GOA vs. NRA ?
Do we have two different opinions on H.R. 297.
The first one is from the GOA.
The following one is from the NRA.
Any comments?
quote:The GOA post.
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
quote:The NRA post.
This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control-especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation-center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.
This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects-an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person's eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state's Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on "substantial evidence" of the state's "reasonable effort" to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
The first one is from the GOA.
The following one is from the NRA.
Any comments?
quote:The GOA post.
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
quote:The NRA post.
This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control-especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation-center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.
This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects-an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person's eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state's Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on "substantial evidence" of the state's "reasonable effort" to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
0
-
Wow. It's hard to believe that the NRA doesn't see the down side to this bill. 0 -
Kind of a good illustration of where ones money and support should be placed at, don't you think????
This coming from a badly disillusioned, soon to be former, NRA Life Member, who is hitching up with GOA.
No compromise, what a concept.[;)]0 -
Exactly why I won't join the NRA(Joined and quit the NRA twice). Some second amendment defenders, huh?[V] 0 -
Were's TR, I'm sure he'll be apologizing for the NRA on this one. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MT357
Exactly why I won't join the NRA(Joined and quit the NRA twice). Some second amendment defenders, huh?[V]
Fair enough. You won't join the NRA. What organization will/have you sent your dues to in order to join?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy Forever
Were's TR, I'm sure he'll be apologizing for the NRA on this one.
I think the NRA is missing a lot of the parts of this bill that are dangerous to us gun owners. BTW fatboy, tell us exactly what gun rights group you have joined and support?
I myself am a dues paying member of the NRA, GOA and SAF. I send part of the money, money I could spend on guns and ammo, to three national gun rights organizations. Such organizations are only part of the solution but every part working together helps us all. In addition I also take individual action such as contacting my legislators, letters to the newspaper, etc.
What do you do?0 -
Well TR, I'm a member of the GOA, I also send letters to my state, and federal representives, and senators. As well as write letters to the editors of our local newspapers. quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy Forever
Were's TR, I'm sure he'll be apologizing for the NRA on this one.
I think the NRA is missing a lot of the parts of this bill that are dangerous to us gun owners. BTW fatboy, tell us exactly what gun rights group you have joined and support?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy Forever
GOA.quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy Forever
Were's TR, I'm sure he'll be apologizing for the NRA on this one.
I think the NRA is missing a lot of the parts of this bill that are dangerous to us gun owners. BTW fatboy, tell us exactly what gun rights group you have joined and support?
Well alright then. If you are a dues paying member of GOA, even though the NRA and GOA don't agree, you and I can agree that we need to fight for gun rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by MT357
Exactly why I won't join the NRA(Joined and quit the NRA twice). Some second amendment defenders, huh?[V]
Fair enough. You won't join the NRA. What organization will/have you sent your dues to in order to join?
I agree! Join GOA and show your support for gun ownership.
Over 80 million hunters, target shooters, gun collectors out their folks. Only a tiny handfull join the NRA or GOA to stand tall for gun rights.
If we don't make a proper show of strengh to Congress we will not retain our gun rights. Those rights are under assualt big time and have been eroded quite a bit in my 65 years.
Pick an organization that you trust and join to back gun ownership rights. Congress cannot ignore 80 million gunowners unless they are fragmented into small groups and individuals that fight among themselves about their ownership issues.
Stand together and become one of the largest protest groups in the US.
Do you think the NRA would feel that they have to compromise on gun issues if they were 80 million strong??? Think it through folks! The NRA is the largest gun group and they are only a tiny handfull of gun owners yet you expect them to do all your work for you without your backing?? What are they 3 million, 6 million strong. Their influence is amazing with that many members! But it is so easy for Congress to laugh at them when they know they are "Not" supported by "Most" of the gun owners in this country.[:0][:0][:0]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by MT357
Exactly why I won't join the NRA(Joined and quit the NRA twice). Some second amendment defenders, huh?[V]
Fair enough. You won't join the NRA. What organization will/have you sent your dues to in order to join?
Well, I happen to belong to the GOA however, I wasn't aware that a person had to buy their way into a group as a prerequisite to owning firearms in this country.0 -
both-t 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MT357
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by MT357
Exactly why I won't join the NRA(Joined and quit the NRA twice). Some second amendment defenders, huh?[V]
Fair enough. You won't join the NRA. What organization will/have you sent your dues to in order to join?
Well, I happen to belong to the GOA however, I wasn't aware that a person had to buy their way into a group as a prerequisite to owning firearms in this country.
You know that no one is claiming that is the case. But if any gun owners enjoys and wants to keep his guns, he needs to spend some time, money and effort and get into the fight to keep his guns. And part of that fight involves joining and supporting at least one of the few national pro-gun rights groups.
Any gun owner who won't join the fight is just like a citizen who likes living in America but won't defend America. And if you are a good GOA member, why don't you post incouraging others to join with you and help save gun rights rather than making misleading claims about "having to buy into a group, etc.?"0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments