Background check bill and rkba sites/organizations

[agile_1]

So I am reading this article about the Background Check bill that is making it's way through the bowels of our countries law manufacturing system.

Found a couple interesting tidbits:

"We decided to back it because we believe it is the right thing to do,” said Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which counts 650,000 members and supporters among its ranks."

...

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was founded in 1972 and functions as a kind of sister organization to the Second Amendment Foundation, a legal think tank and law firm based in Bellevue, Wash., that, along with the NRA, has been a leader in filing major court challenges to halt restrictions on gun rights.

The chair of the Citizens Committee, Alan Gottlieb, told supporters in an e-mail Sunday that the group would embrace the Manchin-Toomey compromise. He urged members to read the senators’ compromise proposal to understand why the gun-rights group would back it.

...

The NRA reiterated late last week that it opposes their legislative proposal, saying it would do no good in fighting criminal use of guns and would expand government powers.
Gottlieb made clear in his e-mail that he enthusiastically backs the bill the NRA opposes.


"If you read the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment, you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains," Gottlieb wrote.

He then listed the gun-rights advantages in the bill: “interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry."

Gun-rights group endorses Manchin-Toomey background check bill

In reading the article I also decided to find, bookmark and review the webistes for The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation and Keep and Bear Arms. The site designs are so similar that I have to believe that they are all maintained and developed by the same groups. But that's OK. Nothing wrong with organization as long as it's above board.

Is anyone a member of these organizations? Any comments or perspective on their efforts to preserve and advocate for the 2A? How do you think the difference of opinion with the NRA will play out?

Personally I would like to see these groups unite and combine efforts. It would only make them stronger. As it is, I can see the Bloombergs of the world trying to use the political divide to their advantage.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Flashback to FOPA

Shades of 1986 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which worked out so well for us!

 

[agile_1]

Just looked up the Firearm Owners Protection Act as I was not sure what it included. Whatever happened to the "free passage" provision? Do individual states essentially ignore it? I think the "travel with firearms protection" would be a good thing. Then again the devil is in the details. Travel with an unloaded locked firearm is better than not being able to transport at all. If I am licensed in the state I leave and the state I am travelling to, why should I have to worry about all the states in between?

Of course it is up to states to follow the law.

So what went wrong with the act?

Firearm Owners Protection Act

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [SUP][4][/SUP] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

Looks like this is when we lost the right to fully automatic weapons.

On edit: as for the updated laundry list of prohibited persons, well I am not sure I disagree with it in principal.

 

[xtry51]

Shades of 1986 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which worked out so well for us!

[/thread]

 

[agile_1]

[/thread]

Meaning what? No discussion allowed? No one has anything intelligent to say - no comments beyond one whine?

 

[xtry51]

If something passes it will be a net loss not a gain. Allowing the Feds to have more power, even when it is in your favor, is a fool's errand. Ignore history at your own peril.

 

[agile_1]

If something passes it will be a net loss not a gain. Allowing the Feds to have more power, even when it is in your favor, is a fool's errand. Ignore history at your own peril.

So basically you are saying NRA right, other groups wrong. OK. It's a legitimate position.

But if the bill gets shoved through it is better to have had some active participation than to let the other side write the entire legislation. Why not push for some form of universal carry license that is good in all states. If they want something they have to give something. If that kills it, good. Nothing gets through. And it keeps the 50 state carry license issue front and center.

It does look increasingly likely (at least possible) that nothing is going to get through anyway...
Party Rifts Complicate Chances for Gun Bill Passage

 

[Apathesis]

Blackmailing states by denying them federal money if they don't violate HIPAA is pretty messed up. I have a feeling plenty of states will have no problem shitting on the rights of their people if it means they get more $$$ by sending mental health records to NICS.

 

[agile_1]

Blackmailing states by denying them federal money if they don't violate HIPAA is pretty messed up. I have a feeling plenty of states will have no problem shitting on the rights of their people if it means they get more $$$ by sending mental health records to NICS.

Blackmail is a dirty business. But if I am not mistaken, poor mental health care is often cited as a reason for gun violence, especially mass shootings. Somehow we need to make getting real and effective mental health care easier and preferable to going on a shooting rampage.

The federal government is always handing out money with strings attached. Instead of paying doctors to rat out their patients, they should pay them to provide more and better care.

 

[Bfatz]

Blackmail is a dirty business. But if I am not mistaken, poor mental health care is often cited as a reason for gun violence, especially mass shootings. Somehow we need to make getting real and effective mental health care easier and preferable to going on a shooting rampage.

If that be the case its time to round up 3/4 of the US population as most if not all have mental issues, their Voting record proves this. Don't fall for the made for TV drama, I am sure a lot of whatever is pushed through is already etched in stone, but at least they ( Congress ) are giving us the appearance of something actual.

( Key word appearance )

 

[mac1911]

Paying for "more or better care" will not get the control "they" want to achieve. The quickest way to get guns out of our US citizens hands is to deam us unfit because of our "mental state" ohh and wait...What process needs to be followed to add "on or ever been prescribed "mental health medications" shall be seen unfit ? compromise usually doesnt end well....

