Dem/NRA agreement.

[Al Norris]

already is an appeal process for the vets it doesnt work saw nothing in the bill to help them with certain which affirms feel good status.

What, exactly, is the appeals process, as it currently stands?

Are you speaking of § 925A, Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm? It doesn't address a disability under § 922(g)(4). Or are you speaking of the more general § 925, Exceptions: Relief from disabilities, which was defunded in 1999 (IIRC)?

I havent seen anyone post the negatives yet but have seen ... Some people trying to be Strict Constitutionalist.

I think I've been slighted! Are you saying I should be a "progressive" and read it as a "living Constitution?" :barf:

I've been pretty explicit as to what this bill says, what it means, and how it affects the things it addresses. What exactly do you offer, except generalizations and innuendo?

 

[Eghad]

already is an appeal process for the vets it doesnt work saw nothing in the bill to help them with certain which affirms feel good status.

We must have read different bills as this bill puts the appeals process in the hands of the state courts and outlines the process for doing so.

I havent seen anyone post the negatives yet but have seen some covere the slippery slope affects

The bill levels the slippery slope for those denied thier right to own a firearm by giving tham due process to have the rights restored.

Maybe there is a reason the GOA was the lone dissenter on the bill...because a lot of others thought it was good legislation. I think the GOA article is just sour grapes...because they know they dont have the influence that the NRA Does in Congress. The Goodwill dividends of this will pay off down the road for gun owners.

 

[alan]

Antipitas asks:

Alan, have you read the bill?

Answer is partially. Perhaps a failing on my part, but I find legalese more than slightly difficult to read, much worse than engineering specifications, which I spent a bunch of years looking at.

 

[Al Norris]

Alan, go back to post #59. gc70 has placed a link to a side by side comparison of McCarthy's original bill (HR297) and the bill passed by the House (HR2640EH). It's a 10 page, double spaced PDF. It is quite an easy read, actually.

We really should read these things, before we accept what others tell us they mean.

 

[alan]

Antipitas:

I had read through post #59, as you suggested.

As I had said earlier, please see post #'s 25 and 40. The bill is likely neither the devil nor the saint that it is variously depicted as being. If I might note at this point, given that Ms. Mc Carthy's name is associated with it, if it dealt with REPEAL of GCA'68 and or National Firearms Act of 1934, which it does not, via association, it would be guilty in the minds of many. Seems as if John Dingell's name being tied to it might not help all that much either, given association with McCarthy.

As I had mentioned earlier, if I didn't so do with sufficient clarity I should have, what strikes me as problematic re this enactment is/was process. While the House can certainly enact legislation on the basis of an unrecorded voice vote, under a suspension of the rules, as I understand was the case here, correct me if I'm wrong, such action carries with it, a rather bad smell.

Along with this bill bearing associations with Congresswoman McCarthy, and the above mentioned smell derived from the process of enactment, many people, myself included, have going in, a perhaps jaundiced view of the thing.