>>>We've got to stop HR 2640 NOW!!!<<<
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.
At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).
Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.
Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."
Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?
The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.
After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.
Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.
The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.
But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?
For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.
Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."
The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.
This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.
Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).
Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.
We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.
Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.
This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.
But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.
The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.
Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.
Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.
Stay tuned. There is more to come.
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.
At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).
Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.
Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."
Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?
The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.
After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.
Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.
The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.
But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?
For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.
Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."
The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.
This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.
Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).
Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.
We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.
Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.
This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.
But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.
The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.
Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.
Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.
Stay tuned. There is more to come.
0
-
thank you sir.
where do i sign up?0 -
Let us know what we can do! I already do all the NRA stuff but if there is more? 0 -
AAh yessss, the fractious contention that the NRA backs this latest iteration of AWB puts GOA in quite a harsh light. You see, if GOA were able to turn things around by themselves, there'd be no reason to badmouth any other "gun" group, and the letters for more money would be speeding to your mailboxes.
'Tis a pig in a poke, gentlemen; the bill allows states to send to NCIC any records of admissions to mental health facilities for use in the great database for "instant" checks. It's a poorly conceived and raggedly arranged piece of "legislation", to be sure; but it or something like it will pass in the Dim-controlled Congress. Especially if we waste time here bashing ANY gun group instead of making those all-important emails and phone calls!0 -
See the sticky at the top of the page and contact your Senators and the President. 0 -
I think should be in gun rights forum. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I think should be in gun rights forum.
Perhaps as a Duplicate thread, but it is VERY applicable to the GD forum and has a much greater chance of reaching more people here. This is an issue that affects EVERYONE on this forum.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I think should be in gun rights forum.
Should the STICKY that has been here in GD for almost 4 MONTHS be moved there too?
The Gun Rights forum already has a thread about this. Is it not allowed "anymore" to have threads about the same topic in more than one forum?0 -
Hey you two, stop that bickering right now, or we're turning this thread around and going back to the top!
(muttering under breath something about moderating the Moderators)0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Hey you two, stop that bickering right now, or we're turning this thread around and going back to the top!
(muttering under breath something about moderating the Moderators)
[:D]You must be talking to Pickenup and SP...[:D]0 -
Here's the text straight from the horse's, um, er, well, you know:
(d) Information Excluded From NICS Records-
(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nor may the Attorney General make available to such system), the name or any other relevant identifying information of any person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of paragraph (1) before such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
There's ways to get any info you want OUT of the system, if you just contact your local LEOs.
Here's the link for the entire text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110SyfTor:e1776:0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments