Interesting Read for NRA supporters #2

[codenamepaul]

Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The “Parker v. District of Columbia” case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the “DC Personal Protection Act” bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case was based upon. Thereby preventing the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case from going before the supreme court.

Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed “individual right v. the right of the militia” to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was “too good” and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?

And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya…..2007.

*****

Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act” Admittedly, as always, there are some “supposedly” pro-gun people that are in favor of this. For me, to see the first red flags thrown up, are to look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy along with Barbara Boxer. Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora’s box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). The UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.

Oh, and this again IS happening in 2007

*****
Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who “indicated” that “assault rifles” should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




*****

While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, “In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment.”


In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an “A” rating from the NRA. Why an “A” rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an “F”. Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA’s Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.


In Virginia in 1996, extreme “F” rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced “A” rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS…..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ·

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a “B” because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*******

John Dingell?
The NRA’s Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 “Assault” weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA’s Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?


Continued in 3

 

[Mass-diver]

What do you think gun rights would be like if the NRA packed up and disbanded today?

 

[matt1956]

i dont know.. but sometimes i wonder "who's side are they on?"

 

[av8r]

"Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora’s box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). The UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place. "


"NICS Improvement Amendments Act" Not Gun Control!

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Last week, when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," by a voice vote, some gun owners were confused as to the exact scope and effect of this proactive reform bill. Let’s look at the facts.

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law. Under H.R. 2640, certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving a firearm. Examples are adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required. Also excluded are 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. The latter provision addresses very real concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. Remember that one of the Clinton Administration’s last acts was to force 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. H.R. 2640 will also require 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.

This legislation will also ensure—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check¾a 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. H.R. 2640 will also mandate an audit of past spending on NICS projects to determine if funds were misused in any way.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.

So why the confusion?

First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is¾given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue¾why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA’s insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

Also troubling to many is the fact that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is a cosponsor of the bill. Carolyn McCarthy is among the most anti-gun Members of Congress. She has introduced another bill, H.R. 1022, which represents the most sweeping gun ban in history. But Rep. McCarthy is not the only co-sponsor of H.R. 2640. She was joined by some of the most pro-gun members of the House of Representatives in crafting this bill, including John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). A few years ago, when Congress passed a bill allowing airline pilots to be armed, one of the lead sponsors was anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.). Sen. Boxer’s support of that legislation did not cause gun owners to oppose it.

Finally, some people have asked why the bill passed on a voice vote. The reality is that there’s nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Even so, the House rules allow any House member to request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

H.R. 2640 is now pending in the Senate. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!
(For additional information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018.)

 

[ronbok]

Anti-NRA Sentiment Running Wild

I've never seen so much hatred of the NRA in all my life. Especially around H. 2640.

People, stop and think for a minute. Yes, NICS is a violation of the Second Amendment, nobody will disagree. Nor shall I.

However, do you REALLY, given this modern age, want felons and the mentally ill owning firearms? After all it's their RIGHT as well, right?

If you've got a better idea of how to stop these people who are either criminals or mentally unstable from owning a firearm of anykind....I'm all ears.

 

[Mass-diver]

i dont know.. but sometimes i wonder "who's side are they on?"

Not me....they are such a strong force in the Washinton. Even if you don't agree with every move they make, I believe that if they ceased to exist you would see a ban on all semi-auto weapons. When you cut through all the BS, this is a common thread among anti-gunners, they only want people to be able to own revolvers and bolt action rifles. Just look at how extreme the AWB was (and the AWB we still have here): just banning hi-cap mags alone, at least for me, is an extreme example of gun control and shows just what the left would be without oppostion, which comes primarily for the NRA.

For me, espically living in MA, where I can't order ammo from the internet or buy a Kimber from my dealer, the devil is at the door and in many cases (espically at the national level) it's only the NRA that keeps him out. The NRA can do no wrong in my eyes.

 

[aig1]

If you've got a better idea of how to stop these people who are either criminals or mentally unstable from owning a firearm of anykind....I'm all ears.

Well I thought that criminals could not purchase firearms now, but that is just me! I do not see the need for more laws, especially ones that are in the gray area of what is "mentally unstable" etc.

Many will consider us mentally unstable because we enjoy punching holes in paper from distance. It's a slippery slope.............

