Dem/NRA agreement.

LOL@ Wild

I see that as a good sign that the Dems had to get support from the NRA to pass firearms legislation. I betcha Chucky Schumer is pissed...lol

Whats up with the GOA and the news release? Sounds like sour grapes.

The legislation the NRA signed on to gives the same veterans and others a chance to get their records cleaned up and rights restored, not what the article reported. Seems like a positive for me. Sounds like the opposite of what the GOA article put out.

That plus the fact that the NRA stated that they supported the law as written. If any amendments were introduced to change the law they would withdraw support.

Even the Governor of Virgina signed an executive order to correct what happened at VT.
 
"They are not talking about criminals they are talking about medical records."

No, they're talking about legal records. That's what adjudicated means - legally judged incompetent. Twenty states have already been reporting LEGAL decisions to NICS and if, I say if, this bill passes in some form then all the states will have access to the funds necessary to report people who have been involuntarily committed by the court (court/judge/adjudicated, etc.)

Again, it's not about medical records, it's about legal records.

John
 
I find NO background Checks to be palatable in any form.
Click to expand...
I suppose you feel the same way about people in the child care industry, teachers, law enforcement, etc, etc.
(Pan to eggs frying in a skillet. Voice over:" Here's your brain on drugs!")
:rolleyes:
 
H.R. 2640 passed in House, by voice vote, no roll call.

Strikes me that this is a hellish poor way to treat important legislation, which I assume that this was. I would go so far as to describe House action as DESPICABLE, COWARDLY AND OR LACKING IN INTEGRITY, but that's just the way it strikes me.

The thing will now go to The Senate. Will that body follow the antics of The House, that is an unrecorded voice vote? Who knows. Perhaps readers might wish to contact their Senators, before the fact, and their House members after the fact, or after their display of wanton cowardice, or however you might describe it.

Of course, perhaps it's me that off base, however I do believe that if an elected offical, having voted one way or the other on some particular proposal is not proud enough of their vote to have it listed next to their name, that they might well have a whole lot to be ashamed of, including the way they voted.
 
Jselvy has a valid point, I think. I'm not saying that I agree, but still a valid point.

gc70, if I go OT, please notify...Of all the hoopla between the NRA and Dems, do you think there's a silver lining?

My point is, whether either party is right or wrong, and both are going to try to take a mile when given a yard...

If the NRA can WORK with the opposing party in making the background checks work more efficient than it is now, would it open other avenues of discussion and positive results on future issues?
 
I suppose you feel the same way about people in the child care industry, teachers, law enforcement, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between exercising a right and voluntary employment.
A company has the right to screen their employees. The prospective employee can choose to work somewhere else if they do not like the screening process. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental right, important enough to make the top ten. Would these restrictions still be palatable is you substituted any of the other fundamental rights? A background check to write a letter to your congressman? Forever forbidden to speak because you once shouted FIRE! in a theater on a dare as a teenager? If you don't think words can damage and kill I present for your edification the following:
Kike
Nigger
Spic
Jew
Homo
Juden
Racial Purity
Deviant
Each and every one of those words have killed innocent people.

Jefferson
 
NRA in bed with Demoocrats

Mental health is already in Federal Legislation that is already in force.
Now it is up to each state to be in compliaance with Federal Law. There is no need for more laws.

Think about this:
With all the hipe over what the Democrats are/were going to do, if this new but, un-needed legislation goes through it will be the first bill the Democrats got through congress.
 
Actually, from my cursory reading of the proposed legislation, section 105 is a needed piece.

As you may or may not know, Senator Schumer added a piece of law to an appropriations bill several years ago that defunded the Treasury dept. from giving back the right to offenders.

Section 105 puts this into the hands of the States, circumventing any further authority to reinstate your rights. Granted it is just for these "psychological/mental" defects, but it's a start to get reinstatement out of the hands of the Congress.
 
So then we should abolish the background check and sell firearms to whoever walks in the gun shop door?
Click to expand...

YES!!!!
What part of "Shall not be Infringed" are you having trouble with?

Additionally it would totally kill the black market trade in firearms.
People who are intent on doing evil will acquire weapons anyway. The levels of repeat offenders since the GCA of 1968 prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jefferson
 
Section 105 puts this into the hands of the States, circumventing any further authority to reinstate your rights. Granted it is just for these "psychological/mental" defects, but it's a start to get reinstatement out of the hands of the Congress.
Click to expand...

Just Mental Health? So it doesn't restore funds that circumvented the "INTENT" of the law that would fairly and justly restore a right when a citizen reforms themselves and expunges a record from a felony conviction, many non-violent, and simple misdemeanors where a trial by a jury of their peers could have been denied by the state?

Whoever believes these "mental health restoration funds" will also be defunded sometime in the future please say an undocumented aye? Motion carries. Next business: expand definition of mental incompetent and add numerous misdemeanors "criminals". :barf:
 
J.J., you have it exactly wrong.

This section of the bill grants exclusive authority to the States, to expunge the NICS records.

The feds can't "unfund" something that requires no funding.

And yes, it is a step in the right direction. Once it appears that things aren't going to go to hell in a handbasket, the next logical step would be to turn over all expungements to the States. Kind of like the CCW laws have spread. The Congress won't be involved, it gives back to the States the powers that were stolen by the Feds in the first place.

Now, how is this wrong?
 
This section of the bill grants exclusive authority to the States, to expunge the NICS records.

The feds can't "unfund" something that requires no funding.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. That seems like a good thing.

I was asking you if the criminal expungement issue was included in this also and the answer is no. Why isn't it if they still refuse to fund it? Just wondering.

