How do you know a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving. We have all heard jokes like these before, but are these jokes
becoming a reality in American politics?
I don't know many who will not agree that the Republicans needed a wake-up call. However,
when we voted them out it appears we may have voted in a whole new set of problems. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly delineated
in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, no sooner than the Democrats took power did they immediately begin their anti-gunrhetoric. Not only did they immediately begin to attack the gun ownership rights of law abiding citizens, but it was also their very
first major piece of legislation introduced according to the GOA website.
Democrats obviously feel that the most pressing issue facing
our country today is restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. But what about the war on terror and our borders? Should these
issues not have been their first major pieces of legislation? Were the Democrats not the ones berating the Republicans for not properly
handling either of these issues? But now that they have the power they want to attack the rights of the people who put them there.
Apparently, the Democrats were moving their lips during the elections.
Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert-- Oppose McCarthy Gun
Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The
first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year,
but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants,
about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning
persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor
gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other
records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer.
Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are
prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by
this bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed
as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun
Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses
that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.
TheLautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question,
are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of
these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand
jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also
covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat
situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have
been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly
exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into
the NICS background check system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer
to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected
-- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,'
a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in
the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized
data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked.
The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps
the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits
illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records
pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
In
order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records,
library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records --
all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent
anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives
support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment
rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS).
In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System
Allows Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the
House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been
around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun
cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their
Second Amendment rights.
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it
is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need
all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message.
And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf
of those millions of Americans who:
* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check system for no apparent reason;
*
know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while some
bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives;
* have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down completely
-- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally;
* are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as "the gun control
bill that would stop future calls for gun control" -- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills dealing with
gun show background checks, private sale background checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration system;
* are wondering
why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant check system
has any relation to crime reduction;
* are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration tried to use the system -- without
further legislation -- to impose onerous fees and to retain records forever; and
* are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco
and Ruby Ridge should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a gun --
I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun
legislation sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
****************************
Defend The 2nd Amendment Through
Creative Giving...
As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the generosity of those who assist us will make all the
difference in our success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support.
Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mailgoamail@gunowners.org to request information on how to keep control of your assets and make a gift at the same time through:
* a bequest
*
a retirement plan
* a will, living trust, or insurance policy
Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an obligation.
http://www.gunowners.org/a012307.htm