 

[namedpipes]

...But if the bill gets shoved through it is better to have had some active participation than to let the other side write the entire legislation...

Sure. Except the end result is a small (or large) erosion of rights.

ANY ground given is lost forever.

 

[Kevin_NH]

There's a big difference between the "good guys" participating in the process by providing amendments and in supposedly pro-gun groups supporting the passage of the bill.

Even with the amendments, it's a bad bill and should be opposed by anybody who claims to be on our side. Any politician or group in favor of passage, loses my support forever.

 

[agile_1]

If that be the case its time to round up 3/4 of the US population as most if not all have mental issues, their Voting record proves this. Don't fall for the made for TV drama, I am sure a lot of whatever is pushed through is already etched in stone, but at least they ( Congress ) are giving us the appearance of something actual.

( Key word appearance )

I don't advocate, in any way manner or form rounding people up. Just the opposite. I am advocating real and accessible health care.

Paying for "more or better care" will not get the control "they" want to achieve. The quickest way to get guns out of our US citizens hands is to deam us unfit because of our "mental state" ohh and wait...What process needs to be followed to add "on or ever been prescribed "mental health medications" shall be seen unfit ? compromise usually doesnt end well....

Anyone who wants or needs care should be able get it easily and without strings attached. Unless they present a clear danger to themselves or others - and in my mind simply taking medication does not indicate that - doctors have no business ratting on their patients. Passing laws that require them to do so is not right. Anyone who proposes those kind of gestapo tactics should be run out of office.

Sure. Except the end result is a small (or large) erosion of rights. ANY ground given is lost forever.

I sort of/think I agree with this. First - there must be active participation in the process. Second, any ground given, must provide some tangible benefit (ie: a reduction in gun violence) to all. Incremental erosion of the 2A is not acceptable, and my view is that incremental erosion is the strategy, and prevention of gun violence is a convenient pretense.

There's a big difference between the "good guys" participating in the process by providing amendments and in supposedly pro-gun groups supporting the passage of the bill.

Even with the amendments, it's a bad bill and should be opposed by anybody who claims to be on our side. Any politician or group in favor of passage, loses my support forever.

Forever is long time.

CCRKBA PULLS SUPPORT OF MANCHIN-TOOMEY ALTERNATIVE OVER RIGHTS RESTORATION
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has withdrawn its support for the Manchin-Toomey alternative background check measure because a key amendment for restoration of firearms rights is not being considered.

...

"If the Manchin-Toomey alternative now goes down to defeat," he continued, "Democrats in the Senate, led by Harry Reid, have only themselves to blame. While the Manchin-Toomey alternative has a significant number of gains for gun owners, it will not include this key provision, upon which our support was dependent.

"We cannot, in clear conscience, continue to support a measure that will not include this critical relief component," Gottlieb concluded. "If Democrats like Schumer thought we could be flim flammed on this, they were wrong."

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman

Note: Gottleib spoke at the GOAL rally in Boston on 4/4/13.
http://www.goal.org/april-rally.html

I still see these sites/groups as viable pro-2A lobbying organizations.
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

No I am not on the payroll.

Final edit to this post - adding this link that provides a "better" discussion of the ccrkba's decision to "support" the bill (support which they ultimately withdrew)
http://www.examiner.com/article/com...vitably-surrenders-constitutional-high-ground

 

[namedpipes]

Paying for "more or better care" will not get the control "they" want to achieve. The quickest way to get guns out of our US citizens hands is to deam us unfit because of our "mental state" ohh and wait...What process needs to be followed to add "on or ever been prescribed "mental health medications" shall be seen unfit ? compromise usually doesnt end well....

Anyone who wants or needs care should be able get it easily and without strings attached. Unless they present a clear danger to themselves or others - and in my mind simply taking medication does not indicate that - doctors have no business ratting on their patients. Passing laws that require them to do so is not right. Anyone who proposes those kind of gestapo tactics should be run out of office.

Two issues - 1) Unless you make it free it is not accessible to "all" and if you make it free you create opportunity for the kind of fraud and abuse that is rampant in our society today AND have the privilege of raising taxes to pay for it.

2) Without a pressure relief (i.e. ratting someone to the "feds") a dangerous person WILL be left to roam the streets. Look at Fort Hood for a recentish example. WITH that pressure relief you have provided the foundation for the governmental oppression we are already seeing.

If there a serious societal problem with violence? Absolutely.

Is the cure worse than the problem? (IMO) Absolutely.

Sure. Except the end result is a small (or large) erosion of rights. ANY ground given is lost forever.

I sort of/think I agree with this. First - there must be active participation in the process. Second, any ground given, must provide some tangible benefit (ie: a reduction in gun violence) to all. Incremental erosion of the 2A is not acceptable, and my view is that incremental erosion is the strategy, and prevention of gun violence is a convenient pretense.

Meaning no disrespect, you made two polar opposite statements in one paragraph.

Bottom line is, the current gun control efforts are NOT aimed at reducing violence or helping people. It's ONLY goal is to ELIMINATE private ownership of firearms.

Any collaboration with that goal is contrary to our Constitution and to our natural rights.

