Dem/NRA agreement.

As per gc70s post:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date
Click to expand...
First, I don't have any problem with stringent background checks.
Second, States should be required, not given money, to keep the info updated and penalized if they don't.
 
Stringent background checks are a violation of basic rights including the right to privacy.
They are not talking about criminals they are talking about medical records.

Jefferson
 
Last edited:
Thanks for reposting this, DB. I moved gc70's post over here from the other thread.

Here's the GOA's stance on this bill: http://www.gunowners.org/a042307.htm

An excerpt:
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I’ve never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.

Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. 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. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?

Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
Click to expand...
The new agreement makes provisions for people to get their names removed from the list - as I understand it, they didn't have that provision before. These names have been in the database for almost a decade. This seems like a good change to me.

Again, from GOA:
Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with that.

Here's their most recent contribution to the subject: http://www.gunowners.org/a051607.htm
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.
Click to expand...
I can't help but wonder what the ultimate effect on crime would be if we completely repealed all gun control laws. It would likely spike, then quickly drop down below current levels as the criminal element gets what's coming to them from law-abiding, armed citizens.

-Dave
 
Before I make any comments, I'm gonna have to read this bill.

As it stands, McCathry's HR 297 has done nothing since being referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 02-02-2007. If this is the bill we are talking about, nothing has actually been filed.
 
I would like to see the language of the bill before reaching a firm conclusion, but my first reaction is that this is a politically astute move by the NRA.

The Dems recognize that gun owners have clout. They chose two gun-friendly members to negotiate a deal with the NRA rather than trying to push McCarthy's existing proposal.

The underlying premise can't be successfully fought on the basis of gun rights. NICS already requires consideration of mental adjudications. If anyone stands in the way of the collection of that information, let it be the mental health profession.

A formal NICS appeal system is badly needed. This is a great time, with the media gushing over the troubling effect war has on all soldiers, to correct the injustice of the Clinton administration's PTSD denials.

When the inevitable amendments start rolling in, the Dem leadership has to help beat back the anti-gun wackos or the NRA can walk on the deal.
 
When the inevitable amendments start rolling in, the Dem leadership has to help beat back the anti-gun wackos or the NRA can walk on the deal.
Click to expand...

That's a solid point. This is one key statement that I'm thinking too, gc70. I also haven't read the whole bill either. I don't have a formed opinion on background checks, and not one on this new bill. But, it might have a silver lining.

I have a hard time believing background checks really do any good. The issue that the gov't. claims can be ultimately resolved if all states' laws follow that of Vermont on 2A. Maybe I'm wrong. Just because it hasn't given me any grief when I buy a gun, doesn't mean it hasn't for another.
 
This scares me. I have had anti-depressants prescribed as an adjunct to therapy for chronic pain. I haven't read the bill, but with the hoplophobes' propensity to abuse any gun law I'm sure it's cause for concern.
 
From the Washington Post:

... To sign on the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks.

Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental-health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.

The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicate names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.
Click to expand...

The full story can be found here, but you have to acquire a login:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=democrats nra&
 
I suspect that an unintentional effect will be that people who NEED mental health assistance will neglect to go for treatment out of fear of getting black marks on their record. It needs to be made clear that ONLY a judgement of mental incompentence will apply.

If people start thinking that they'll be denied for getting a bottle of Prozac from a doctor, they just won't go.
 
I love how the Dems had to approach the NRA and be nice. Like asking the bully who has been wacking you around for lunch money for years to take you to lunch :)

WildlikealireserveontherestAlaska
 
Despite the rhetoric from the GOA, this particular bill isn't Mccarthy's HR 297. That bill is going nowhere real fast. What this bill is, can't be seen, as it has yet to be filed.

Like the "compromised" Comprehensive [amnesty and] Immigration bill that was introduced in the Senate, we simply don't know yet. That bill, wasn't available for almost a week after debate was started. The GPO didn't put it out for public consumption, until after it was printed and distributed to the Senate.

I suspect that the same will happen here. When it is announced that this new NICS bill has been filed, then we will get to see just what the NRA has bargained for.

To speculate that this new bill is the same as HR 297, is just that. Mere speculation.
 
registration

Just another sceme to register people.why is it there was no problem before the 1950???:mad:actualy maybe before kennedys emagration bill in 1964.:mad:
 
Stringent background checks are a violation of basic rights including the right to privacy.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

ANY background check is a violation of your basic rights and privacy to some extent just on the face of it.
So is not being allowed to drive 90 mph whenever and wherever you please.
I like the idea of people being as "clean" and as close as possible to what our society deems "normal" before getting licensed to purchase firearms.
Of course it doesn't mean squat anyway if some nutcase wants a gun.
If you want one, you'll find one.
 
What the heck is normal

There are many that will say that it is not normal to want to own a gun. Thus you must be some sort of mental defective to want one.
Basic rights is what its all about.

Jefferson
 
I'm fine with adding those judged "mentally defective" to the list, but the bill would also add people who have been sentanced to probation for minor substance infractions to the list from what I have read so far.

Lunatics... fine. Jimmy who got busted for a skimpy joint of reefer in 1984... not fine.

That's how I see it, anyway. People sentanced to probation long ago for drunken antics or marijuana should not have to appeal anything to maintain their firearms rights. If it ain't a felony or at least a violent crime, taking away their right to own a gun is not justified.
 
There are many that will say that it is not normal to want to own a gun. Thus you must be some sort of mental defective to want one.
Basic rights is what its all about.
Click to expand...
So what, if any, background checks would you find more palatable?

If it ain't a felony or at least a violent crime, taking away their right to own a gun is not justified.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Considering that Felons will have guns regardless of the law.
Considering that "All Men are created equal"
Considering "The Right of the People...Shall NOT be Infringed."
Considering that history proves that any form of registration leads to confiscation.
Considering that various Federal and local Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly been censured for abuse of the databases within their jurisdictions.

I find NO background Checks to be palatable in any form. Sorry to be an absolutist, but the Law is clear.

Jefferson
 
I sent the following to the NRA:

I am terribly disappointed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is too complicated for NRA leadership to understand. Compromising our gun rights away a little bit at a time is NOT representing me, my family nor my country.

[Slideman]
NRA Life Member
Idaho

I shake my head when I read about stuff like the "provision against charging a fee" as if congressmen were actual honest people who could be trusted from year to year or even moment to moment. The Democrats walked out of their meeting chuckling at the rubes from the NRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top