PDA

View Full Version : H R 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act"


ARBITER
08-23-2007, 3:57 PM
I just received my American Rifleman from the NRA and on page 14 their is an article "Clearing the air on the Instant Check Bill."
The NRA is backing a Bill started by the ANTI-GUNNERS.
from page 15 Quote " On June 13 , the house of representatives passed a bill to improve the national Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS), The bill (H.R. 2640, The NICS Improvement Amendments Act") would create incentives for states to upgrade their records on criminals and OTHERS currently prohibited from buying guns."
Criminals I don't mind but OTHERS OTHERS what does that mean.
In California I, very rarely receive from the CA DOJ do not release the firearms DENIED or CANCELLED letter and telephone call. I cannot release the firearm and must supply the purchaser with a POWER of Attorney Designation Form http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/sb950frm.pdf The purchaser must immediately designate a third party person to dispose of their firearms...
OTHERS... would more then likely fall under this category.
Denied ..because the Post man failed to deliver your Child support payments?
Denied...because your Drivers license expired even if you have a letter or card from the DMV stating your reinstatement, this is not acceptable prove.
Denied... you have an outstanding car violation Parking Ticket etc.etc.
Denied... you were wrongly accused in the past and were exonerated. you were told it would not be on a record. it wasn't purged from the system and you are DENIED.
OTHERS I believe this would be spread all over the US and try to purge it from noname town wherever located.
The NRA ILA did not ask the 50 States if we wanted a BRADY Bill and NICS system.
We lost our rights to purchasing a curio Relic by filling out the 4473 form ( no waite) California does not have an Instant Check. California has to pay for a background check when in the BRADY and NICS legislation it is paid for by the Federal Government.
These issues should be addresed before adding OTHERS to the NICS system. fellons are already on the list, lets not add non fellons to the list.
if you agree with me then call the NRA and your congressman to oppose HR 2640 and dont' be denied because of a jay walking ticket.
John

bwiese
08-23-2007, 4:15 PM
Hi John,

Your political radio is a bit off on this one, gotta read between the lines.

The NRA has NEVER had a policy of saying nutjobs should have guns. This just reemphasizes it at what was a critical time a few months ago.

This was a preventive bill because it stopped other antigun matters in wake of the VA Tech nutball a few months ago. It gave those congresscritters who had to show a vote about "keeping guns away from crazies" a chance to vote on something without hurting us elsewhere (like HR1022). NRA has gotten a ton of good PR from this. This can offset against "NRA supports baby killing assault weapons" bad press in the future.

Also - unlike current law - it allows folks who may have had a wild-assed court + shrink adjudicate they had psych problems in the past to instead now get rehearing and actually have a good chance at restoring gun rights if they're good to go: right now this is not possible, period. (There are quite a few vets w/PTSD who've been banned from gun ownership and this gets these guys their gunriight back appropriately). This is actually a boon to some vets who may've gotten hammered by Veterans system and family courts with female antigun judges, etc.

The fact that an antigunner is there as part sponsor (McCarthy) is simply the fact she needs credit because she can't get any other antigun bill thru so she has to join the opposition.



IT DOESN'T REDUCE ANY SHOOTER'S RIGHTS, PERIOD.


IT DOESN'T MAKE ANYTHING WORSE FOR ORDINARY SANE FOLK LIKE US.


IT GIVES NRA GOOD P.R. POINTS - who could support giving guns to crazies?


IT ALLOWS FOLKS WHO HAD SUPPOSED COURT-ADJUDICATED PSYCH ISSUES IN PAST (say, a divorce went bad, family court BS, etc.) TO REGAIN THEIR FIREARMS RIGHTS FOR THE FIRST TIME. More gunnies = more gun votes.



Period.

ARBITER
08-23-2007, 4:36 PM
It sounds like the bill would benefit quite a few. I still do not see where your name would not be added to the list if you were denied because your drivers license expired under others. If your firearm is cancelled you would be added to the list ( I have seen customer firearms transactions cancelled when in fact they should have had the alleged offense purged from the system and it was not.) I was told by BATF these folks should contact the BATF and DOJ to have it purged but it would be a long and drawn out process. Bill you have to remember when a firearm is DENIED by DOJ it usually can be cleared up 8 out of 10 times within 30 days. If it is cancelled then forget it unless the party knows for sure the offense should have been purged.
John

Outlaw Josey Wales
08-23-2007, 4:45 PM
Senate Panel Sends Brady Expansion Bill To The Floor
-- Once again, measure is passed by an unrecorded voice vote!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm


"[The NRA's] blessing is required for any bill that enforces or
creates gun laws." -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, July 27, 2007


Wednesday, August 8, 2007

It's truly amazing. You wouldn't think that something as
controversial as gun control could fly through the House of
Representatives, and then through a Senate committee without facing
at least one recorded vote.

But on Thursday of last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed
the Senate version of the McCarthy bill by an unrecorded voice vote.

The draft bill -- which is still unnumbered -- is being sponsored by
the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The Brady
expansion provisions in this bill are identical to the ones in the
McCarthy bill and would easily deny thousands (if not millions) of
law-abiding citizens their right to own firearms.

