NRA vs. GOA -Here we go again... (LONG!!)

[Guest Len]

In another examples of why interested Americans should actually READ THE BILL instead of listening to the rhetoric, the NRA and GOA are at odds over the NICS Improvement Act, recently passed by the House and heading towards the Senate. GOA hates this bill, while the NRA endorses it.

Here's the basic poop:

The actual text of what was passed by the House is HERE

Now the NRA position:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="newsHead1" align="center">H.R. 2640, The “NICS Improvement Act,†Passes House By Voice Vote </td> </tr> <tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="copy">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="copy"> On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,†by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA’s decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

While the media continues to characterize this bill as a “gun-control†measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and “spinning†the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:

• Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
  
• Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a “prohibited†list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
  
• Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability†programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
  
• Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
  
• Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misusedfor unrelated purposes.

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

• Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective†or “committed to any mental institution.†Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
  
• Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.†Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.â€
  
• In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.

If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!

For additional information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018.</td></tr></tbody></table>

And now the GOA:

McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House

-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans

in the dark

Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with

Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with

constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans

indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.

Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally

reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.

Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The

bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun

Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of

America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,

unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world

country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been

struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.

The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check

Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to

this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as

bargaining

chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The

general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill

offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of

Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office

to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;

and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old

Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have

learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.

John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served

since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA

Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA

leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among

the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded

fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all

the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House

leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why

was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no

recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership

to explain to its members what they would gain by working with

McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for

a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went

through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and

recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an

Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday

passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in

over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but

forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of

records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check

is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.

Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater

efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being

unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on

the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before

proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist

that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would

be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting

to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your

dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws

will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is

an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech

tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent

honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed

firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something

the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a

shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected

officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun

control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah

Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest

of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA

leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in

the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism

has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this

bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition

loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the

Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are

ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.

To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups

and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight

every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for

the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill

for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not

for the developments described above.

[Mike.357]

This is a tough nut to crack.

While I believe the NRA would not endorse a bad gun control bill, ( those are three nasty words) I am very leery of giving the libs an inch because no doubt they will come back and ask for even more if they are given this concession. It may well open us up to other restrictions. The libs know their only hope is to inch things forward.

I had already contacted our Senators and voiced my non agreement to this bill before it even left the house. Corker's office sent an email stating he was pro gun and would give my opinion every consideration. Alexander's office sent snail mail thanking me for contacting him over some bill about retirement money????????, I am hoping that was just a clerical error when the envelope was stuffed. Alexander sits in the pro gun corner though.

Not sure if what I do has any bearing either, but at least I took a stand and spoke up.

[The Rabbi]

This is why I am a staunch supporter of the NRA and will never join GOA or those jokers at JPFO.

NRA is the big-daddy of gun orgs. They are the only, only, effective organization lobbying for gun rights. I have been consistently impressed with their professionalism in handling issues, generally in a manner that focuses on results and avoids inflammatory language.

When we first got reports about gun confiscations in NOLA, the NRA launched an investigation to ascertain the facts before doing anything. Once they had those, they filed law suits and pushed legislation. They were succesful in both endeavors.

What has GOA actually done for gun rights, other than sending screaming alarmist hype at its membership? What legislation have they helped introduce? What suits have they filed? That goes double for the JPFO.

The Left is afraid of the NRA. They arent afraid of the other guys. So whom should we support?

[towerclimber37]

I would say that we support the organizations that are most true to the 2nd amendment, and standing up for it.

back room deals by the NRA are suspect.

they have increasingly become more of a Political organization that looks for money, instead of an organization that is willing to do what it takes to secure our rights.

I know one thing, if they pass the Mcarthy bill, I will be happy to tell the federal government that they're welcome to take my firearms if they feel the body count is worth it..and if I survive the first round with them, I'll go hunting the ones that ordered the infringement of my rights.

[Guest Phantom6]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here. I don't think that persons adjudicated mentally deficient should have access to firearms: or knives, chainsaws or even automobiles for that matter. Now, if and when those have been reversed or declared safe and sane then let 'em have guns, knives chainsaws and a driver's license.

[Guest Len]

Agreed. I think many opponents of this bill are concerned about the "massive federal database" it would supposedly create. I'm not so sure about this for two reasons -I'm not convinced such a database does not already exist and I'm not convinced that's what this bill calls for.

Something that struck me as odd was how GOA described the bill as a back-room deal and how they were concerned about the voice vote. The rule in the House is that any member (regardless of party or seniority) can call for a roll-call vote on any bill. No one did. While the press only reports on controversial (ie, close) bills, many pass the House unanimously or with only a couple of dissenters. So voice votes are pretty common, we just don't read about them because they are usually not "newsworthy."

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here. I don't think that persons adjudicated mentally deficient should have access to firearms: or knives, chainsaws or even automobiles for that matter. Now, if and when those have been reversed or declared safe and sane then let 'em have guns, knives chainsaws and a driver's license.