AIG

 

[aig1]

The NRA is a political organization with a single aim: TO FURTHER ITS OWN INTERESTS AND EXISTENCE. They will do what is best for the organization which means keeping most of us happy most of the time.

however we should remember that:
IT IS THE GUN-OWNERS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT MAKE THE NRA MEANINGFUL AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

If the NRA ceased to exist its void will be quickly filled with some other new or existing organization. There is a need for such organization. There is a market for it. I stopped considering the NRA as an idealistic organization when I learned that its president makes more than a million per year. It is not exactly what I'd expect from a non-profit, "let's-protect-our-constitution", organization.

I also think the NRA is politically more powerful because it is more flexible in its 2A support, as comparison to GOA for example.

I am member of the NRA, but I am not afraid to citicise them when we do not see eye to eye.

I think that the NRA is WRONG to support the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640). But that is just one person's opinion.

AIG

 

[csharpdev]

Think about it... if the result of parker vs dc (or whatever it's called now) results in a supreme court decision that the 2nd is an individual right and that all gun control laws are unconstitutional where would that put the NRA? Sure they'd still be around because they do more than just lobbying, but I'd be willing to bet their membership would decline, their political power would decrease, and they'd have a lot less money. If you were the president of a business (for profit or not) would you allow that to happen?

 

[TomH]

I think it would be benificial at this time for a new group to form that would support all gun rights with more of a push than the NRA does. I was reading about how that group that made the Petraeus ad puts out more money a year BY FAR than the NRA does! And that group was started grassroots by a handful of people! I'd like to see something with that much momentum appear for 2A rights. It seems like the NRA is willing to let some rights slide to keep the majority of rights intact, but what will this eventually lead to? It'll lead to the right to bear arms being slowly erroded away, piece by piece. You absolutely can't compromise or it'll be one thing after another. After all, it's for the children.

-Tom

 

[Gabe]

I think it would be benificial at this time for a new group to form that would support all gun rights with more of a push than the NRA does. I was reading about how that group that made the Petraeus ad puts out more money a year BY FAR than the NRA does! And that group was started grassroots by a handful of people! I'd like to see something with that much momentum appear for 2A rights. It seems like the NRA is willing to let some rights slide to keep the majority of rights intact, but what will this eventually lead to? It'll lead to the right to bear arms being slowly erroded away, piece by piece. You absolutely can't compromise or it'll be one thing after another. After all, it's for the children.

-Tom

It's called Gun Owners of America.

www.gunowners.org

 

[TomH]

I don't know much about them but from what I'm seeing they make more sense than the NRA! I'll probably be joining this group.

 

[ronbok]

Well I thought that criminals could not purchase firearms now, but that is just me! I do not see the need for more laws, especially ones that are in the gray area of what is "mentally unstable" etc.

Many will consider us mentally unstable because we enjoy punching holes in paper from distance. It's a slippery slope.............

AIG

The point you were making was that NICS was unconstitutional. Therefore the NRA supporting a bill that would expand NICS was wrong. What I'm asking you is...if NICS purpose is to do what you suggested - keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals - and it gets dissolved. What's there to protect you and I from a criminal obtaining a firearm...other than his own States laws. In Vermont...that doesn't even apply.

 

[KMaurer]

The point you were making was that NICS was unconstitutional. Therefore the NRA supporting a bill that would expand NICS was wrong. What I'm asking you is...if NICS purpose is to do what you suggested - keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals - and it gets dissolved. What's there to protect you and I from a criminal obtaining a firearm...other than his own States laws. In Vermont...that doesn't even apply.

What federal, state or local law has ever effectively prevented criminals from obtaining firearms? Criminals don't walk into licensed dealers and use their own names to purchase their firearms, so what exactly is the use of the NICS?

Let's see, I've got a felony record as long as your arm, and I'm looking to kill somebody. It would be wrong to use a fake or stolen ID at a gun shop, and I'm sure that no matter how much money I've got nobody would sell me a gun under the table due to those state laws. Burglary's just too dangerous, so I guess I'm just out of luck. Damn NICS!

Ken

 

[Erebus]

this is a common thread among anti-gunners, they only want people to be able to own revolvers and bolt action rifles.

Don't fool yourself thinking they would stop there. Once all the semi-autos are gone they will want your high powered, long range, bolt action SNIPER rifle.

Rep. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., a candidate for Illinois governor, said the world has changed and there's no reason for civilians to own rifles that are "ideal tools for assassination and terrorism."

