President came out with an executive order it would be in direct contradiction to the existing law due to the language used, not in any way legally based on it.

It also mandates that even if a person HAS been adjudicated in the past, they must be given the opportunity to appeal; to show that, even after all that due process, they are now better and should have their rights restored and that their new non-prohibited status must be reported to NICS as promptly as their prohibited was.

It also removes a bunch of veterans who should never been added to the prohibited list from it, restoring rights that should never have been taken from them.

Right now, that's more right and recourse than someone committed to prison for a totally non-violent felony offense has available.

Educate yourselves. Learn to read the law, learn what legal terms mean and how civil and criminal procedures occur and quit taking alarmist fantasies and patent lies as truth, from any source.

Anyone with a position, whether you agree or disagree with them, has a bias and a reason to shade the truth. Learn to look at the facts and make your own decision, don't let others control you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
GOA Alert!
Replies
0
Views
1K
recon
R
C
  • Locked
GOA Alert
Replies
2
Views
879
moojpg2
M
B
  • Locked
Veterans Stabbed in the back by the NRA!
Replies
3
Views
501
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
F
  • Locked
HR 218 passes Senate & House
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
El Rojo
E
D
  • Locked
California Legislative Alert
Replies
0
Views
633
deadon
D
Back
Top