GOA ALERT!
Immigration Bill Could Outlaw Gun Shops
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
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol
Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand
the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings.
And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the
McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.
Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah,
right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun
bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package
negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred
million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the
growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID
bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by
requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card
before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an
anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun
store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just
couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They
have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions
in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator
cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a
significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The
defecting
[seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive
about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different
from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would
essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun
shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun
offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including
paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary
purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to
Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's
extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a
"criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives
by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove
compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not
be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under
the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your
family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working
draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was
concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all
the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country
this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to
be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But
also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian
penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto
the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of
2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has
passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your
driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED
EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to
be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners'
privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by
requiring all present and future private sector employees to be
screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows
for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private
employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that
must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure
documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies
with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can
use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
Why does the Congress seem bent on pushing gun control every chance
it gets? First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill in the House (HR
297) that would greatly expand the Brady Law. We don't need more gun
control as a response to Virginia Tech shootings. We need to repeal
the gun free zones that turn people into mandatory victims!
Now, the Senate wants to sneak gun control past us in the form of an
immigration bill. The Senate immigration package is a horrid piece
of legislation in such a wide variety of respects.
But, in addition to everything else, section 205 could, in the hands
of an anti-gun administration, PUT EVERY MAJOR GUN SHOP OUT OF
BUSINESS.
All it would take is for the shop to commit two felony paperwork
violations -- and an anti-gun administration willing to find that
this was a "primary purpose."
Similarly, a family driving to church or to the movies -- with a gun
in the glove compartment -- could be a "criminal gang" if it passed
two schools, and an anti-gun administration determined that
protecting his family was one of the father's "primary purposes."
Again, I urge you to OPPOSE the immigration package as long as this
anti-gun language remains in the bill.
Sincerely,
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
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol
Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand
the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings.
And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the
McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.
Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah,
right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun
bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package
negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred
million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the
growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID
bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by
requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card
before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an
anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun
store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just
couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They
have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions
in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator
cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a
significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The
defecting
[seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive
about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different
from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would
essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun
shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun
offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including
paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary
purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to
Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's
extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a
"criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives
by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove
compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not
be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under
the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your
family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working
draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was
concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all
the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country
this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to
be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But
also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian
penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto
the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of
2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has
passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your
driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED
EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to
be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners'
privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by
requiring all present and future private sector employees to be
screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows
for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private
employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that
must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure
documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies
with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can
use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
Why does the Congress seem bent on pushing gun control every chance
it gets? First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill in the House (HR
297) that would greatly expand the Brady Law. We don't need more gun
control as a response to Virginia Tech shootings. We need to repeal
the gun free zones that turn people into mandatory victims!
Now, the Senate wants to sneak gun control past us in the form of an
immigration bill. The Senate immigration package is a horrid piece
of legislation in such a wide variety of respects.
But, in addition to everything else, section 205 could, in the hands
of an anti-gun administration, PUT EVERY MAJOR GUN SHOP OUT OF
BUSINESS.
All it would take is for the shop to commit two felony paperwork
violations -- and an anti-gun administration willing to find that
this was a "primary purpose."
Similarly, a family driving to church or to the movies -- with a gun
in the glove compartment -- could be a "criminal gang" if it passed
two schools, and an anti-gun administration determined that
protecting his family was one of the father's "primary purposes."
Again, I urge you to OPPOSE the immigration package as long as this
anti-gun language remains in the bill.
Sincerely,
0
-
URGENT ALERT!!!
Dingell, McCarthy, Working on 'Compromise' Gun Bill
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
"The Gun Owners of America [has] already launched a public campaign
to block the legislation that the NRA supports, warning that the
proposal could 'block millions of additional, honest gun owners from
buying firearms.'" -- Newsweek, April 24, 2007
ACTION:
1. It is imperative that you contact your Representative immediately
and urge him to oppose the McCarthy/Dingell bill. A "compromise"
[read: gun control] deal is in the works and all legislators --
especially those who are pro-gun -- need to hear from gun owners
right away.