"You can conceivably fire one of these weapons from the John Hancock building and hit the right field bleachers at Wrigley Field," Blagojevich told a Sunday news conference. It also poses an obvious threat to even the president of the United States."

"There is no legitimate civilian purpose for this gun," he said, adding the Congressional General Accounting Office had traced the rifles to "suspected terrorist groups, drug cartels, a doomsday cult in Montana, a white supremacist group in Louisiana and a mentally ill cop killer in Michigan."

"Blagojevich warned fans of the Chicago Cubs that they could soon become targets for terrorist snipers firing at them from the roof of the Sears Tower,"

These quotes taken from this article. Don't think for a second that as soon as bolt guns are all that's left these statements won't immediately be applied to them.

Then they would demonstrate how your revolver can fire just as fast as a semi auto by fanning the hammer.

 

[TomH]

"Blagojevich warned fans of the Chicago Cubs that they could soon become targets for terrorist snipers firing at them from the roof of the Sears Tower,"

.

 

[Garys]

I think it would be benificial at this time for a new group to form that would support all gun rights with more of a push than the NRA does. I was reading about how that group that made the Petraeus ad puts out more money a year BY FAR than the NRA does! And that group was started grassroots by a handful of people!
-Tom

Move ON.org is funded very heavily by George Soros. Who is as anti gun as you can get.

A new group would take years to become powerful and influential because it takes years and years to start raising money and for the people who run the organization to make contacts and learn the ropes in Washington.

Not to mention that adding more organizations will result in a multitude of small, ineffective organizations.

What specifically has any organization other than the NRA done to defend gun owners?

Gary

 

[Erebus]

Move ON.org is funded very heavily by George Soros. Who is as anti gun as you can get.

And whenever they have trouble raising money he just cuts them a check.

 

[Joe R.]

I was gonna respond to individual posts but I'll do it as an all-encompassing post.

1) What has the NRA done for us? Most of the good pro-gun work back in the 80's and the early part of the 90's was them...with a few holes in the paper. They weren't dilligent enough to keep on top of the 1986 McClure-Volkmer FOPA voting to stop a voice vote that was to freeze the machine gun supply where it is, making owning a real MG like an MP-5 too rich for the average person. NICS was their idea - we can argue pros and cons later. But for the most part they did good work.

2)Now let's come up to present times. ( Janet Jackson's " What Have You Done for Me Lately?" playing in the background...) The articles listing the NRA supportting the wrong candidates are true. There were numerous reports of the NRA supportting the anti-gun person instead of a solid A pro-gun person. That can be looked up and is inexcuseable for a pro-rights organization - unless you're trying to do stuff to make sure you're still an inportant player ( lobby group ) in town. The NRA's resistance to the DC vs Parker case is telling that they have lost their way on certain agaenda points. If all you want to worry about is hunters and hunting, let me know now so I can support some other group more like JPFO or GOA.

3) Ronbok - Westwood Gun Club got out of the Norfolk County League because we didn't see how your group was helping gun owners here in MA by just concentrating on sportsman stuff at your monthly meetings. I got tired of hearing the report from the meetings talking about fishing and hunting stuff. GOAL is the only game in town and need to be supportted by everyone - not just the hunting crowd who could care less about my EBR's and milsurp rifles.

I don't support the NRA blindly even though they are the only game in town. That 800 lb gorilla is starting to get flabby in the middle like I am and they are losing sight of what is important for our rights. If another organization had the membership/money that the NRA has, I'd be looking at it seriously.

 

[vellnueve]

Well, for one thing, NRA managed to motivate voters in several democratic states including WV to vote republican in 2000. That is the sole reason we got those vital votes, the gun issue. NRA lobbied for lawmakers to take no action on the AWB sunset.

You are a idealistic fool if you believe that we would be better off without NRA. They are established and manage to choke most federal anti legislation. For example, the OSHA regs that were proposed a few months back.

Would a new organization represent your views better? Sure. But not with the power and influence that the NRA yields. The NRA is hands down the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, and we need them. I think your views are skewed by where you live (Massachusetts) since they can't do much here... They have to choose their battles and on the national stage they've done a pretty good job in keeping new federal legislation in check since the AWB was instated.

 

[drgrant]

What's there to protect you and I from a criminal obtaining a firearm...other than his own States laws. In Vermont...that doesn't even apply.

Yes, and in VT, blood gushes in the streets, because there are
very few gun laws...

