Has there ever in history been a bill passed of any kind that was not opposed by somebody? This bill might have upset a few hundred people out of a few hundred million. The vast ,vast majority of veterans that are supposedly being disarmed don't even know about the bill and never will.
President signed gun control bill
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Brett, I understand what you are saying and why you are saying this. To a large extent, I would agree. (note: Even though my reading of Art. I sec. 5 clause 1, does not mandate a quorum for everything)
It is however, now a done deal. So what are your objections to the bill itself?
As to the time limit. It was most likely a compromise (I know, some of you hate that word) made to get the inclusion of the de novo court review. Is that in and of itself bad? Just the fact that we come away with a means and a method to actually restore the rights, I should think you would agree to be good. Regardless of the the time frame.
I can actually see the length of the time for the appeal to the court to work in favor of the individual. Consider for a moment, if you would, how this would look as part of the defense of reinstatement. A year has passed without the individual getting into any further troubles, mental or actual criminal. It goes to further show the (now) stability of the individual petitioning for reinstatement.
Now I'm sure that the anti's did not think of this; I'm sure their only thought was to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. But I suspect the NRA did, and that was why they (the NRA) were willing to make that particular compromise.
Yes, it would have been better if the law read that if the agency was defunded, an immediate de novo review could take place. But it didn't. So I adjust my thinking to the reality of the new law. Hence, I look to see if any benefit (as opposed to the opposite) could be made from this, and that is what I see.
It is however, now a done deal. So what are your objections to the bill itself?
Publius42, even if the federal processes are defunded, you have to agree that now there is a process to restore the rights (remove the disability), that was not there before hand. That is what's new. Can we at least agree on that?Publius42 said:
As to the time limit. It was most likely a compromise (I know, some of you hate that word) made to get the inclusion of the de novo court review. Is that in and of itself bad? Just the fact that we come away with a means and a method to actually restore the rights, I should think you would agree to be good. Regardless of the the time frame.
I can actually see the length of the time for the appeal to the court to work in favor of the individual. Consider for a moment, if you would, how this would look as part of the defense of reinstatement. A year has passed without the individual getting into any further troubles, mental or actual criminal. It goes to further show the (now) stability of the individual petitioning for reinstatement.
Now I'm sure that the anti's did not think of this; I'm sure their only thought was to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. But I suspect the NRA did, and that was why they (the NRA) were willing to make that particular compromise.
Yes, it would have been better if the law read that if the agency was defunded, an immediate de novo review could take place. But it didn't. So I adjust my thinking to the reality of the new law. Hence, I look to see if any benefit (as opposed to the opposite) could be made from this, and that is what I see.
Brett Bellmore
New member
The NRA sold out voters, and it's members. Veterans maybe did ok by this bill.
I think it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, it does open up a path to rights renewal that was closed. For people with a lot of money and time. On the other hand, it represents an effort to get more effective enforcement of a law I think should never have been enacted, and is unconstitutional on several grounds. Why should I cheer improvements to a law I think shouldn't have been enacted, and which should be struck down as a violation of the Constitution?
Mainly I'm pissed off about the procedural matter, and that's NOT history. I happens practically every day, and it's an outrage, and in this case, the NRA was party to that outrage, and party to it specifically to keep US, the members, in the dark. I don't like that, and I'm not going to forget that.
I've been a life member since the '90's, and while I think the NRA does more good than evil, I just wish they could go a year, just one stinking year, without doing something I thought was not just bad judgement, but flat out wrong, in a moral sense.
And seeing to it that the voters don't know who voted for a bill IS morally wrong, of that I am absolutely convinced.
I think it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, it does open up a path to rights renewal that was closed. For people with a lot of money and time. On the other hand, it represents an effort to get more effective enforcement of a law I think should never have been enacted, and is unconstitutional on several grounds. Why should I cheer improvements to a law I think shouldn't have been enacted, and which should be struck down as a violation of the Constitution?