GOA members have received a mailing from us within the past week,
asking them to send postcards to their U.S. Senators. It is
IMPERATIVE that you mail those postcards in. We want to increase the
heat on these legislators by deluging them with thousands of
postcards. Now, once you've sent in those postcards, we would ask
you to e-mail the specially-tailored message that is included below
along with contact information.
2. Please circulate this alert to all your pro-gun friends and
family, and encourage them to take action as well.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Anti-gun Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) continues his assault on American
gun owners.
Dingell has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker a
compromise with Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on H.R. 297, a gun control
bill being pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.
The bill provides 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... regardless of the elapsed time since the
disqualifying event."
As GOA has pointed out in previous alerts, this could lead to
millions more Americans being included in the FBI's database of
prohibited persons.
Dingell, being a former NRA board member, is in a unique position in
the Congress on Second Amendment issues. Despite the fact that he
betrayed gun owners by supporting the Clinton semi-auto ban, he is
still viewed on the Hill as one of the few pro-gun Democrats.
So his support gives the bill the appearance of having the support of
gun owners, when actually it is the most massive expansion of gun
control in over a decade.
McCarthy, of course, is the most notorious anti-gunner in the
Congress. Her sitting down with Dingell to decide the fate of our
gun rights is like two foxes deciding how to best guard the henhouse.
To make matters worse, Dingell is in negotiations with the NRA to
come up with a 'compromise' as quickly as possible.
The NRA itself told Newsweek in an exclusive interview on April 24
that the group "backs [the] proposed new legislation" in the House.
Newsweek reported, "The NRA's position puts the group at odds with
the Gun Owners of America, which has already launched a public
campaign to block the legislation that the NRA supports, warning that
the proposal could 'block millions of additional, honest gun owners
from buying firearms.'"
Politicians always seek to pass laws in the aftermath of a tragedy,
as if one more law will stop evil people from doing evil deeds.
Instead of passing more and more laws that ultimately will snuff out
our liberty, we should consider repealing gun control laws that
prevent citizens from defending themselves when a madman strikes.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your
Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can
call your Representative at 202-225-3121 or toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America informs me that H.R. 297, a colossal gun
control bill, is on the fast track. I strongly urge you to oppose
this bill.
The Virginia Tech tragedy, which Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is using to
try to push this bill, highlights the failure, not success, of gun
control.
Instead of passing yet more laws that restrict my Second Amendment
rights, Congress should consider repealing the failed gun control
laws already on the books -- laws that increasingly result in
law-abiding adults being disarmed just when they need their guns the
most.
Please oppose the McCarthy bill, H.R. 297, and let me know what you
intend to do.
Sincerely,
****************************
"Live Fire" radio with Larry Pratt is broadcast by the Information
Radio Network on Saturdays at 12:00 Noon Eastern. "Live Fire" is
simulcast on the web at http://inforadionet.com and previous episodes
are archived at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/ with a number
of listening formats supported.
Podcasts are now available!
Recent guests, among many others, have included:
* Bob Levy, attorney in Parker v. DC
* Former Rep. Tom DeLay
* Dr. John Lott
* Col. David Hunt
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.0 -
"[The NRA's] blessing is required for any bill that enforces or
creates gun laws." -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, July 27, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
It's truly amazing. You wouldn't think that something as
controversial as gun control could fly through the House of
Representatives, and then through a Senate committee without facing
at least one recorded vote.
But on Thursday of last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed
the Senate version of the McCarthy bill by an unrecorded voice vote.
The draft bill -- which is still unnumbered -- is being sponsored by
the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The Brady
expansion provisions in this bill are identical to the ones in the
McCarthy bill and would easily deny thousands (if not millions) of
law-abiding citizens their right to own firearms.