As mentioned in earlier alerts, the NRA and the Brady Campaign are
both in favor of this legislation. In fact, the author of the House
bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), has stated there is no way this
bill could pass without the NRA's support: "The National Rife
Association still wields tremendous influence in the halls of
Congress," McCarthy said, "and their blessing is required for any
bill that enforces or creates gun laws."

The reason why some gun owners support the Leahy-McCarthy measure is
they think the bill will make it easier for many Americans to regain
their rights -- such as military veterans who have been
illegitimately denied a firearm. What they don't realize is that
this is a pie-in-the-sky promise.

Veterans will have to find a pro-gun shrink that will certify that
said veteran is not a danger to himself or others. (Question: Would
you ever certify that someone you don't know could NEVER be a danger
to himself or others?) They will then have to hire a good attorney,
take the government to court and hope they can force the FBI to
delete their names from the NICS system.

It must be stressed that thousands of veterans have already been
illegally banned from owning guns without being convicted of
anything. Not only that, thousands more will have their names placed
on the Brady list of banned buyers if this legislation passes. It is
beside the point that they might be able to get their rights
restored. They never should have lost them in the first place.
Further, they will be forced to spend a lot of money to regain their
gun rights -- rights which were unconstitutionally stripped by the
Leahy-McCarthy bill.

We've already seen that at the state level, getting your guns back --
after being decreed a supposed danger to society -- is easier said
than done. Consider what is ALREADY happening in California.
University of San Francisco professor W. Michael Becker -- a licensed
psychologist and attorney -- points out how in the Golden State, a
gun owner can easily lose his guns if he's deemed to be a danger to
himself and others. And while state law allows the gun owner to get
his guns back (after he's no longer considered a danger), the
retrieval process is by NO MEANS automatic.

Becker says:

* It might be argued, that because there is the option of a hearing,
* the [California] law provides a reasoned avenue for that person to
* regain possession.... But there is a problem with the hearing itself.
* In order for the seized weapons to be returned, it is not the
* government which must show that the person is a danger to himself or
* others, but rather a judge (yes, only a judge, no jury) must be
* convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the person will
* NOT be a danger to himself or others. What has happened to the
* "presumed" innocent (or in this case competent) until proven
* otherwise?... This is a dire reversal of our typical constitutional
* rights.

The Leahy bill next goes to the entire Senate, but due to the fact
that Congress is now in recess, don't expect to see any action on the
bill until September.

UPCOMING ACTION: During the month of August, GOA members will be
receiving postcards addressed to their two U.S. Senators, and one to
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

It is IMPERATIVE that you mail those postcards in. We want to
increase the heat on these legislators by deluging them with
thousands upon thousands of postcards. If you are not currently
receiving GOA's mailings and postcards, you can -- for a nominal
donation of only $20/year -- go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to become a member and start
receiving these useful action items.

So keep up the pressure on your Senators. And please stay tuned.

****************************

hoffmang
08-23-2007, 4:49 PM
It is IMPERATIVE that you mail those postcards in. We want to
increase the heat on these legislators by deluging them with
thousands upon thousands of postcards. If you are not currently
receiving GOA's mailings and postcards, you can -- for a nominal
donation of only $20/year -- go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to become a member and start
receiving these useful action items.

So keep up the pressure on your Senators. And please stay tuned.

****************************

There's the important part :rolleyes:

-Gene

Outlaw Josey Wales
08-23-2007, 4:59 PM
There's the important part :rolleyes:

-Gene

No. The important part is here:

It must be stressed that thousands of veterans have already been
illegally banned from owning guns without being convicted of
anything. Not only that, thousands more will have their names placed
on the Brady list of banned buyers if this legislation passes. It is
beside the point that they might be able to get their rights
restored. They never should have lost them in the first place.
Further, they will be forced to spend a lot of money to regain their
gun rights -- rights which were unconstitutionally stripped by the
Leahy-McCarthy bill.

bwiese
08-23-2007, 5:08 PM
What Gene was trying to say is it's GOA which is anti-NRA just so it can be different. GOA 3-person organization (i.e, one room office) that makes its fundraising by attacking NRA generally for no good reason.

Sounds like their living room office needs a new carpet so they stir the pot amongst people who are politically naive and who don't see the reasons/benefits/backstory of this.

GOA has been repeatedly a confusing element in national gun politics, just like the CRPA was in California.

Please don't screw NRA on this one, this is a shield against HR1022.

hoffmang
08-23-2007, 5:36 PM
No. The important part is here:
It is
beside the point that they might be able to get their rights
restored. They never should have lost them in the first place.


The perfect being the enemy of the good again.

Without this bill, these guys will have lost their rights and still have no recourse.

With the the bill, they'll get some recourse.

Glad to know you support keeping them without their rights.

Me, I support rolling things back for them, even if its imperfect.

-Gene

Outlaw Josey Wales
08-24-2007, 11:02 AM
Glad to know you support keeping them without their rights.

-Gene

My emphasis was that they never should have lost their rights in the first place, not that they should have no recourse to restore them! :rolleyes:

hoffmang
08-24-2007, 2:12 PM
My emphasis was that they never should have lost their rights in the first place, not that they should have no recourse to restore them! :rolleyes:

And that's why I said keeping them without their rights.

I guess you agree that the bill the NRA is shepherding through is a good thing for those guys now, right?

-Gnee