Mainly I'm pissed off about the procedural matter, and that's NOT history. I happens practically every day, and it's an outrage, and in this case, the NRA was party to that outrage, and party to it specifically to keep US, the members, in the dark. I don't like that, and I'm not going to forget that.
I've been a life member since the '90's, and while I think the NRA does more good than evil, I just wish they could go a year, just one stinking year, without doing something I thought was not just bad judgement, but flat out wrong, in a moral sense.
And seeing to it that the voters don't know who voted for a bill IS morally wrong, of that I am absolutely convinced.
I'd like to know how the NRA is specifically responsible for the procedure used (voice vote) to pass the legislation. Because the NRA is not responsible for the manner in which the legislation was passed. It was the House that enacted the bill.
And there's nothing wrong with passing the legislation by voice-vote. But even if you think that there is something wrong with that, then you need to blame every representative for enacting the legislation this way, not the NRA.
And there's nothing wrong with passing the legislation by voice-vote. But even if you think that there is something wrong with that, then you need to blame every representative for enacting the legislation this way, not the NRA.
I'd say when the processes are defunded, since that is nearly as predictable as gravity, but yes, I do agree that for those who can afford it there is now a process. I know it's "loser pays" AFTER the case is over, but you still have to have the extra cash on hand to win the fight, and then you will get it back if you win.
I still think it's outrageous that if the government refuses to comply with the law, you have to wait a year to take them to court over it. If I refuse to pay my taxes, they should have to wait a year to go after me about it! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So you think we got the de novo review in trade? Would the agency reviews, if they were allowed to occur, be de novo? If so, we've traded a de novo review in a timely fashion at government expense for a de novo review after a year at the citizen's expense. Heck of a deal.
I'm going to agree with Fremmer on the procedural question. I think the compromise kind of sux as outlined above, but maybe it was the best we could get.
In any case, if the NRA decided to support the bill, it's still the Congresscritters who are evading responsibility with the voice vote. That's an issue much bigger and broader than just guns or the NRA. If the NRA did not decide that this was the one issue where we should suddenly put a stop to this whole voice vote nonsense, who can really blame them? The two houses of Congress share the blame on this issue, not the NRA.
The justification for voice votes was convenience and necessity, but electronic voting has eliminated those justifications. Now I ask, why should we have voice votes at all? I can press a button just as quickly and easily as I can shout "Aye!" and one leaves a legislative record of my activity and the other does not. Why not insist on accountability?
Te...
You are trying to take a positive statement and flop it into a negative statement. Read it and think about it
If he feels that he has been wronged by the agency then he gets to take it to court in a de novo trial
translation: if the person is capable of responsiblity and making sound decisions he gets his gun rights back and it would not harm the public interest. zPublic interest is a big argument the gun control people use..... I think it got turned on them in this phrase.
You are trying to take a positive statement and flop it into a negative statement. Read it and think about it
If he feels that he has been wronged by the agency then he gets to take it to court in a de novo trial
Eghad asks:
So if they passed in Congress a by voice vote a law removing the GCA, The Brady Bill, and NFA are you going to argue that it shouldnt be passed by a voice vote? That is subtrefuge or will you take the gift and run with it.
----------------------
Interesting point there, except for the fact that the possibility you bring up is not one that's going to materialize, at least not in-so-far as I can see. By the way, the answer to your question, at least re my view, is NO, but once again, it isn't going to happen.
Another point/question, one raised in posts seen elsewhere is the following, and it bears on the position of the President, Bush in this case. Is he essentially pro gun or anti gun. One poster offered that Bush was essentially anti gun in orientation and leanings, noting that if it had been passed, he would have signed reauthorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban legislation. I assume that given the passage by congress of H.R. 1022, McCarthy's pet Assault Weapons Ban proposal, or similar legislation, that he would sign that too. For whatever it is worth, re firearms and perhaps any number of other things, President George Bush is not to be trusted.
So if they passed in Congress a by voice vote a law removing the GCA, The Brady Bill, and NFA are you going to argue that it shouldnt be passed by a voice vote? That is subtrefuge or will you take the gift and run with it.