The problem I (and others) have with NICS is it's never really
documented as to how "effective" it is. Of course, the DOJ
comes out and says " NICS denied XYZ people" and trumpets
it as some kind of success- but what they don't tell you is little
things like:

-Out of the people denied, how many of them found a firearm from
some other source (black market, stolen, strawed) ? And then
later caught with THAT firearm either just posessing it or ended
up committing a violent crime with it?

-Out of the people denied, how many of them went on to commit
a violent crime with some other, read, non-gun, weapon? Is the
DOJ going to stand there and say a woman who got stabbed
instead of shot was an example of "NICS success" ?

-Out of a population of surveyed violent offenders (eg, a prison
survey), how many of them knew about NICS and other
prohibitions and took measures to preemptively circumvent
them? I would guess that a lot of career criminals know up
front they won't be able to buy a gun over the table, so they
don't even bother with the legit route, and avoid the "net" of
NICS completely.

-Would also be interesting to determine out of the # of denials,
what is the % actually prosecuted and put in federal
prison? (being that actually trying to buy as a PP is a crime by
itself). I get the impression that a lot of people are denied but
there is rarely if any follow up on a lot of the denials- because the
ATF probably knows the thing is bugged to hell and back and
doesn't want to risk a PR fiasco by a bunch of false prosecutions;
so as a result, they only prosecute or follow up when they are
really sure that they have a criminal that's on the lam, etc.

-Whats the NICS falsing rate? EG, any and all delays or denials
based on something that's actually false. Then let's add up
the total of hours a gun buyer is denied their rights, all so that
at most, some a**h*** can "feel good" about retail gun sales.

These are all valid questions and would enable us to understand
whether NICS is doing anything useful or not. IMO the system
is defective, and likely a waste of taxpayer money, on top of
it all. Is it really worth punishing most of america to
guard against a handful of criminals trying to buy guns over the
table? (and again, theres no guarantee that they won't go
under that table if denied, if we only had the stats..... )


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

For example, the OSHA regs that were proposed a few months back.

IMO I don't think the NRA had little if anything to do with the
OSHA regs. A shitload of gun owners, and probably industry
execs would have more to do with that pile of crap disappearing
than anything else. At a minimum the military industrial complex
in the US would have gotten punched in the rectum by those kinds
of regulations, so the probability of those regs sticking around
was pretty close to zero.

I support the NRA but I am the first person that will say that
they've been very lackluster over the past 4+ years, allowing the
AWB to die was not a huge accomplishment overall, given a
republican, pro gun dominated congress. They had a lot of
opportunity to do great things politically and the NRA squandered
it. They love the status quo a little too much, when the reality
is that the status quo is pretty bad, depending on what part of
the country one is in.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The NRA's resistance to the DC vs Parker case is telling that they have lost their way on certain agaenda points. If all you want to worry about is hunters and hunting, let me know now so I can support some other group more like JPFO or GOA.

+1, Joe...

In the past year this is what pissed me off the most. They tried
to tank what is, IMO, the most bullet-proof 2nd amendment case
to show up in a very long time. The plaintiffs are all squeaky
clean and then some, nobody can say "but they're criminals
anyways so who cares?".

A lot of people want to believe it's because the 2nd amendment
getting challenged is "dangerous" for us, but what they fail to see
is that even if we -lose- that challenge, that the worst case is
basically a reinforcement of the status quo- which is huge
legislative crippling of a constitutional right!

The reality is the NRA tried to stomp on Parker vs DC because
they feared that, although the possibility is very remote, that a
wide reaching SCOTUS decision + opinion coming down in
our favor could essentially put them out of business overnight.
They were more worried about that then they were about the
possibility that someone might do the right thing for their member
base....


-Mike

 

[csharpdev]

The problem I (and others) have with NICS is it's never really
documented as to how "effective" it is. Of course, the DOJ
comes out and says " NICS denied XYZ people" and trumpets
it as some kind of success- but what they don't tell you is little
things like:

sarcasm on

There used to be a billboard on I90 that said Background checks save lives (or something like that). Isn't that enough proof...

sarcasm off

 

[vellnueve]

Honestly, NICS does not bother me. It takes five minutes or less, I've had my background checked much more deeply many times (for my Navy commission, LTC, C&R, etc)

 

[drgrant]

It's easy to dismiss the failures, when you're not "that guy".

