Oh look (yawn), GOA and JPFO are attacking NRA again

[Geister]

Mike and Daniel T,

You all might not be pushing for new gun control laws you all are certainly pushing for stricter gun control laws. That's the same in my book.

The government should not have the authority to regulate firearms when a crime with a victim has NOT been committed simply because the government tends to abuse the power it's given. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. are pretty well-known examples, and there's plenty of smaller incidents which occur EVERY DAY.

When the NRA compromises and pushes for these "lesser" gun control laws that's just giving the government more unconstitutional power and authority it simply does not need. The issue goes past the Second Amendment for me. I see it as an issue of expanding government power that only benefits those already in power within the government.

Used to as long as you minded your own business and didn't harm anyone, the government didn't even know you existed. Nowadays you have to ask their permission for just about everything, and if you don't they'll throw you in jail for engaging in one of your rights.

 

[jpk1md]

+1 on that summary of F4GIB

 

[Daniel T]

The only thing I'm "pushing" for is for people to actually know what it is they're talking about before getting hysterical.

 

[mdao]

If Bob is cleared by the REAL psychiatrist, it does not erase the "finding" (guess) made by the ill-informed so-called judge. And under 18 USC 922, it lasts forever.

One slight error.

The initial finding isn't what gets you adjudicated as a mental defective. The ruling that the judge makes after the p-shrink makes their diagnosis is the one that gets you adjudicated as a mental defective. As noted, the judge does not have to follow the p-shrink's recommendations and can pretty much put whatever the hell he wants.

Sure, it's possible go back to court to get the ruling overturned, but good luck with that...

 

[Art Eatman]

From Post #20: "The kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 2 minute "hearing." The police say "Bob is acting weird again. We need to get him evaluated." The only way to force Bob to see a mental health "professional" (many states don't require the "professional" to be a trained psychiatrist, a psychiatric SOCIAL WORKER will do) is to BRAND him as "as danger" to someone, then you can reguire him to be examined. All of this happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis. The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge)."

The NRA is not supporting "this kind of adjudication". "This kind of adjudication" is a state problem, subject to control by a state legislature. Existing federal law accepts this sort of "bad" adjudicated result just as it accepts results from states which provide full protection for an accused.

This bill does not control how state courts go about their business in determining mental competency. Congress operates on the basis that state courts are competent, regardless of our opinions about them. If you do not like how your state does this, either move away or agitate your legislature to provide the protection you think is necessary.

The bill provides funding to better enable the existing law about transfer of state court findings to NCIC. I fail to see how that's any sort of new gun control.

Art

 

[Limeyfellow]

The bill provides funding to better enable the existing law about transfer of state court findings to NCIC. I fail to see how that's any sort of new gun control.

+1

No new law is happening here. All they doing is giving the funding to keep the NCIC records up to date and not the years behind schedule and broken records that they are now. The laws that this will be funding were passed decades ago.

 

[fitty]

Oh look (yawn) people questioning the nra get trashed again

I'm so tired of the knee jerk loyalism to the nra. Don't gun owners know that nra supported 1934 ban, 1968 ban, 1986 ban, & lauten-turd ban? Nra wouldn't lift a finger to help get free carry passed in N.H. and WY eithr.

I'm sick of it being quasi illegal to question the nra in certain gun owner circles. It's almost as if the nra apologists are avoiding things. Hmmm, no THAT certainly couldn't be it

 

[Soybomb]

I think GOA and JPFO are necessary to try to keep the NRA honest and true to their goals.

Derek Zeanah said everything I'd want to say far better than I could have said it right down to my dislike of Larry Pratt. If the JPFO could keep true to their current ideology while putting a bit more tact into the message and polish on their presentation I'd sure be in love with them.

 

[fitty]

a bit more tact into the message and polish on their presentation I'd sure be in love with them.

I miss the days when men cared about principle and basically ignored "tact" and "polish." Why do americans sit and wait to be convinced of things nowadays? Why do americans value symbolism more than substance? Why do they focus on the sales job instead of the product? Feminization? When I talk to old guys, they HATE "polish." Now even guys are demanding "polish" and appealing packaging or they'll take the ball and go home.