----------------------
Interesting point there, except for the fact that the possibility you bring up is not one that's going to materialize, at least not in-so-far as I can see. By the way, the answer to your question, at least re my view, is NO, but once again, it isn't going to happen.
Another point/question, one raised in posts seen elsewhere is the following, and it bears on the position of the President, Bush in this case. Is he essentially pro gun or anti gun. One poster offered that Bush was essentially anti gun in orientation and leanings, noting that if it had been passed, he would have signed reauthorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban legislation. I assume that given the passage by congress of H.R. 1022, McCarthy's pet Assault Weapons Ban proposal, or similar legislation, that he would sign that too. For whatever it is worth, re firearms and perhaps any number of other things, President George Bush is not to be trusted.
When two gun rights organizations cannot support each other's efforts...
It looks like a scatter-and-destroy-divide-and-conquer move to me...
I heard there were some gun rights organizations that are actually anti-gunners in disguise... Could the GOA be one of them???
It would be great "coup" for them if they could weaken the NRA in this manner.
I am an Endowment Member of the NRA not because they are perfect, but because they are standing between us and the anti-gunners...and that works for me.
It looks like a scatter-and-destroy-divide-and-conquer move to me...
I heard there were some gun rights organizations that are actually anti-gunners in disguise... Could the GOA be one of them???
It would be great "coup" for them if they could weaken the NRA in this manner.
I am an Endowment Member of the NRA not because they are perfect, but because they are standing between us and the anti-gunners...and that works for me.
Of course,too many people here trust the government to do what it says.
The GOA knows that this bill is flawed over the long term and I believe them.Thats the problem that most of you simply cant see.The gun control act of 1968 didn't set the country on it's ear overnight.
From the GOA.
"So what do the proponents have to say about this?
ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.
ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.
And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.
More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides
a process
for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
only if "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." (Emphasis added.)
Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like
California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where
citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only
says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such
leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!
Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these
people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been
illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting
relief would be "contrary to the public interest."
Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton
Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady
Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.
But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal
actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily
barred from possessing firearms.
True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't
have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.
Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a
veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.
The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White
House.
Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise"
deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were
only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a
Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady
bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had
already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.
Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to
read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago."
The hatred many here show toward the GOA reminds me of the loony left's hatred for President Bush.You accuse Larry Pratt of being a real nut job who's sole purpose in life is to take membership away from the NRA.I will choose to renew my GOA membership with pride and will await the NRA's compromise with Ted Kennedy,Carolyn McCarthy and Chuck Schumer when the next AWB is introduced.
And for those of you who choose to look the other way,here's a look at who sponsored the bill just so you don't forget.Most pro gun folks consider her arch enemy #1 of gun owners in America.Don't think for a millisecond that she will ever sponsor a gun bill that will benefit gun owners in the United States of America!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400257
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400257
I call Bull, Te Anau. The following is 101(c)(1)(C). Tell me how it does what you quoted from your GOA sources.
You are aware that 101(a)(4)(C) and (D) require all departments and agencies to update the records that they have submitted? That alone takes off those 90+ thousand vets.
As I said, your "facts" are not facts at all. They are falsehoods.
Please do not trouble the GOA fanatics with facts. It makes their heads hurt from the effort to deny reality.
Seriously, I was going to send money to the GOS last year until I looked at how lying and deceitful they are. This issue is what really opened my eyes. There are better and more effective outlets for my money than the GOA. I am certain Larry Pratt managed to get some militia members to come down from the mountains, burn their NRA cards and send him cash (those checks and credit cards are a plot to track your money by the NWO). At the same time I am certain he drove away many thinking gun owners who looked at him and said "No Way!"
Seriously, I was going to send money to the GOS last year until I looked at how lying and deceitful they are. This issue is what really opened my eyes. There are better and more effective outlets for my money than the GOA. I am certain Larry Pratt managed to get some militia members to come down from the mountains, burn their NRA cards and send him cash (those checks and credit cards are a plot to track your money by the NWO). At the same time I am certain he drove away many thinking gun owners who looked at him and said "No Way!"