[The Rabbi]

Analyze the GOA missive and you'll see howlers of logic, mainly along the lines of "if X supports this bill it can't be any good." I didnt see one reasoned argument in the GOA screed. All I saw was a lot of NRA bashing so they can get money that would otherwise go there.

[Marswolf]

Well this topic has been a surprise so far. Normally I'm the only one out on the end of the plank supporting the way NRA supports gun rights.

I dropped membership in the GOA years ago because I considered them off-the-wall. That was before I discovered the nature of their bigot executive director. But that's an ad hominem. If nothing else, the GOA is just ineffective while the NRA actually is able to get some things done.

I think they (NRA) are right in this particular legislation. I don't want loonies to be able to legally obtain a gun. And in the current atmosphere after Virginia Tech, there IS going to be a change in the law. The NRA actually has gotten some significant concessions in this matter.

[Guest Len]

The NRA actually has gotten some significant concessions in this matter.

This is true, and is good for the cause. I'd also suggest that, to the general public, the legislation seems reasonable and, in light of VA Tech, needed. GOA's position could be seen by the public as very extreme, which could do more long-term harm to the gun rights cause than the NRA-supported legislation ever would.

Politics at times is a very pragmatic business. It often seems that some folks out on the far left and right extremes of certain issues do not understand this, or are at least too impatient to wait for pragmatism to take its course.

The best way to change the system is to work within it.

[towerclimber37]

This is true, and is good for the cause. I'd also suggest that, to the general public, the legislation seems reasonable and, in light of VA Tech, needed. GOA's position could be seen by the public as very extreme, which could do more long-term harm to the gun rights cause than the NRA-supported legislation ever would.

Politics at times is a very pragmatic business. It often seems that some folks out on the far left and right extremes of certain issues do not understand this, or are at least too impatient to wait for pragmatism to take its course.

The best way to change the system is to work within it.

I agree with that, and well said too Len,

but if NRA is sticking up for gun owners so well, why wouldn't they want to allow scotus to make a decision on the 2nd amendment ruling in the DC gun ban case?

It seems to me that it would be better to get it out in the open where it can be fought, rather than drag it out, or have it happen at a time when carolyn mccarthy holds sway.

[DaveTN]

I don't want loonies to be able to legally obtain a gun. And in the current atmosphere after Virginia Tech, there IS going to be a change in the law.

And since VT had nothing to do with mental patients and everything to do with law abiding students being disarmed let’s hope the changes in the laws fix that problem before it happens again.

[Marswolf]

I'd rather SCOTUS rule on it after we replace another justice or two. What makes anyone think the current court would rule in accordance with the Constitution? Alito is the only solid constitutionalist on the court right now.

I suspect that SCOTUS may not even take the case if asked to do so.

Fortunately, no one outside of the gun community has even heard of GOA.

[towerclimber37]

thanks guys, for informing me about GOA and what is going on with the NRA and SCOTUS.

What I want to see is the Gun Ban repealed in DC...with a court order to back it up!

Unfortunately, as it is with most left and right wing fanatics, if they get the power to do good for people, they usually end up using it for their own ends, or to satisfy agendas that are neither good, nor helpful to the public.

BTW, I'm HOME from our Honeymoon!

Julie was crazy enough to marry me....

[DaveTN]

but if NRA is sticking up for gun owners so well, why wouldn't they want to allow scotus to make a decision on the 2nd amendment ruling in the DC gun ban case?

It is the SCOTUS that is dragging their feet on hearing a case; the NRA has no input on that. But many pro-gun people and groups (myself included) feel that the ruling could be disastrous.

There are only three ways they can rule…

1. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is an individual right. Everyone straps on guns and goes walking around.

2. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is not an individual right; it is a protection for the state.

3. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is an individual right. But the state can regulate when, where and how firearms can be carried.

I don’t think the SCOTUS wants to make the ruling because if they make ruling #1 state and local government will immediately say that they can longer protect their citizens. It’s also a states rights issue.

I don’t think they want to make ruling #2 because it opens the door for states like <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>California</st1:State>, <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> and <st1:State>New York</st1:State> to outlaw firearms period. They just created a whole new class of criminals.

Or they could make some kind of ruling like #3. A “feel good†ruling that really isn’t anything more than we have right now by leaving it up to the Federal Districts.

It seems to me that it would be better to get it out in the open where it can be fought, rather than drag it out, or have it happen at a time when carolyn mccarthy holds sway.

Once it goes to the SCOUTS the fight may be over.

<O:p</O:p

[The Rabbi]

I think your analysis is flawed.

For starters, D.C. needs to file a writ of certiorari before the case can even get on the docket for the Supreme Court. As far as I know they have not yet filed the writ. So the Supreme Court isnt dragging its feet.

Second, no one outside of the ill-informed on gun boards thinks that the 2nd Amendment (or any of them for that matter) confers an unrestricted right. So your #1 outcome just isnt in the cards.

Third, there remains the question whether the 2A is binding on states. They could always decide it is binding only on the Federal govt.

