GOA: House Leaders on the Verge of Adopting Anti-Gun Agenda

[SharpDog]

House Leaders on the Verge of Adopting Anti-Gun Agenda

Dear Peter,

I need you to take action right away.

Here's the treachery that is occurring on Capitol Hill.

Republicans are showing, once again, that they are the "stupid party" -- now that their leadership is pushing gun control as part of the government funding bill.

Capitol Hill sources -- and media outlets


-- are saying that the House leadership wants to include the anti-gun Fix NICS language in the omnibus. But in doing so, they would be breaking their promise to gun owners.


A vote to pass Fix NICS is a vote to kill Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Last year, the House of Representatives passed the GOA-backed H.R. 1181, which would create due process protections for veterans.

But, if the Fix NICS/Take the Guns First language is slammed through on the omnibus, there is NO chance that H.R. 1181 will see the president's desk.

Similarly, when the House passed Fix NICS late last year, it coupled it in a combo-bill which also contained concealed carry reciprocity, our highest pro-active legislative priority.

And the leadership promised at the time that it would not consider a Fix NICS provision without reciprocity.

However, if this anti-gun provision is slammed through on the omnibus, reciprocity will be dead for the year.

The reason is that all the impetus to "just do something" and pass some kind of gun legislation will be gone -- because of the passage of the anti-gun Fix NICS provision!

Take Action: Call your Representative and the NRA

1) Please call Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R) -- at (202) 225-3271 -- and urge the exclusion of Fix NICS from the omnibus. And if gun control is included, then urge a vote against the "rule," which allows the anti-gun omnibus spending bill to even come up for consideration.

The "rule" is sometimes the best way to kill a bill because Democrats almost routinely vote against the rule. Then, coupled with pro-gun Republicans who oppose Fix NICS, it's possible to get a coalition that will sink the bill.

Gun owners should tell Republican Reps. that a vote to pass Fix NICS is a vote to kill reciprocity.

Anti-gun Democrats can simply be told the omnibus spends too much money, so please vote against the "rule."

2) And if you are an NRA member, please call the NRA at:
* NRA-ILA: 800-392- 8683
* Main NRA Number: 800-672- 3888
* Millie Hallow (Managing Director of Executive Operations, and assistant to Wayne LaPierre): 703-267- 1077

The NRA has been supportive of the Fix NICS legislation


, ever since Sen. John Cornyn introduced it in November.


But as an NRA member -- and I am one myself -- we can politely urge them to urge that Fix NICS be removed from the bill OR to oppose the "rule" if the anti-gun language is included. Further, encourage them to support the inclusion of reciprocity into the omnibus.

Again, if you need a refresher on the problems with the Fix NICS bill, you can read the article we've posted here


.


You may have seen that one gun manufacturer backpedaled


from their support of Fix NICS within three days, after an outpouring of comments from customers.


This is a reminder that pro-gun supporters can make a huge difference when they let their voices be heard!

Remember, the anti-gun Fix NICS bill has been cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the Senate.

We need to apply the full-court press to defeat this gun control provision.

Thanks so much for your help.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Chairman

 

[alsaqr]

1. i don't care that the US house kills concealed carry reciprocity. That's the best thing that could happen.

2. NICS needs fixed.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/cosponsors

Remember, the anti-gun Fix NICS bill has been cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the Senate.

The above is designed to scare the poop out of uninformed folks. Cornyn(R) TX proposed the senate bill. There are 72 co-sponsors including both OK senators.

 

[SharpDog]

1. i don't care that the US house kills concealed carry reciprocity. That's the best thing that could happen.

2. NICS needs fixed.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/cosponsors


The above is designed to scare the poop out of uninformed folks. Cornyn(R) TX proposed the senate bill. There are 72 co-sponsors including both OK senators.

The whole post is verbatim from a GOA email, make of it what you may.

Personally I do not see why you would not want CCW reciprocity, please explain.

Also, do you not know they were trying to deny 2A rights to seniors if they had someone prepare their taxes or otherwise assist in their financial affairs ?

Does that seem right to you ?

Is that a good indicator of mental Illness , re: denying 2A rights?

 

[alsaqr]

Personally I do not see why you would not want CCW reciprocity, please explain.

It's feel good trash. Do you really believe states like NJ will ever allow out of staters to carry guns? IMO: It's a state rights issue.

Also, do you not know they were trying to deny 2A rights to seniors if they had someone prepare their taxes or otherwise assist in their financial affairs ?

It ain't in there. Before states can report folks to NICS they must have been adjudicated mentally defective.