Honestly, NICS does not bother me. It takes five minutes or less, I've had my background checked much more deeply many times (for my Navy commission, LTC, C&R, etc)

NICS is not anywhere nearly the same ball of wax as a regular
background check is.

You might feel differently if you go to a gun store and you have to
deal with the PITA of a false delay (mild pain in the ass)
or a false denial (might as well be full blown hemmroids!). I
haven't had any problems but I've been hanging around gun shops
enough to witness the unfortunate souls that have. It happens
often enough to be alarming. And in MA this is especially telling
of how f***ed up the system is- these people in MA gun stores
have LTC-As and the like, so they've already jumped through 900
flaming hoops and waited sometimes 3 months just to be able to
purchase a firearm, and then the fed computer tells them that
they're not worthy, all because they MIGHT, sorta kinda possibly
maybe (sarcasm inserted to illustrate the inaccuracy of
NICS) match a bad guy. If that isn't a humongous kick in one's
ballsack/beaver than I don't know what is.

(Course, part of this is that for some screwed up reason, MA LTC
doesn't qualify as a NICS bypass, but that's a whole nother rant in
and of itself.... )

I can only imagine how frustrating it is- someone standing there,
knowing that they're clean (unless they've somehow committed
crimes they didn't know about while sleepwalking) and having the
fed deny you from exercising a right- after you've already waited 3
months just to get the STATE to even let you attempt to buy one.

Its very easy to "not care" or think it's "not a big deal" if none of
us are "that guy.". Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. For
even further laughs, I know of active duty military guys and LEOs
who have been delayed. That makes the system look even
dumber- you might have a guy in front of you twiddling his thumbs
that the government trusts with driving a 4 million dollar tank and
they let him shoot HEDP rounds at things when he's at work, but
some dumber-than-shit computer won't let him buy a little .45 ACP
handgun. That kind of thing just about drives me batshit
insane.

A BG check for employment and the like is not anywhere near the
same ball of wax as one being required to exercise something which
is a right. Further, those checks are often conducted in a manner
which is a lot more methodical, and often by human beings which
have access to more information and sources than a typical NICS
droid examiner has. Real BG checks involve manual labor and
human interaction to some degree; they're not just relying 110%
on what a computer spits out as gospel, like NICS does.

-Mike

 

[ronbok]

Enough NRA Bashing!

http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

 

[KMaurer]

I was going to chime in on a similar vein. In addition to Evan Nappen's well reasoned piece at ProGun NH cited above, Larry Scott recently voiced similar opinions on HR2640 at Military.Com, as did David Hardy at Arms and the Law.

Lord knows that I've got my beefs with the NRA, which I voice frequently enough. In addition to being an NRA Training Counselor and Patron member, I'm also a Gun Owners' of America Life member because I much prefer their no-nonsense attitude toward the Constitution. Nonetheless, I've been getting a little disgusted with the tortured interpretations of HR2640 and a couple of other proposals by GOA and others simply in order to convince some people that the NRA is evil and they. in contrast, are almost holy. Bullshit is bullshit whether it's being served up by John Rosenthal, Wayne LaPierre or Larry Pratt, and I've already got more than my daily ration of BS and am most definitely not in the market to buy any more.

Ken

 

[FPrice]

Honestly, NICS does not bother me. It takes five minutes or less, I've had my background checked much more deeply many times (for my Navy commission, LTC, C&R, etc)

I was denied (initially) a purchase a while back by the NICS check. Luckily my FFL knew me well enough to challenge it. Turns out a person with same first and last name plus a middle initial that rhymed with mine was wanted for a felony way down south. He was able to get this turned around.

It never "bothered" me before either.

 

[ronbok]

Mental Illness Commitment & Firearms Disability

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_09_23_archive.html#4312719903963181745

"I was a little surprised at how few persons have been prohibited from buying guns under the mental disability provision:
In the first 12 months during which background checks mandated by the Brady Act were performed (November 1998 to November 1999), more than 4,400,000 background checks were performed. Of these, 81,006 (1.8% of the total) resulted in denial of applications to purchase firearms. The majority of these denials (56,554, or 69.8 percent) were due to felony indictments or convictions, and a further 9.9 percent were due to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Only 70 individuals (0.1% of the denials) were denied because of a history of mental illness. In comparison, there were 3,072 (3.8%) denials for drug addiction."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/g100064.pdf