Dem/NRA agreement.
- Thread starter gc70
- Start date
As per gc70s post:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/
Second, States should be required, not given money, to keep the info updated and penalized if they don't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/
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.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
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:
Again, from GOA:
Here's their most recent contribution to the subject: http://www.gunowners.org/a051607.htm
-Dave
Here's the GOA's stance on this bill: http://www.gunowners.org/a042307.htm
An excerpt:
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:
Can't disagree with that.
Here's their most recent contribution to the subject: http://www.gunowners.org/a051607.htm
I can't help but wonder what the ultimate effect on crime would be if we completely repealed all gun control laws.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.
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.
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.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
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.
Silver Bullet
New member
From the Washington Post:
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&
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.
If people start thinking that they'll be denied for getting a bottle of Prozac from a doctor, they just won't go.
Wildalaska
Moderator
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
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.
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.
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.
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
applesanity
New member
Regardless of whether I agree with their positions, I've always had serious reservations about lobbyists drafting our laws.