Posted: 7/25/2006 7:03:16 AM EDT
|
House Moves Mccarthy Bill To Give The FBI Access To Billions Of Your Personal Records -- In Order To Seize Your Guns Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585 ACTION: Gun Owners of America alerted you to the dangers of HR 1415 in early June. While the bill has lain dormant since then, it is scheduled for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday. So please contact your representative and ask him to oppose this bill. This is legislation that we've been able to kill in the past, but it's important for us to rise in opposition once again. We have reprinted the gist of our previous alert to help explain the problems with HR 1415. Contact information and pre-written text are included at the very bottom. Monday, July 24, 2006 Anti-gun zealot Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is going after your guns... again. HR 1415 was reported out of a House subcommittee in May and is now scheduled for a full committee vote on Wednesday. When you look at the list of cosponsors on HR 1415, you find a "Who's Who" of the anti-gun Democratic elite: Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Barney Frank (D-MA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Pete Stark (D-CA) among others. They are all F-rated Representatives. HR 1415 -- the McCarthy bill -- would require states to "make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under [federal law]" [Section 102(c)(1)(A)]. Among other things, the bill will help FBI officials to effectively stop thousands upon thousands of Americans from purchasing a firearm. Already, millions of Americans have been disarmed by the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996. Because of the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. Consider just some of the many examples: * A Delaware member of GOA testified in Congress as to how the Lautenberg gun ban had disarmed him for life -- simply because he swatted his child with an open hand on the buttocks. At the time, this father was going through an ugly divorce, and so his estranged wife, with the encouragement of her mother, reported the man to the police for child abuse. After a nasty court battle, this father was forced to accept a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. He has sold his firearms collection and is now disarmed for life by the Lautenberg gun ban, simply because he spanked his child. * In Fairfax County, Virginia, a wife (Judy) was carted off to the police station for slightly tearing her husband's pocket -- even though her husband refused to press charges. The husband, Tom, states he had only called the police to get "documentation in a custody dispute." Nevertheless, Virginia's zero-tolerance law requires the police to press charges in such cases. For Judy to plea-bargain to a misdemeanor and pay a minimal fine means that she forfeits her Second Amendment rights forever because of the Lautenberg ban. * The Lautenberg gun ban has even slapped sons and daughters with a lifetime gun ban, for nothing more than the slightest of infractions. The Washington Post Magazine reports that twenty-one year old Lora lost her temper and flung an empty water bottle and her car keys. Unfortunately for her, the car keys landed near her mother. For that, Lora was arrested, booked, and told she must not have any contact with her mom for three days, even though she was still living at home. Officer Mike Twomey, who assisted in the arrest, remarks that "in the old days, the proper response would have been to say, 'hey, ladies, cool it.' Now, arrest is the only option." Let's not forget, that because of the Lautenberg domestic violence MISDEMEANOR gun ban, the "new days" means that if Lora pays a $25 fine -- just to get the issue "behind her" -- she loses her gun rights forever. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does not access all of these records when screening the background of someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. So HR 1415 will grant millions of dollars to the states to improve their criminal records. Specifically, the bill would send taxpayer monies to the states so they can provide the FBI with the names of those people who are disqualified by the Lautenberg gun ban. Obviously, this starts with a huge computer network of felonies and misdemeanors -- with the FBI trolling through records of bar fights or domestic disputes to determine if you spanked your kids or yelled at your husband and are therefore disqualified from owning a gun under the Lautenberg amendment. Congress should be repealing the Lautenberg gun ban, not extending it to disable even more people from owning guns. But the problem is much broader than that: * Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns [18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)]. But, in order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could mean that the FBI would demand state tax returns of ALL American citizens, employment records, or even library records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal. * And did you know that 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. The bottom line is this: The "Instant check" program has hardly worked well enough to justify giving the Attorney General the right to go on a fishing expedition through EVERY personal record on every citizen in your state. This bill would expand the power of the federal government in the most ridiculous of ways. But McCarthy, who could care less about raising the debt limits in this country, would take an already financially-overburdened government and slap it with additional burdens, requiring millions of dollars to be spent on tracking the personal information on millions of law-abiding Americans. That's the "carrot" for the states: update your records, provide them to the federal government, and get millions of dollars in return. Well, if the Second and Tenth Amendments were to be obeyed, the Federal government would be prohibited from passing laws that allow the FBI to search through the records of HONEST, LAW-ABIDING citizens. Never mind the fact that all this data is handled with less care than the records of a farmer's livestock. Consider that CNSNews.com reported in June that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were recently hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised. ACTION: 1. Please forward this alert to as many as you can, so that your friends, acquaintances and family members can also contact their Senators and Representatives. Congressmen must hear that this legislation is unacceptable. 2. To identify your Representative, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Representative: I am outraged that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is trying to prohibit more Americans from owning guns with her HR 1415. This bill spends millions of dollars to further prop up the unconstitutional Brady Law, but there is no authority for the Federal government to do this under the Second and Tenth Amendments. Section 102(c)(1)(A) of H.R. 1415 would allow the federal government to troll through state misdemeanor, diversion, psychiatric, tax, and even library records -- all for the purpose of finding new reasons to seize guns from law-abiding Americans. The Instant Background Check should be banned, not expanded. We should be focusing attention on crooks, not on law-abiding citizens like my friends, my family and me. And Congress should be repealing the Lautenberg gun ban, not extending it to disable even more people from owning guns. H.R. 1415 is a simply an extension of the hated Lautenberg gun ban. Please oppose H.R. 1415. I would appreciate hearing whether you plan to oppose this bill. Gun Owners of America will keep me informed about any votes on this dangerous measure. Sincerely, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Live Fire" radio with Larry Pratt is broadcast by the Information Radio Network on Saturdays at 12:00 Noon Eastern. "Live Fire" is simulcast on the web at http://inforadionet.com and previous episodes are archived at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/ with a number of listening formats supported. Podcasts are also available. Recent guests and topics have included: * Ken Blackwell: Ohio's next governor discusses his GOA-PVF endorsement * Jim Nelson Black: The freefall of the nation's university system and its impact on gun owners * Garry Breitkreuz: The Canadian Member of Parliament on dismantling that country's hated gun registry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Home |
I've got mixed feelings about this. This law doesn't make it illegal for anyone to buy a weapon, it just provides enforcement to an existing law. If we've decided that felons and people who commit acts of domestic violence shouldn't be allowed firearms, then we should probably give the government the authority to do the proper background checks to stop those purchases. When I argue with anti-gunners, my argument often goes along the lines of "We already have strong laws in effect to punish the use of weapons for illegal purposes and to prevent felons from obtaining weapons. What we need is not more regulation, but better enforcement of existing laws." I can't very well make that argument and then oppose this bill... The statement...