 

[Soybomb]

I miss the days when men cared about principle and basically ignored "tact" and "polish." Why do americans sit and wait to be convinced of things nowadays? Why do americans value symbolism more than substance? Why do they focus on the sales job instead of the product? Feminization? When I talk to old guys, they HATE "polish." Now even guys are demanding "polish" and appealing packaging or they'll take the ball and go home.

I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that american's have never cared about packaging. If anything our dress has gotten far more relaxed over the years.

Anyway regardless of personal views on the subject, appearance counts. The JPFO comes off as a bunch of loons with extreme ideas when they put up images like these

I believe they would reach more people and do more good if they kept their extreme ideas but wrapped it up in a way that wouldn't make most people think they were loony tunes at first glance. Ymmv.

 

[F4GIB]

MikeFL86 posted:

Well, Mike Haas, where's your snappy retort for this?

Indeed, where is it?

 

[Noban]

Screw the NRA. We have an anti-CCW sheriff in our County and the NRA supported the bastard during the latest election, even went as far as to send out bright orange cards pimping his candidacy.

The NRA was warned repeatedly about his position, and gave him an "A" rating nonetheless because he filled out their questionaire. Chuck Schumer can fill out the same card and get an "A" rating.

A group of us affected by the sheriff's policy have tried on numerous occasions to work with the NRA to get the sheriff a publicly proclaimed "F" as he deserves, but to no avail. NO ONE will call us back or write.

So tell me again why I should support an organization, of which I was a member for 25 years, that won't deal with an essential grass roots issue? Again, screw the NRA.

Noban

 

[ilbob]

The NRA has done more for gun owners than any other single group.

The NRA has also made a whole series of deals with the devil.

It is up to history to decide whether the balance is good or bad for gun owners.

I am inclined toward thinking it is on the good side. There are political realities you have to face up to, and one of those realities is that you cannot get everything you want. Sometimes you are lucky not to get kicked in the nuts. Sometimes you get that kick.

The NRA has no power at all to make legislation. it can only try to mold it in the best interests of most gun owners.

Having said that, there are some things they have chosen to accept that I wonder about, and some of their tactics make me wonder now and then.

 

[Noban]

The NRA has an easy task at hand with us - denounce the sheriff as the back-stabing, tin-badge hypocrite that he is, or lose members. It's very simple.

I will not tolerate being ignored by an organization of which I am a member.

 

[MikeHaas]

The kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 2 minute "hearing." The police say "Bob is acting weird again. We need to get him evaluated." The only way to force Bob to see a mental health "professional" (many states don't require the "professional" to be a trained psychiatrist, a psychiatric SOCIAL WORKER will do) is to BRAND him as "as danger" to someone, then you can reguire him to be examined. All of this happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis. The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge).

If Bob is cleared by the REAL psychiatrist, it does not erase the "finding" (guess) made by the ill-informed so-called judge. And under 18 USC 922, it lasts forever.

IMAL, it's a kangaroo court.

P. S. Remember that, in 2007, most psychiatrists consider gun ownership alone to be a "sign" of mental illness.

P. S. The unintended consequence of this is that after I explain the consequences of seeking mental health treatment to my clients, NONE will ever go voluntarily. Would you?

Someone asked what my "snappy retort" is for this? Don't need one. Just existing law, which ALREADY states...

"...(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-....

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;....

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce..."

- Excerpts from Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922 (g), the 1968 Gun Control Act (as amended) which makes it illegal for persons adjudicated as mentally defective from receiving or possessing firearms.

It is a strawman argument to implicate the court system as no longer being serious in its determinations. That is not what is being discussed and a different issue. If we are to believe what GOA/JPFO says, courts would be doing this NOW - forget about NICS checks.

So this argument is ALREADY busted. It's just not rational to believe that, simply because we would additionally be checking mental health records in NICS, that the courts are going to suddenly become dishonest or incompetent in their determinations. This is sound legislation and it provides for appeal.

Mike

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Someone asked what my "snappy retort" is for this? Don't need one. Just existing law, which ALREADY states...

And what you're not recognizing is that this is strengthening a system that limits our ability to purchase arms by tying it into many more databases than it has ever been tied into.