Any ground lost leads to an eventual total ban on firearms. Just as simple as that.

 

[agile_1]

Two issues - 1) Unless you make it free it is not accessible to "all" and if you make it free you create opportunity for the kind of fraud and abuse that is rampant in our society today AND have the privilege of raising taxes to pay for it.

2) Without a pressure relief (i.e. ratting someone to the "feds") a dangerous person WILL be left to roam the streets. Look at Fort Hood for a recentish example. WITH that pressure relief you have provided the foundation for the governmental oppression we are already seeing.

If there a serious societal problem with violence? Absolutely.

Is the cure worse than the problem? (IMO) Absolutely.

Then free and accessible it must be. I would rather suffer fraud and abuse than the periodic murderous rampage. IMO, fraud and abuse is far better than nutbags venting by going postal. Hopefully they would elect to go get some happy pills vs shooting the local whatever.

Meaning no disrespect, you made two polar opposite statements in one paragraph.

Bottom line is, the current gun control efforts are NOT aimed at reducing violence or helping people. It's ONLY goal is to ELIMINATE private ownership of firearms.

Any collaboration with that goal is contrary to our Constitution and to our natural rights.

Any ground lost leads to an eventual total ban on firearms. Just as simple as that.

That's what I said.

Current efforts (and most efforts that I have witnessed in my limited experience) use reduction of violence as a pretense to erode 2A rights. The efforts would have zero impact in reducing violence, and great impact on right and ability to self defense. ie: observe the boneheaded laws just enacted in NYS.

However I also said that any ground given must ensure a benefit - reduction of violence. I do not think that necessarily implies or requires an erosion of 2A rights. If some regulatory action can make the country safer without infringing on 2A rights, how is that a bad thing?

 

[WallHack]

But if I am not mistaken, poor mental health care is often cited as a reason for gun violence, especially mass shootings.

By whom? Did you see this on the 6 o'clock news and think it sounds hunky-dory? What IS mental illness? Who defines it? How do you know if you have one if you have the right to just not go to a doctor? Why do we assume that someone that kills someone else is mentally "unwell?" Why is the assumption "well he must've been ****ed up?" Denying people that've committed a crime YET are seen as safe enough to rejoin society their Right to Keep and Bear Arms™ is bad enough, now we want witch hunts? How will you ever quantify how many shootings DIDN'T happen in order to prove how well firearms restrictions work?

Then free and accessible it must be. I would rather suffer fraud and abuse than the periodic murderous rampage. IMO, fraud and abuse is far better than nutbags venting by going postal. Hopefully they would elect to go get some happy pills vs shooting the local whatever.

Allow me to translate: "I'd give up part of my freedom to make me 'safer.' Let's just give everyone prescriptions! Baaaaaaaaaaaaa"

 

[namedpipes]

Then free and accessible it must be. I would rather suffer fraud and abuse than the periodic murderous rampage. IMO, fraud and abuse is far better than nutbags venting by going postal. Hopefully they would elect to go get some happy pills vs shooting the local whatever.

Free and accessible or not, thinking that a free society has the capability to identify and forcibly "cure" people is downright stupid.

The Fort Hood shooting, which you ignored, exhibits this perfectly:

From 2003 to 2009, Hasan was stationed at Walter Reed Medical Center for his internship and residency; he also had a two-year fellowship at USUHS completed in 2009. According to National Public Radio (NPR), officials at Walter Reed Medical Center repeatedly expressed concern about Hasan's behavior during the entire six years he was there; Hasan's supervisors gave him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work. In early 2008 (and on later occasions), several key officials met to discuss what to do about Hasan. Attendees of these meetings reportedly included the Walter Reed chief of psychiatry, the chairman of the USUHS Psychiatry Department, two assistant chairs of the USUHS Psychiatry Department (one of whom was the director of Hasan's psychiatry fellowship), another psychiatrist, and the director of the Walter Reed psychiatric residency program. According to NPR, fellow students and faculty were "deeply troubled" by Hasan's behavior, which they described as "disconnected," "aloof," "paranoid," "belligerent," and "schizoid."[97]

If six years of working side by side with psych professionals that were aware of his issues was not enough to prevent the shootings, just how in the name of God do you expect Doc Smith to make a difference, by phoning in a report that Joe Public might or might not be dangerous, but he's on Paxil, so just make sure you don't approve a gun for him?

Seriously. Help them, sure, those that can be helped, but obliterating the natural rights of the 99.99999% that would never, will never do such a thing is (literally) criminal.

That's what I said.

Current efforts (and most efforts that I have witnessed in my limited experience) use reduction of violence as a pretense to erode 2A rights. The efforts would have zero impact in reducing violence, and great impact on right and ability to self defense. ie: observe the boneheaded laws just enacted in NYS.

However I also said that any ground given must ensure a benefit - reduction of violence. I do not think that necessarily implies or requires an erosion of 2A rights. If some regulatory action can make the country safer without infringing on 2A rights, how is that a bad thing?

Well, you agreed with me in part and then played both sides of the argument.... Pick one. I'm pretty sure I know which one you'll go with.