..is just silly. Let's at least write it honestly as:
|
|
It was my basic understanding that under the Bill of Rights we as citizens have guaranteed rights. (Yah I know silly me…) Well anyhow… why don’t we see the NRA or GOA or both do what the ACLU has been doing? Sponsor a case or cases on Constitutional Grounds that these laws over ride the Constitution and cannot take a right away from a citizen. For that matter why haven’t we seen the courts plugged up with lots of cases regarding these B.S. Laws? I’ll tell you what… I would be the first to give large contributions to those organizations that brought this fight where it needs to go; into the courts. |
+1 |
There was a rather good case awhile back. Bach v Pataki , the guy was Navy reserve, and a former SEAL (at least that's what the court records say) and all he wanted was a pistol permit from NY. Got all the way through the second circuit. AFAIK the NRA never touched it. 
|
The point is, the Lautenberg legislation was bad legislation to begin with and should have never been enacted in the first place. Its too restrictive and, in the eyes of many, unconstitutional. If they outlawed all gun ownership, would you then support additional legislature that allowed for warrantless searches to obtain those firearms? The new bill just provides enforcement for an existing law, right?? |
i'm gonna be a smartass and say the NRA never touched that case b/c he was asking for a pistol....not a rifle lol hence nat'l rifle assoc. |
 What's wrong with the current laws that we already have that prevent the VERY SAME THING. Felons can't buy, own, or even have in their possesion, a firearm under current laws.. We don't need NEW laws for that.
This is taking it a step further. A HUGE step further. IMHO, an ILLEGAL step further. This is getting into simple misdermeanor offenses that would prevent firearm ownership FOR LIFE. Again, I say 
|
That's fine, and it should be contested on constitutional grounds.
Like I said, I've got mixed feelings on this. However, being able to perform warrantless searches on a home vs being allowed to mine public information aren't the same thing. I wouldn't fight a bill banning firearms by trying to defeat legislation that gave that ban teeth. There was an incident in Austin here locally last year where a Taiwanese national on an L-1 visa (not an immigrant visa) had been buying and reselling firearms to people who weren't eligible to buy them himself. The resale activity was what got him in trouble, but he shouldn't have been able pass a NICS check to begin with. The legislation being proposed simply allows the NICS system to use more sources of data to make a proper determination if someone is allowed to own a firearm. |
Not even. The reason the NRA won't touch these cases is that they're afraid to have their asses handed to them by judicial activism. If that happens, their mission is over... they'll NEVER get anything accomplished again. Imagine losing a SCOTUS case on the 2nd... you think they'd EVER live it down??? |
|
* And did you know that 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. The perfect law for the socialist assholes after who would resist the new new deal the most |
|
Relax. Take a couple of deep breaths and hummmmmmm gently. Then email your congresscritter if it will ease your angst. Remember this salient point though: As long as the Republicans have controlled congress (Since 1994 for those of you from Hollywood)...and as long as Bush has been prez, NOT ONE FUCKING ANTI-GUN BILL HAS MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE...NOT ONE! That is all. You may now return to your regular programming...and I MEAN programming. 
|
This bill does not change what records are to be made available to NICS. It concerns only those who are prohibited from owning, purchasing, or possesing firearms. It only mandates that 90% of all criminal records required to be submitted per 18 U.S.C. 922 or the state will lose funding. As it is now the FBI has or can get these records now it just isn't automated to the level they want for the NICS.
This means a judges rules that an individual is mental defective and/or an individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. This does include some vets suffering from PTSD, but not all of them. The FBI and H.R.1415 do not determine who is mentaly defective and this bill does not expand the definition of mentaly defective. It only requires the states to submit 90% of all records of mentaly defective individuals or the state will lose funding. As it is now the FBI has or can get these records now it just isn't automated to the level they want for the NICS. The full text of the H.R.1415 is here. Interesting presentation of Lautenburg Amendment. Download free PowerPoint viewer here. Shok |