This puts us into a situation where future changes to disqualification criteria, or creative interpretation from BATF or state agencies can limit firearms sales in ways we haven't even begun to ponder. It will happen eventually.

Take your blinders off. This represents in increase in infringement long-term, in exchange for no short- or long-term gains for us. Why even push this?

So this argument is ALREADY busted. It's just not rational to believe that, simply because we would additionally be checking mental health records in NICS, that the courts are going to suddenly become dishonest or incompetent in their determinations. This is sound legislation and it provides for appeal.

Dude, it's not about the courts. It's about future congresses, and the interpretations and implementations that are pushed off on bureaucratic organizations like the BATF.

 

[F4GIB]

Answer this question with a person's name, poster who wishes to remain unnamed, and you are off the hook in this thread.

WHO was Mr. Chu's legal representative (competent, as required by the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility, in mental health issues) at the hearing before the part-time (a lawyer with no more mental health training than I have - zero) judge at which it was determined that he was a "mental defective" ???

Using the records of a Monkey Tribunal doesn't improve NICS.

 

[Master Blaster]

Its Pretty obvious to me that you folks dont have a basic understanding of the NRA, and what it actually does and doesn't do, education in that regard is your friend.

Do you know that the NRA is a Non-profit organization, and cant spend once cent on Lobbying, or legislative activites without losing its non profit status??

The NRA promotes the shooting sports and provides training and support for gun clubs, training programs, and competitions like the national matches and various shooting sports and leagues. When you join the NRA you are sending your money to support the shooting sports. The folks who help provide a place for new shooters, who recruit new participants in our sport through local NRA affiliated clubs, and sanctioned training and shooting events. Without new shooters being recruited to our sport it will die. That is why we need the NRA. GOA and JFPO dont have any shooting clubs they dont sponsor national level training or competition in our sport. They don't recruit new gun owning shooters by inviting the boy scout troops and girl scout troups and 4H club members to some try out shooting. Even if their parents dont own guns. I know, I am one of those folks who at age 10 shot his first real gun at an NRA youth shooting day, and with an NRA trined instructor at my Boy scout camp. The NRA got me into the shooting sports, without them I would not be a firearm enthusiast.

THEN there is the ILA, the institute for legislative action, they also ask your for money, which I dont give them, they are the lobbing arm, that gets involved in making contributions to law makers and sponsoring legislation. They are a registered lobbing organization, and they are pushing the political activities that folks are complaining about here.

The Real power of the NRA is the activism of its individual members, there are 4-5 million of us, and we contact our legislators and we vote. The real power is that the NRA gets people who would otherwise never participate in the shooting sports involved. We need them to recruit new shooters.
We need the NRA to give us the power in numbers so that when we as individuals call our legislators and say we are NRA members THEY LISTEN.

 

[MikeHaas]

Let's illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

New Law: Assume "former murderous dictator of a 3rd world country" exists as a class of prohibited persons.

Suddenly, a "former murderous dictator of a 3rd world country" commits a tragic shooting. We learn that NICS hasn't been checking for "former murderous dictators of 3rd world countries" because of privacy concerns. Instead of wide restrictions on the purchase of guns that would affect ALL OF US, NRA suggests that NICS now check for "former murderous dictators of 3rd world countries".

But - JPFO and GOA raise hell, claiming that ANYONE can be falsely classified a "former murderous dictator of a 3rd world country" and we MUST oppose this due to the increase in the potential for abuse. Oh, and NRA is betraying all gun-owners by proposing this change. "See how we are saving you from the evil, incompetent NRA? Send us your money instead."

GOA/JPFO, to stay alive, have to keep your fear of government at a fever-pitch, wanting everyone to forget that such concerns are the reason 3-4 million gun-owners have joined together to support the NRA for this very purpose. They simply MUST dilute your faith in that huge, $250 million/year member-elected association and instead convince you that they, in their self-appointed role as NRA attack dogs (nobody elects them to anything and you CAN'T vote them out), are your salvation.