Agreed, the mental health issue is a step in the right direction. But do you really think that if someone was adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge saying he might be a danger to himself or others could one day, somehow prove that false because his mental condition changed or the allegation was false from the beginning? I think most judges refuse to hear arguments from a prior hearing because they falsely believe it is a waste of their time and will not reverse a prior judgement for any reason. So how would you go about restoring your right if it's just paper talk and restoration means nothing to most judges? Just like they hand out restraining orders these days like candy for subjective not objective reasons because ...the what if factor....?.

I just think this has a high abuse potential.....[sarcasm]but if it saves just one child or abused spouse it will be worth the taking all those highly dangerous firearms.[/sarcasm] :D
 
What part of "Shall not be Infringed" are you having trouble with?
Click to expand...

Gee that adds a lot to a discussion! Like wow, from my cold dead fingers man:cool:

I read the bill. I agree with Al.

The game here in politics is power. The Dems cant keep power with radical or even Clintonite gun control measures.. That means they have to suck up to the only group they can work with, to wit: the NRA...couple that with a more conservative court, Parker, and academic support for RKBA should make a crafty politican recognize that his spots must change.

say what you want about Chuckie, hes a smart politico.

WildwehaveemontherunAlaska
 
Joliet Jake said:
Why isn't it if they still refuse to fund it? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
You would do best to ask your reps or senators that question. I suspect, that most simply don't want to bother with it... The old, "once a felon, always a felon" bit.
Jake said:
But do you really think that if someone was adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge saying he might be a danger to himself or others could one day, somehow prove that false because his mental condition changed or the allegation was false from the beginning?
Click to expand...
The best answer is to read the language of the bill! Section 105 is pretty short and worded in plain language:
SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.​

(a) PROGRAM DESCRIBED. — A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program —

(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;

(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person’s record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and

(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.​

(b) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM CERTAIN DISABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS. — If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution, the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
Click to expand...
So you see, it doesn't have to be a court proceeding at all (except as a recourse to a denial). It can be just about anything your particular State wants to establish. Further, it not just grants an authority, but requires the court to look at the denial and adjudicate a de novo (from the beginning - literally, "from [the] new") review! That's exactly what you said you think they wouldn't do. The language (above) demands it of the court in reviewing your denial. It operates as a new trial, in which you get to present all of your evidence to show that the original adjuducation/committment can now be vacated.

Consider just the 87,000 veterans who have had their PTSD records from the VA turned over to NICS... They will have the opportunity to be able to get their names off the NICS list, if this bill passes. This isn't just paper talk. This is real bonified law. It is a real relinguishing of power by the Feds, back to the States, from which it was taken in the first place.

I hesitate to say it, but here the NRA has applied the principle of Federalism despite having to work with the Dems (or in spite of)!

Your sarcasm, J.J., is exactly misplaced here.
 
What part of "Shall not be Infringed" are you having trouble with?
Gee that adds a lot to a discussion! Like wow, from my cold dead fingers man

I read the bill. I agree with Al.
Click to expand...

Ok, Here I'll "add" to the discussion.

Preexisting Federal Law:
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Click to expand...
ratified: 1791

Until this law is repealed any legislation regarding the "arms" for "the people" and "possession" of same is in violation of this law.
Notice the complete lack of any language regarding "reasonable restriction" or "Interstate Trade." At the time of ratification arms manufacture was not necessarily a local process, therefore the authors and ratifiers of this amendment seem to have meant it to supersede the "Interstate Commerce Clause."

Violating Federal Law is a crime, probably a felony. Thus, when the GCA of 1968 was enacted, the congressmen who voted for it and the President who signed it into law committed a crime. I personally believe that it should be listed as a "High Crime" as set forth under the rules for impeachment. Therefore the NFA of 1936 (I believe that was the date) is also a crime. Thus, also the "Brady Bill" is also a crime and Sarah Brady is guilty of incitement to a felony under the organized crime statutes.
This latest bill is also a crime for the same reasons. The NRA by being a willing party to the commission of this crime is guilty of "Aiding and Abetting" in the commission of a Federal Crime.
Until the amendment is repealed all "gun control" laws are in fact violations of Federal Law.

Does that add to the discussion enough for you WildAlaska. If not I look forward to your counter arguments.

Jefferson
 
Thanks for the great explaination, Antipitas. That clears up alot. Heck, de nova to me meant haleys comet,:confused: for all I know. It looks like this is a good law if nothing else is tacked on at the last minute.

I guess my, in this case, misplaced sarcasm was my cynicism of the seemingly constant politics of taking from the people instead of empowering them and a judicial system that most always seems to work for the government not the people. Congress acts like if they aren't passing laws they are not doing they're job and I am just tired of that attitude. We need less laws not more. Everytime they pass a new one they should have to repeal an old one. How bout that law?

The NRA did good in this case becasue this will help many deserving people clear their names without giving up any thing that wasn't already there. I support this and the NRA's negotiations for this. ;)
 
The piece of legislation pushed through The House under a suspension of rules, and via an unrecorded voice vote, suspension of rules is supposedly reserved for NON-CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSALS, since when was firearms related legislation non-contraversial, see GOA's alert of 14 June, might not be as bad as it is painted, it might be worse. What is particularly galling is THE PROCESS. via which it was passed.

As I said, in the event that any number of our elected things prove unwilling to have their names listed next to their RECORDED VOTES, one is given to assume that they are possibly less than proud of said votes, a whole lot less than proud, and justly so. I guess that is what went on with the enactment in the House of H.R. 2640.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top