Te Anau,
You still keep quoting the GOA press releases.
Have you read the actual bill ????
As I've stated before UNANIMOUS CONSENT means that each and every member of the House and Senate voted "YES". That's what UNANIMOUS means: Everybody, all of them, each and every last one of them thar' congresscritters said "AYE !" Yep, Even Ron Freakin' Paul. All it takes is for one person to request a vote and then you get the "recorded" vote.
Most things that happen in Congress are by voice vote. They spend most of their time in Committee meetings, meeting their constituents (We, The People), and doing other work (yes, attending fundraisers and meeting with lobbyists), then spending all their time sitting on floor listening to Rep or Sen Blowhard ramble on about what a great thing the Bugtussle Cow Chip Tossing Festival and Contest in his home state is. Sorry, but it ain't Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
And yes, Rep McCarthy sponsored it, but Sen Coburn took it and re-wrote it (Senate Amendment 3887) which in essence striped out the langauge from the bill that passed the House and replaced it with what the NRA helped write.
And previously there was only one way to get off the list and that was through the BATFE's process that Sen Schumer defunded every year. So there previously wasn't any way to get off the list. Now instead of one program, Chuckie will have to try to defund several. And don't think that if he trys that at least one fellow Senator (My money's on Coburn) will will call foul, not to mention the American Legion, VFW, DAV, and every other veterans group. Oh and those 88,000-144,000 veterans who were put on the list. The VA has to send over the adjudication records. So all those guys that weren't properly adjudicated (even if diagnosed ) get taken off the list.
That's why if they say "NO" you can go to court and get a new trial, right now. You don't even have to wait a year. The yearlong wait then trial is only if the .gov agency does nothing with your application for a year.
Te, I'll ask again......Have you read the bill ?????
You still keep quoting the GOA press releases.
Have you read the actual bill ????
As I've stated before UNANIMOUS CONSENT means that each and every member of the House and Senate voted "YES". That's what UNANIMOUS means: Everybody, all of them, each and every last one of them thar' congresscritters said "AYE !" Yep, Even Ron Freakin' Paul. All it takes is for one person to request a vote and then you get the "recorded" vote.
Most things that happen in Congress are by voice vote. They spend most of their time in Committee meetings, meeting their constituents (We, The People), and doing other work (yes, attending fundraisers and meeting with lobbyists), then spending all their time sitting on floor listening to Rep or Sen Blowhard ramble on about what a great thing the Bugtussle Cow Chip Tossing Festival and Contest in his home state is. Sorry, but it ain't Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
And yes, Rep McCarthy sponsored it, but Sen Coburn took it and re-wrote it (Senate Amendment 3887) which in essence striped out the langauge from the bill that passed the House and replaced it with what the NRA helped write.
And previously there was only one way to get off the list and that was through the BATFE's process that Sen Schumer defunded every year. So there previously wasn't any way to get off the list. Now instead of one program, Chuckie will have to try to defund several. And don't think that if he trys that at least one fellow Senator (My money's on Coburn) will will call foul, not to mention the American Legion, VFW, DAV, and every other veterans group. Oh and those 88,000-144,000 veterans who were put on the list. The VA has to send over the adjudication records. So all those guys that weren't properly adjudicated (even if diagnosed ) get taken off the list.
That's why if they say "NO" you can go to court and get a new trial, right now. You don't even have to wait a year. The yearlong wait then trial is only if the .gov agency does nothing with your application for a year.
Te, I'll ask again......Have you read the bill ?????
Were they all present?
We provide Chuck with a large staff for just this kind of work. Those groups couldn't stop him in the past when they could concentrate on only one target. Now they have to defend several targets, and this is going to be easier?
I'm still wondering why anyone should have to wait a year for the government to comply with the law when the funding has indicated they clearly will not comply with the law. If that is the situation, I don't see what's wrong with the GOA's proposal that the government which refuses to comply with the law should just lose outright. As I said, all they have to do to avoid that terrible outcome would be to comply with the law within a year.
- Status