As mentioned in earlier alerts, the NRA and the Brady Campaign are
both in favor of this legislation. In fact, the author of the House
bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), has stated there is no way this
bill could pass without the NRA's support: "The National Rife
Association still wields tremendous influence in the halls of
Congress," McCarthy said, "and their blessing is required for any
bill that enforces or creates gun laws."
The reason why some gun owners support the Leahy-McCarthy measure is
they think the bill will make it easier for many Americans to regain
their rights -- such as military veterans who have been
illegitimately denied a firearm. What they don't realize is that
this is a pie-in-the-sky promise.
Veterans will have to find a pro-gun shrink that will certify that
said veteran is not a danger to himself or others. (Question: Would
you ever certify that someone you don't know could NEVER be a danger
to himself or others?) They will then have to hire a good attorney,
take the government to court and hope they can force the FBI to
delete their names from the NICS system.
It must be stressed that thousands of veterans have already been
illegally banned from owning guns without being convicted of
anything. Not only that, thousands more will have their names placed
on the Brady list of banned buyers if this legislation passes. It is
beside the point that they might be able to get their rights
restored. They never should have lost them in the first place.
Further, they will be forced to spend a lot of money to regain their
gun rights -- rights which were unconstitutionally stripped by the
Leahy-McCarthy bill.
We've already seen that at the state level, getting your guns back --
after being decreed a supposed danger to society -- is easier said
than done. Consider what is ALREADY happening in California.
University of San Francisco professor W. Michael Becker -- a licensed
psychologist and attorney -- points out how in the Golden State, a
gun owner can easily lose his guns if he's deemed to be a danger to
himself and others. And while state law allows the gun owner to get
his guns back (after he's no longer considered a danger), the
retrieval process is by NO MEANS automatic.
Becker says:
It might be argued, that because there is the option of a hearing,
the [California] law provides a reasoned avenue for that person to
regain possession.... But there is a problem with the hearing itself.
In order for the seized weapons to be returned, it is not the
government which must show that the person is a danger to himself or
others, but rather a judge (yes, only a judge, no jury) must be
convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the person will
NOT be a danger to himself or others. What has happened to the
"presumed" innocent (or in this case competent) until proven
otherwise?... This is a dire reversal of our typical constitutional
rights.
The Leahy bill next goes to the entire Senate, but due to the fact
that Congress is now in recess, don't expect to see any action on the
bill until September.0 -
IRS Moves to Threaten Second Amendment Newsletters, E-mail Alerts
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
Thursday, January 15
The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's devastating decision in
McConnell v. FEC -- the so-called campaign finance case that GOA was
involved in. That decision severely restricted broadcast
communications, thus making it more difficult for GOA to hold
legislators accountable on Second Amendment issues.
Now, the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's ruling
to include GOA newsletters, e-mail alerts, and other Second
Amendment communications.
Put out for comment on December 23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one
would notice -- proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creates a broad
new set of ambiguous standards which groups like GOA must follow in
order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Under the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague
"balancing test" to determine whether GOA communications would be
"permitted" by the government.
If the communication occurred close to an election, mentioned an
officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted to put
pressure on congressmen through constituents in each
representative's district, all of these factors would push toward
outlawing the communication.
Although the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection law was repressive
enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far beyond this
anti-gun statute:
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be
restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to
newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other
communications by organizations such as GOA.
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not
automatically exempt communications which occurred more than 60
days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain
monetary threshold.
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would
contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather every GOA
newsletter or alert would have to be published with the
realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its
vague criteria to determine that is was "impermissible."
For example, when GOA learned that an anti-gun rider had been placed
on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, GOA alerted its
members to this provision which would have allowed the Dept. of
Defense to confiscate and destroy any military surplus item that had
ever been sold by the government.
M1 Carbines, 1903 Springfields, Colt SAAs, uniforms, ammo, scopes --
and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been
confiscated and destroyed by the feds.