GOA is particularly loathsome in this respect, calling themselves the "NO COMPROMISE" gun group, when they, with their parent company, Gun Owners of California (GOC), are the only gun groups I know to have used their members' money to vigorously endorse THIS GUN-CONFISCATING REPUBLICAN for California governor just months *AFTER* he banned SKS Sporters and ordered them confiscated as the state's Attorney General. (I guess they think we little people don't pay attention out here

That's one heckuva compromise, don't you think? And this is who you believe over NRA?

Mike

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Stop trying to make this about the GOA and JPFO. This is about the NRA's push to strengthen NICS in a way I believe we all agree will do nothing to prevent folks like Cho from getting access to firearms. At the same time, there's a percentage of us who see how this new, improved, smarter, and more connected NICS can be used against us in the future. I say "us" in the broad sense because I don't know what they might use as a disqualification in the future.

NICS is an unconstitutional infringement. An organization that's supposedly there to protect our constitutional rights has no business pushing for more infringements, or to strengthen infringements currently in effect. If the NRA ever wants my dollars, then NRA members and those who sometimes work "behind the scenes" like you need to learn that your organization is going in exactly the wrong direction on this one.

(And it's not just this one -- this is just the one in front of us).

I know it's easier to attack organizations like the GOA and JPFO, but to be honest, on this issue alone, I wish one of them was pushing for it instead of the NRA. The NRA can force this through, which is a real shame.

 

[Texshooter]

Thank you, D Zeanah,

Why is the NRA focusing on GOA/JPFO? Trying to deflect some attention away? Why so sensitive about what other pro 2nd amendment groups think about the NRA or some other policy?

I am a NRA life member, but find this curious.

 

[F4GIB]

Posted by unnamed person:

This is sound legislation and it provides for appeal.

Where in HF 297 does it do this?

 

[hankdatank1362]

Well, like it was already said, the NRA has screwed the pooch on many occasions.


And they've also done more for gun owners than anyone else.

They've been around the longest. They know how to play the game. It's called politics. Same reason GOA isn't worth a damn... they're not willing to compromise. Unfortunately, legislation is like a marriage, and it requires compromise.

Now, I see how this might be a bit of a slippery slope, what with strengthening NICS and all, but it's not like the NRA is trying to introduce new legislation... they're actually fighting it by proclaiming that new legislation wouldn't be necessary if we enforced what was already on the books. It's basically a good faith gesture, which I, for one, appreciate, if it'll keep the anti's off my back.

<>

(Now I don't know enough about the JPFO to formulate an opinion, so I'll keep my mouth shut on that.)

 

[MikeHaas]

Answer this question with a person's name, MikeHaas, and you are off the hook in this thread.

WHO was Mr. Chu's legal representative (competent, as required by the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility, in mental health issues) at the hearing...

I'm not on any kind of hook; this is a discussion. All here will believe as they choose. If they want to ignore what a highly experienced volunteer with no financial incentive to lie over these private companies run by unelected bosses impugning the integrity of the world's largest and most effective member-elected gun-rights organization, it's their right.

And again , your argument is a strawman, having nothing to do with the effectiveness of checking mental health records in NICS. To give your "argument" credence, one has to believe that 1) courts cannot be trusted to declare someone mentally defective and 2) those who are mentally defective should have access to firearms.

Since both statements contradict existing, established law that long precedes the current controversy and are not subject to change (or even the subject of this debate), I suggest your argument is irrational and downright silly. Now, that's to be expected from GOA and JPFO as they try to scam bucks out of well-intentioned but frustrated gun-owners, but I do expect more here. Your argument needs to be based in these realities:

1. Courts are going to declare people mentally defective. Since there has been no controversy regarding sane gun-owners being misclassified as such, there will not be a problem if we also check mental health records through NICS.

2. Mentally-defective people are currently banned by law from receiving or possessing guns. Even GOA is not disagreeing with this, their scare tactic has to do with convincing you that YOU may be incorrectly labeled "mentally defective". But whether or not we are checking NICS has no bearing on whether that happens and in fact, there is NO evidence to suggest a problem in that area. Only GOA and JPFO scaring you that there will be.

Mike

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Ya got it backwards

"Why is the NRA focusing on GOA/JPFO? Trying to deflect some attention away? Why so sensitive about what other pro 2nd amendment groups think about the NRA or some other policy?" It is the other way around Tex Shooter. The GOA is focusing on the NRA.