Read the fix NICS stuff:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text

 

[Theohazard]

I’m with @alsaqr. Concealed carry reciprocity is a terrible idea. It means the federal government gets involved in concealed carry, and that can only mean more federal restrictions; either with a reciprocity bill or following soon after.

Remember, the legislative process almost always consists of compromise. In order to get a bill passed, we’ll most likely also see federal restrictions on carry added to the bill. And for those of us who live in states with excellent carry laws, that means our carry laws will get worse.

And even if that doesn’t happen right away, can you imagine what will happen once anyone with an out-of-state carry permit can carry in an anti-gun state like New Jersey? Politicians will be up in arms to pass federal carry legislation, legislation that would most likely affect those of us in pro-gun states. But right now those politicians don’t have much pressure to pass federal laws restricting carry.

 

[RETG]

Once the Federal government steps into the gun laws of the states, it will open up states' laws on guns rights to the liberal agenda when they take back the complete congress and the presidency. So it is nice to say nationwide reciprocity is nice cause it sounds nice, but it does take away the concealed weapon laws of some states, whether they are friendly or not. But someday in the future, a liberal congress will come along and say they want all the states' concealed weapon permits to follow a certain policy. And you will start to see permit laws like there are in CA, NY, NJ, etc., in all states.

So who gets the royal screw? The states with favorable concealed carry laws. If the state a person lives in does not have a favorable method to obtain a CCW, then it is upon the people of that state to change it through state legislative action, or move to another state. I'm sure people in TN do not want the CCW laws of TN changed to those like in CA or other MAY issue states.And it will happen. Just another example of the law of unintended consequences.

As for the senior matter. That was an action by the past administration that tried take guns away from seniors who had their financial matters handled by a third party. Which can be quite common with seniors who might be traveling and sign over a power of attorney to a son/daughter, etc., to handle financial matters while they are traveling the world or even the USA in their motor home. Or it could be due to health matters. I know a guy who turned over his financial stuff to his son due to his cancer. It did not stop him from going out into the desert with us when I lived in UT and we used to shoot on the weekends. He still came out and shot a few hundred rounds. However, he did not wan to keep up with all the financial stuff so his son did it for him. Now that he is back and pretty much cancer free, he has taken back over his financial stuff.

Trump overturned that gun grabbing BS early in his administration.

 

[SharpDog]

Once the Federal government steps into the gun laws of the states, it will open up states' laws on guns rights to the liberal agenda when they take back the complete congress and the presidency. So it is nice to say nationwide reciprocity is nice cause it sounds nice, but it does take away the concealed weapon laws of some states, whether they are friendly or not. But someday in the future, a liberal congress will come along and say they want all the states' concealed weapon permits to follow a certain policy. And you will start to see permit laws like there are in CA, NY, NJ, etc., in all states.

So who gets the royal screw? The states with favorable concealed carry laws. If the state a person lives in does not have a favorable method to obtain a CCW, then it is upon the people of that state to change it through state legislative action, or move to another state. I'm sure people in TN do not want the CCW laws of TN changed to those like in CA or other MAY issue states.And it will happen. Just another example of the law of unintended consequences.

As for the senior matter. That was an action by the past administration that tried take guns away from seniors who had their financial matters handled by a third party. Which can be quite common with seniors who might be traveling and sign over a power of attorney to a son/daughter, etc., to handle financial matters while they are traveling the world or even the USA in their motor home. Or it could be due to health matters. I know a guy who turned over his financial stuff to his son due to his cancer. It did not stop him from going out into the desert with us when I lived in UT and we used to shoot on the weekends. He still came out and shot a few hundred rounds. However, he did not wan to keep up with all the financial stuff so his son did it for him. Now that he is back and pretty much cancer free, he has taken back over his financial stuff.

Trump overturned that gun grabbing BS early in his administration.

I'm so glad for your friend. I pray that he syas cancer free, God bless him. I had a very good friend die from cancer a few years back and it was a terrible battle for him. The one joy he had until the end was shooting his 686.

 

[SharpDog]

But someday in the future, a liberal congress will come along and say they want all the states' concealed weapon permits to follow a certain policy. And you will start to see permit laws like there are in CA, NY, NJ, etc., in all states.

I thi8nk you are also assuming a liberal supreme court. It may eventually happen but it's not as easy or straightforward as you say!

If you're going to say 'federal incentives' well, that's what's in the 'fix NICS' bill.

Also, btw, who's fearmongering? AFAIK, the protectors of 2A are alive and well.