GOA generated a groundswell of nationwide opposition against the
confiscation attempt. But we especially targeted our focus on the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
The message evidently got through, as the Committee Chairman's
office called GOA to discuss this problem after he received hoards
of calls, postcards and e-mails from our members. The provision was
removed, and Second Amendment rights were preserved.
But had this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency
(which then was under Clinton's control) could have RETROACTIVELY
punished GOA, stating that our activity would have been
impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been facing
reelection!
This new regulation would allow lawmakers to load up gun bills prior
to an election, secure in the knowledge that GOA won't be able to
let you guys know about them in time.
GOA has formally lodged a protest with the IRS regarding this
expansion and abuse of power. To read the GOA comments, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0403.htm on the web.
It is imperative that this rule be defeated!
ACTION: Contact your congressmen. Ask them to write the IRS and
demand that it withdraw proposed Revenue Ruling 2004-6. You can
contact your Representative and Senators by visiting the Gun Owners
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
to send them a pre-written e-mail message.
Your Representative and Senators must submit their comments to the
IRS by January 26.
Pre-written message
Dear
The proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 is an abomination.
It would put the government in charge of determining whether a broad
range of newsletters, alerts, and other communications would be
"allowed" by organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the
National Rifle Association.
Unlike McCain-Feingold -- which was bad enough -- the proposed
Revenue Ruling would not be limited to broadcast ads. It would have
no monetary threshold. And it would not be automatically
inapplicable to communications which occur over 60 days before a
general election.
Please write the Internal Revenue Service by January 26, 2004 and
ask it to withdraw this ill-consider ruling. When submitting your
comments to the IRS, please address your letter to the attention of
Judy Kindell, T:EO:RA:G, 1111 Constitution Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20224.
Sincerely,
****************************
Stop Supporting the Big Anti-gun Internet Service Providers!
The parent companies of AOL / Time Warner / Compuserve, Sprint /
Mindspring / Earthlink, and Southwestern Bell / Prodigy -- just to
name a few -- have all given money in the past to Sarah Brady. Now,
there is an ISP dedicated to gun rights and the sporting life. Plus
a portion of your monthly fee will be donated to GOA. By switching
to Outdoors Unlimited, you move money away from the Brady Bunch and
to the fight for the Second Amendment. Check out
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net and consider switching your
Internet service today.0 -
If this is the legislation to insure that the NICS has the data included that was mandated then it just needs to be written in a way to make sure inocent folks are not included.
This is to make sure that people that have been admitted to a mental institution are not allowed to buy guns. I don't think crazy people should be able to buy guns either, that was what NICS was all about, that and to keep criminals from buying guns.
This legislation is the result of the recent incident that occured at VT. 33 killed! A similar incident in Australia was responsible for citizens losing their rights to semi-auto pistols and rifles and pump rifles and shotguns.
The NRA many times gets involved to offer assistance in writting legislation to insure that people like McCarthy don't just toss everything in but the kitchen sink. We want gun experts writing gun legislation if the majority insists that it be done.
Thats how they get labled as compromising. If they back away and don't help and take the "no new gun laws" position they will not get the chance to correct many of the mistakes when legislation is written by people who know nothing about guns. To then label the NRA with owning that legislation is inapproporate!
GOA is not happy because they are a small organization of less than 500,000 members and they were not included.
I support both organizations and wish they could all just "get along" and work together to slow this massive gun regulation movement that is sweeping America at this time.0 -
I'm sorta of the opinion that if McCarthy is sponsoring it, it must be a bad idea.
Along the same lines of if Schumer is sponsoring it, it must be a bad idea.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
I'm sorta of the opinion that if McCarthy is sponsoring it, it must be a bad idea.
Along the same lines of if Schumer is sponsoring it, it must be a bad idea.
I agree, but Republicans are not pushing gun control in the House or Senate so look at the list of anti-gun democrats and see if you can find many that you would feel comfortable with!! Its real scary!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments