I called the nra about HR 297
I called the nra and spoke to 2 different people in the NRA/ILA department about HR 297. one said the NRA supports the Bill and the other said they have made NO decision on the bill. it sounded to me that the NRA is selling us out, but just doesn't want us to know.
Every NRA member needs to call and tell them in no uncertain terms We the NRA does not support this bill.1-800-392-8683
If this bill passes all of us can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye.
ALSO LET YOUR REPRESENTIVES KNOW HOW YOU FEEL
Every NRA member needs to call and tell them in no uncertain terms We the NRA does not support this bill.1-800-392-8683
If this bill passes all of us can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye.
ALSO LET YOUR REPRESENTIVES KNOW HOW YOU FEEL
0
-
What's it about? 0 -
I just got off the phone with NRA/ILA the lady on the phone made it sound like a good thing but claims that the NRA is neutral on the proposal and is "monitoring" the bill.
I've also called my representative and senators today and told them I oppose it and 1022 and that I support Ron Paul's Second Amendment Protection Act.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
What's it about?
Basically it takes another bite out of the Second Amendment by redefining "ajudicated mentally defective" to include any person who ever spoke to a psychiatrist for any reason, including servicemen who seek any sort of counseling while on active duty.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00297:0 -
I just hung up the phone with the NRA-ILA.
I did not like the answer I got simply because it should be a resounding HELL NO we we do not support HR 297.
But in the spirit of fairness I will wait for the NRA to come out with an official position on the bill.
THEN and ONLY then will I make my mind up if the NRA has sold us down the river.0 -
This bill needs to define very carefully what constitutes the definition of "mentally ill". It should be folks that were committed with serious screws loose. Patients with ongoing issues.
Not poeple who seek help during emotional turmoil such as a divorce, a death in the family or other similar situations.
The current Congress will use this as an excuse to keep half the White, Southern Men from owning firearms. Especially the Baptists![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
What's it about?
Basically it takes another bite out of the Second Amendment by redefining "ajudicated mentally defective" to include any person who ever spoke to a psychiatrist for any reason, including servicemen who seek any sort of counseling while on active duty.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00297:
Come on now, hyperbole and misinformation aren't helping your argument any. That's not what the bill says at all. I read the text of the bill, it said those "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I looked up the definition of "mental defective" according the United States Code, this is what it said:
Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a,
876b.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
This bill needs to define very carefully what constitutes the definition of "mentally ill". It should be folks that were committed with serious screws loose. Patients with ongoing issues.
Not poeple who seek help during emotional turmoil such as a divorce, a death in the family or other similar situations.
The current Congress will use this as an excuse to keep half the White, Southern Men from owning firearms. Especially the Baptists![;)]
The bill does very specifically define "mental defective." It also states that only a court or other legal authority can make that determination, simply seeking psychological treatment or psychiatric care does not disqualify you. See the above post.0 -
AH, yes...the sweet voice of reason, whispering in our ear again..."Take the medicine...its good for you"..
Yet another encrochment..yet another pending victory for the anti-gunners...and so-called 'pro-gunners' aiding and abeting them.
It is SOO hard to tell the difference, sometimes, between Anti and Pro gunners...
3-4 years ago, there were 450 MILLION perscriptions for Prozac/Ritlin other mind-altering drugs issued to Americans...
pass this law...and BATF will incrementalize it till ALL those 450 Million will be tracked down and disarmed. Since there are only 300 Million in this country...hmmmm ?
Come to think about..this might well be a GOOD thing..I wonder how many of those are gun-owning Anti-Gunners...?0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I just hung up the phone with the NRA-ILA.
I did not like the answer I got simply because it should be a resounding HELL NO we we do not support HR 297.
But in the spirit of fairness I will wait for the NRA to come out with an official position on the bill.
THEN and ONLY then will I make my mind up if the NRA has sold us down the river.
Sorry to inform you, but they have been doing that since the 1930's, to include the 1938 and 1968 Gun Control Act. They helped author it and have supported/assisted in the passage of countless pieces of gun-control legislation since.
Research and see for yourself. Certainly don't take my word for it.
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. The NRA's actions are there, past and present, for all to see.
As I said in a recent thread on this subject....It's kind of like finding out that your wife has been cheating on you...., but it is what it is.0 -
Would this new bill have had any affect as far as stopping the VT shooter from buying pistols if it would have been in place? By the wording, I'm highly doubting it and appears to be what's already on the books.
They aren't going to send 300 million people to court and rule that they're all insane. This appears to be targeting the extreme cases which they have been for years already.
This is a worthless bill. If they pass it, stop there and think they've done something, who cares?0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
What's it about?