Even if they side with the circuit court, it will mean only that the DC gov't will have to draft some kind of law that allows for private ownership of guns. My guess is they will look to NYC for their guidelines on that one.

If the SC decides that there is no individual right, we are right we are now. Many state constitutions, including California and TN btw, include a right to bear arms clause. So in those states that is controlling.

While I would like to see the SC declare an individual right, I dont think things will change radically from where they are now. Maybe in time.

Meanwhile I'd like more attention on the legislative front, especially getting national reciprocity passed.

[Guest Len]

The Roberts court has so far tended to rule very narrowly in cases it has decided. History indicates that a "grand slam" ruling one way or the other out of this bunch is unlikely. This is especially true with with Kennedy as the swing-voter. He has not shown comfort with siding the conservative block (or the liberal block for that matter) except in narrow cases.

As far as national reciprocity goes, there are a few states standing in the way of that as well as constitutional issues to consider. Probably harder than it seems for state's rights reasons as much as anything else.

Oh, and congrats Tower on your nuptials! Hope you visit TGO more that you are back home. As for your question, a 100% pure pro-2A ruling would put the NRA out of business, or at least out of the business of asking us for money all the time. (A little conspiratorial of me, I know...)

[DaveTN]

I think your analysis is flawed.

No doubt.

For starters, D.C. needs to file a writ of certiorari before the case can even get on the docket for the Supreme Court. As far as I know they have not yet filed the writ. So the Supreme Court isnt dragging its feet.

Many cases are waiting in the wings for the “individual right†answer. The D.C. decision is nothing that will force a ruling.

I posted this in another thread but I will post it again here…

This is only the second time a federal appellate court has decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The Fifth Circuit also has reached this result. In contrast, the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment only protects a collective right. (See Decision at 16.) The Second Circuit (which covers <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City>New York</st1:City>, <st1:State>Connecticut</st1:State>, and <st1:State>Vermont</st1:State>) still has not addressed the issue. As a resident of <st1:City>New York City</st1:City>, I would love to see the Second Circuit follow the D.C Circuit's lead and declare the NYC gun laws unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Second Circuit is very liberal, so this is extremely unlikely to happen.

Undoubtedly, the D.C. Government will seek reconsideration of this decision by the full D.C. Circuit ("en banc") and/or will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless the D.C. Circuit en banc reverses this decision, I think it is very likely that the case eventually will be heard by the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it agrees to hear, the existence of a disagreement among the various federal appellate courts on a major issue of constitutional law (known as a "circuit split") makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will take action to resolve the disagreement. Although the D.C. Circuit has the smallest geographical jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeal (it covers only the <st1:State>District of Columbia</st1:State>), it generally is considered the most important of the circuit courts (for several reasons). Consequently, its decision in this case will be accorded considerable weight when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear the case on appeal.

Second, no one outside of the ill-informed on gun boards thinks that the 2nd Amendment (or any of them for that matter) confers an unrestricted right. So your #1 outcome just isnt in the cards.

Oh I agree that it just won’t happen. But you can’t deny that the majority of 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment proponents think this is how it should be, and believe that there is a chance of that being the ruling.

Third, there remains the question whether the 2A is binding on states. They could always decide it is binding only on the Federal govt.

That is #2 and that is what I fear the ruling will be. That would clear the way for states to ban firearms totally.

Even if they side with the circuit court, it will mean only that the DC gov't will have to draft some kind of law that allows for private ownership of guns. My guess is they will look to NYC for their guidelines on that one.

What D.C. does after the fact is moot to the rest of the country. The question is can that case cause the court to rule on the “individual rightâ€. That will (in my opinion) end the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment battle.

<O:pDon't you agree?

If the SC decides that there is no individual right, we are right we are now.

We are here in <st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State>. But for states like <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> and <st1:State>California</st1:State> that would be devastating. <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> could expand the <st1:City><ST1:pChicago</st1:City> handgun ban to the rest of the state without having to worry about having the Courts tell them they can’t.

Meanwhile I'd like more attention on the legislative front, especially getting national reciprocity passed.

I thought that passing the legislation that allowed retired Leo’s to carry in any state might be the beginning of a national carry permit. But with a few states in the way I can’t see that happening.

<O:p</O:p

[The Rabbi]

I dont think you read what I wrote. If you did, your comments in no way refute it.

You write "it would clear the way for states to ban firearms." I already wrote as to why that cannot happen. Please review my argument there.

I also wrote as to why California will not ban all handguns. Please review what I wrote. It is for that very reason that San Francisco's handgun ban has been struck down repeatedly by their supreme court.

Illinois also has a RKBA provision in its state constitution, Article I Section 2 to be exact. I do not know why IL residents have not challenged Chicago's ban on that basis. But any attempt to extend it to the rest of the state will almost surely meet with challennge.

[dralarms]

Face it folks.

The NRA = Pit bull, well trained but still does crap that you don't like.

The GOA = Pekingese, little yard dog that if it does eventually sink it's teeth into something they will have already robbed you blind.

[The Rabbi]

That's the best description I've seen to date.

[dralarms]

Thanks.