 

[MEHavey]

This bill amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require each federal agency and department, including a federal court, to:

• certify whether it has provided to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) disqualifying records of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm, and
• establish and substantially comply with an implementation plan to maximize record submissions and verify their accuracy.

The bill amends the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to:

• direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a state implementation plan, including benchmarks, to maximize the automation and submission of mental health and criminal history records to the NICS;
• waive the grant match requirement under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) for a state that complies with its implementation plan;
• reauthorize through FY2022 the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP);
• establish, as a priority area for NARIP grant funding, a domestic abuse and violence prevention initiative; and
• create a funding preference under the NARIP program for states that establish an implementation plan and use grant funds to upload felony conviction and domestic violence records.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absent conspiracy theory, I'm having a hard time finding a problem w/ what appears to be a no-brainer.
Somebody help me out here.....


.

 

[SharpDog]

• establish and substantially comply with an implementation plan to maximize record submissions and verify their accuracy.

to maximize the automation and submission of mental health and criminal history records to the NICS;

erm ... ok, if you think so ... (you did see about the mental health problems with seniors delegating their financial responsibility, didn't you?)

btw, what is your definition of 'substantially comply' ... just curious?

 

[barnbwt]

At one time I though reciprocity could be the 'crack in the dike' needed to get more firearms exposure (from law-abiding folks not criminals) in areas historically hostile, and begin a generational softening of anti-gun policy. Not any more. Now I see it's just a game of avoiding the influence of the dense urban areas and their billionaires for as long as possible, and frankly, drawing as many sharp dividing lines between Us and Them as deeply as possible is the best way to do so. We'll all self-segregate into our preferred little democratic 'laboratories' as intended, terrified of venturing into the others' territory and hopefully leaving well enough alone over there.

While synchronizing concealed carry laws would be nice from a logical standpoint, it will never transpire at this point in practice. NY and CA will simply ignore the rule and arrest whoever they feel like, their courts and district courts will issue tortured rulings to support their long, long, long time anti-gun biases, and SCOTUS will refuse to do what is necessary to settle the issue, since the gun control movement is too big and too important to too many big & important people to kill with a single well-reasoned ruling (besides that one contradictory statement everyone cites in a vacuum, Heller neatly argues for the entire state & federal small arms control apparatus to be dismantled)

 

[MEHavey]

you did see about the mental health problems with seniors delegating their financial responsibility, didn't you?

Where is that in the Bill?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text

...and/or... where is there "interpretive intent" that such a condition would define those as “not appropriate” to be gun owners?

It is also claimed that "....the new bill pushes states and agencies to implement mandatory compliance in reporting any person who meets certain criteria."

Where is that criteria so cited?


.

 

[barnbwt]

The real question with Fix NICS, is what are we getting in return?

The bill is basically intended as a panacea to fix the last panacea (NICS), which our illustrious lazy bureaucrats have seen fit to shirk their duty on. But this time they'll mean it (we promise!)

Since NICS is mostly security theater, though they are supposedly beginning to go after 4473 fibbers (finally, after how many years?), and since it is undoubtedly some (admittedly mostly tolerable) measure of infringement that any honest gun owner or reader of the constitution would realize is unjustified, we should all really view it with a skeptical if not outright hostile outlook. In a zero-sum-game, us versus them sense, Fix NICS is a step toward gun control. This is undeniable, but not necessarily unacceptable, or unavoidable. But what is avoidable, is failing to even try to get something in return for allowing this incremental infringement to go forward. Even if we want it to pass for sake of better policy outcomes (unjust or no), the fact the anti's want it more is reason enough to package it with something to our benefit.

Package it with HPA or repeal of Hughes, and sell it as an increased scope for federal gun registrations (it's not like the anti's don't already believe we all have illegal machineguns and silencers all over the place; heck, most of them assume our AR15s are select fire and bought completely under the table at gunshows)

 

[SharpDog]

As for the senior matter. That was an action by the past administration that tried take guns away from seniors who had their financial matters handled by a third party. Which can be quite common with seniors who might be traveling and sign over a power of attorney to a son/daughter, etc., to handle financial matters while they are traveling the world or even the USA in their motor home. Or it could be due to health matters. I know a guy who turned over his financial stuff to his son due to his cancer. It did not stop him from going out into the desert with us when I lived in UT and we used to shoot on the weekends. He still came out and shot a few hundred rounds. However, he did not wan to keep up with all the financial stuff so his son did it for him. Now that he is back and pretty much cancer free, he has taken back over his financial stuff..

Well, I guess no one will try that again after the Supreme Court decision ... oh wait !