Basically it takes another bite out of the Second Amendment by redefining "ajudicated mentally defective" to include any person who ever spoke to a psychiatrist for any reason, including servicemen who seek any sort of counseling while on active duty.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00297:
Come on now, hyperbole and misinformation aren't helping your argument any. That's not what the bill says at all. I read the text of the bill, it said those "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I looked up the definition of "mental defective" according the United States Code, this is what it said:
Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a,
876b.
Sir, I appauld and salute you for your actions that have introduced some "sanity" into the debate on this thread. I for one would prefer that ANYBODY that has truly been judged/recognized as being insane not have an offical, legal right to purchase a firearm. Then, when some of the crazies DO finally get a firearm (I already know that anyone who wants one bad enough WILL get one) then at least their crazy actions (such as VA Tech shooter) will not be seen by the public and the media as the crazy actions of a LEGAL gun owner gone bad.
It looks to me like once again the NRA is being made to look like the enemy of gun owners when often it is the only friend we have.0 -
Some folks will just never get it.
A LEGAL GUN OWNER is a citizen of these United States....not some made up figment of fearful peoples minds.0 -
Read GOA alert. This bill sucks hard! 0 -
According to the anti-gun factions, all gun owners are crazy.
Think about that.
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
What's it about?
Basically it takes another bite out of the Second Amendment by redefining "ajudicated mentally defective" to include any person who ever spoke to a psychiatrist for any reason, including servicemen who seek any sort of counseling while on active duty.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00297:
Come on now, hyperbole and misinformation aren't helping your argument any. That's not what the bill says at all. I read the text of the bill, it said those "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I looked up the definition of "mental defective" according the United States Code, this is what it said:
Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a,
876b.
Sir, I appauld and salute you for your actions that have introduced some "sanity" into the debate on this thread. I for one would prefer that ANYBODY that has truly been judged/recognized as being insane not have an offical, legal right to purchase a firearm. Then, when some of the crazies DO finally get a firearm (I already know that anyone who wants one bad enough WILL get one) then at least their crazy actions (such as VA Tech shooter) will not be seen by the public and the media as the crazy actions of a LEGAL gun owner gone bad.
It looks to me like once again the NRA is being made to look like the enemy of gun owners when often it is the only friend we have.
That is already the law. Form 4473 #11 / f.
Have you never filled out a 4473? How did Cho pass a background check?
Good god man, pull you nose out of waynes ass long enough to see this (another anti-gun law)is not a solution! That maybe, just maybe the laws regarding medical privacy need to be changed? so NICS would have picked up on cho's court ordered hospital visit?
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.0 -
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
Read GOA alert. This bill sucks hard!
How? What am I missing? This won't accomplish anything that isn't already being done. The form I've always filled out asks if you've ever been found to be mentally handicapped. If you answer yes, you can't purchase the gun.
If you lie, they're doing a background check anyway.
Our FOID card form asks if you are mentally retarted. If you are, you don't get a card.
What changes? If this bill would have been in effect, the VT shooter still would have been able to LEGALLY buy anything he wanted.
This doesn't change anything.
Anybody who 'Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs', or 'has to plead insanity' in order to get out of a crime they commited (normally used after they've already murdered someone) MOST LIKELY shouldn't be buying guns.
If you guys think every retard and murderer bailed out by an insanity plea should be armed, that's great. That's nice of you. But there's already laws on the books against it!
And again, this still wouldn't have stopped the VT shooter from purchasing anything. The bill is window dressing and accomplishes nothing.0 -
quote:
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
Edit:
Actually you're right. The second highlighted part is trying to sneak that in under the radar. I had to read it a few times. Now it's getting too vague, open for too much interpretation.
You almost gotta have a law degree to understand this BS! In that case, I hope it doesn't pass, unless they eliminate that part.0 -
quote:Originally posted by vess1
quote:
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
You left this part out:
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--
That's all that is talking about and describing. A ticket for a minor in posession would not be a disqualifier.
So you are willing to let a appointed judge define and refine this?
I'm not.
And we have seen how willing the NRA is to take things to court.
Allrighty then[:D]0 -
[:D] Yeah, you're right. I jumped the gun on judging the bill. Should have known they'd try to sneak something else in there. 0 -
all of you who think another law that is already on the books is a good thing sit back and wait until the BATF come to get your guns then i hope you cry and whine. this bill is too open ended the anti's can add to or take away any part. it will make criminals out of honest people who are not mental. i'm not the smartest person on the planet but i can tell when someone is trying to take my rights away, this is a stepping stone for more gun control nothing else. 0 -
quote:
posted by dongizmo
That is already the law. Form 4473 #11 / f.
Have you never filled out a 4473? How did Cho pass a background check?
Good god man, pull you nose out of waynes ass long enough to see this (another anti-gun law)is not a solution! That maybe, just maybe the laws regarding medical privacy need to be changed? so NICS would have picked up on cho's court ordered hospital visit?
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
Here is a more complete C&P of part of the proposed law.
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
(ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force, such as assault and battery, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; and
It refers ONLY to Domestic Violence acts. So that "ticket I got as a minor in possession? Guess what!" IT DOESN'T APPLY.
Get your head out of your own ass.
BTW, I do not and have never agreed with the law providing for a misdemeanor forever prohobiting someone from owning a firearm.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:
posted by dongizmo
That is already the law. Form 4473 #11 / f.
Have you never filled out a 4473? How did Cho pass a background check?
Good god man, pull you nose out of waynes ass long enough to see this (another anti-gun law)is not a solution! That maybe, just maybe the laws regarding medical privacy need to be changed? so NICS would have picked up on cho's court ordered hospital visit?
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
Here is a more complete C&P of part of the proposed law.
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
(ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force, such as assault and battery, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; and
It refers ONLY to Domestic Violence acts. So that "ticket I got as a minor in possession? Guess what!" IT DOESN'T APPLY.
Get your head out of your own ass.
BTW, I do not and have never agreed with the law providing for a misdemeanor forever prohobiting someone from owning a firearm.
Like I said, your willing to trust a appointed judge to interpt this?
I'm not.
Remember that little decision about the seperation of church and state?
It does not take much for a activist judge to make law.
so is wayne following sheryl crows advise?0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:
posted by dongizmo
That is already the law. Form 4473 #11 / f.
Have you never filled out a 4473? How did Cho pass a background check?
Good god man, pull you nose out of waynes ass long enough to see this (another anti-gun law)is not a solution! That maybe, just maybe the laws regarding medical privacy need to be changed? so NICS would have picked up on cho's court ordered hospital visit?
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
Here is a more complete C&P of part of the proposed law.
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
(ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force, such as assault and battery, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; and
It refers ONLY to Domestic Violence acts. So that "ticket I got as a minor in possession? Guess what!" IT DOESN'T APPLY.
Get your head out of your own ass.
BTW, I do not and have never agreed with the law providing for a misdemeanor forever prohobiting someone from owning a firearm.
Like I said, your willing to trust a appointed judge to interpt this?
I'm not.
Remember that little decision about the seperation of church and state?
It does not take much for a activist judge to make law.
so is wayne following sheryl crows advise?
Explain what you mean by this. Or is it nothing more than a lame attempt by you to continue to add insults to a discussion?
BTW, if a part of a law is directed solely at "Domestic Abuse", then there is no way a "activist judge" can tie that to your example of a "minor in possession".
Another question for you. It is fine by me if you dislike and refuse to support the NRA. This tells me what you WON't do to help with the gun rights battles. But tell me what you HAVE done and will do for the gun rights battles. Other that post negative remarks and complain about the NRA. I'm guessing you are like the majority of gun owners and don't do one damn thing to help us.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:
posted by dongizmo
That is already the law. Form 4473 #11 / f.
Have you never filled out a 4473? How did Cho pass a background check?
Good god man, pull you nose out of waynes ass long enough to see this (another anti-gun law)is not a solution! That maybe, just maybe the laws regarding medical privacy need to be changed? so NICS would have picked up on cho's court ordered hospital visit?
I found this interesting:
quote:
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
That a enhancement for you, remember that ticket you got for minor in possesion? guess what! that is a disqualifer.
Brady should be repealed, not enhanced.
Here is a more complete C&P of part of the proposed law.
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--
(A) has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code;
(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;
(ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force, such as assault and battery, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; and
It refers ONLY to Domestic Violence acts. So that "ticket I got as a minor in possession? Guess what!" IT DOESN'T APPLY.
Get your head out of your own ass.
BTW, I do not and have never agreed with the law providing for a misdemeanor forever prohobiting someone from owning a firearm.
Like I said, your willing to trust a appointed judge to interpt this?
I'm not.
Remember that little decision about the seperation of church and state?
It does not take much for a activist judge to make law.
so is wayne following sheryl crows advise?
Explain what you mean by this. Or is it nothing more than a lame attempt by you to continue to add insults to a discussion?
BTW, if a part of a law is directed solely at "Domestic Abuse", then there is no way a "activist judge" can tie that to your example of a "minor in possession".
Another question for you. It is fine by me if you dislike and refuse to support the NRA. This tells me what you WON't do to help with the gun rights battles. But tell me what you HAVE done and will do for the gun rights battles. Other that post negative remarks and complain about the NRA. I'm guessing you are like the majority of gun owners and don't do one damn thing to help us.
Fox, where were you in 94 when I was standing on the mall in DC for the ONLY pro gun rights march ever held? I had 5 kids in grade school, and I spent the time and money to be there, where were you? better yet, where was the NRA? they denounced it, said it was a bad idea, the same tactic works well for million moms, and a million men, but it is not any good for gun owners?
Tell me fox, where were you during this event?
safe at home in Kansas I bet.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
24 comments