 

[SharpDog]

Where is that in the Bill?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text


.

Search VERY CAREFULLY in the quote below for the word 'MENTAL'

The bill amends the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to:

• direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a state implementation plan, including benchmarks, to maximize the automation and submission of mental health and criminal history records to the NICS;

 

[MEHavey]

I ask again.....

Where is "...delegating their financial responsibility..." currently defined as a mental health disqualifier ?
(save by an Obama-era VA that thereby got their rear end handed to them?)**


**Read https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Subsection (d)(4) "...adjudicated...."

See also
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/agorder0001pdf/download
...2nd page from the end where the original mess all started.

and by the way, the new Fix NICS bill doesn't affect what already is... one way or another.
http://www.guns.com/2018/02/08/lawm...gun-rights-stripped-from-some-veterans-video/
Red herring in that regard

 

[SharpDog]

I ask again.....

Where is "...delegating their financial responsibility..." currently defined as a mental health disqualifier ?

The seniors were denied their 2A rights because the fact they needed help with their finances was prima facie evidence they were mentally defective:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...hecks-seniors-denied-second-amendment-rights/

 

[SharpDog]

And just to highlight the article:

Before throwing more names into the background-check system, it might be time to correct some massive problems with the system. Some 3 million people have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks, almost all of whom were false positives — those who had a name similar to that of a prohibited individual or who were mistakenly flagged in the system for other reasons. Adding even more names to the list will only make such cases more common.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...hecks-seniors-denied-second-amendment-rights/

 

[MEHavey]

As noted in the post op cit, that condition already EXISTS.
The new FIX NICS doesn't affect it one way or another.

 

[SharpDog]

As noted in the post op cit, that condition already EXISTS.
The new FIX NICS doesn't affect it one way or another.

You're mixing veterans with seniors. Veterans was another similar issue. In any case you have FAILED to see this is a FLAW with the fixNICS as proposed since these are all extra-judiciary in that they do not involve a civil finding by a judge. Hence no 4th amendment rights.

 

[gc70]

Also, do you not know they were trying to deny 2A rights to seniors if they had someone prepare their taxes or otherwise assist in their financial affairs ?

It is better to check sources than repeat fear-mongering statements made by others.

The Obama administration published Social Security Administration regulations for NICS reporting in 2016; Congress disapproved the regulation in February of 2017.

The proposed regulation did not have provisions "trying to deny 2A rights to seniors" as some suggested. The proposal was to report to NICS if people met three criteria:

(1) receiving Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefits (not retirement benefits), AND;
(2) receiving benefits based on mental impairment (not retirement), AND;
(3) receiving benefits through a Representative Payee.​

Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, the discussion of the proposed regulation contained the following statement:

We do not intend under these rules to report to the NICS any individual for whom we appoint a representative payee based solely on the individual’s application for and receipt of Social Security retirement benefits.

In short, even the now-revoked Obama-era regulation would have only applied to people with mental disabilities that were so severe they could not handle their own financial affairs.

 

[MEHavey]

It is not failure in FIX NICS, nor was the fiduciary assignment proscription veterans only.
You have in fact assigned a flaw to a Reporting bill that is separate and apart from the fiduciary Definition issue -- totally.

You want a solution?
Fix 27 CFR Part 478, which actually defines what you report

 

[hdwhit]

SharpDog wrote:
Also, do you not know they were trying to deny 2A rights to seniors if they had someone prepare their taxes or otherwise assist in their financial affairs ?

Where is that in any pending legislation?

And, yes, I read in full the text of HR 4477 and nowhere do I find that getting help with your taxes equates to being adjudicated as mentally ill.

This is a legal forum. We are supposed to be discussing the law as it is; not some advocacy group's extrapolation of what could happen in a nightmare scenario in order to wring money out of the faithful. The moderators need to close this and let someone else start a thread about the actual content of the pending bills.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Where is that in any pending legislation?

And, yes, I read in full the text of HR 4477 and nowhere do I find that getting help with your taxes equates to being adjudicated as mentally ill.

This is a legal forum. We are supposed to be discussing the law as it is; not some advocacy group's extrapolation of what could happen in a nightmare scenario in order to wring money out of the faithful. ... .

A very good point. I’ve been a bit loose by allowing more advocacy than usual in light of current circumstances. But folks still need to still get their facts correct, and that includes basing positions on what’s actually in a proposed law — not what some third party says about the law.

 

[SharpDog]

There's an interesting opinion piece from John R. Lott in Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-risk-thanks-to-republicans-in-congress.html