Hold on to your hats, folks - the NRA and the Democrats are in agreement on a Bill. Democrats/NRA/Agreement The agreement is in regard to the NICS or National Instant Check System and the goal is to get their records in order, a goal driven by the Virginia Tech killings.
The agreement calls for states to keep their records current with monetary rewards and penalties for failure. The NRA demanded in return that people with minor infractions be allowed to petition states to have their names removed, that 80,000 vets be allowed to have their VA mental health records reviewed. The Federal govt would be permanently barred from charging buyers or sellers for their checks. Duplicate names and expunged convictions must be purged. John Dingle (D) MI led the talks with the NRA, The WaPo reports saying, "The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement."
Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY had been pushing a similar legislation, but her hostile relation with the lobby nixed any chance of a deal. Oddly considering the Democratic relationship the Republicans had been unable to reach such a deal previously. The NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, said the the organization has been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. He warned that if the bill becomes a gun control wish the NRA will oppose it. Both sides were motivated by the fact that the bill is good politics and a good policy.
The last Federal gun control bill of major importance was the 1994 assault weapons ban and the NRA opposed it ferociously. That Bill played a major role in Democratic loss of Congress that year and in the 2000 election loss of Al Gore. The WaPo article has a fairly detailed report of the mechanisms of the bill, the contrast in sense and thoughtfulness between the bills is stark. The message that the NRA is willing to support legislation that isn't harmful to law abiding gun owners and helps keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
There are ways to run a legislative body that will work to the benefit of the country, this might be a start. Let's see if they can keep from screwing it up, that means watching and it means telling them.
7 comments:
I'm no computer whiz so I'll probably screw this up. If so you can Google up Bill Clinton's order to make the veteran's aministration turn over the names of veterans treated for Post Traumatic stress disorder to the instant back ground check system. Now ain't that just pure democratic? Let's take the boys and girls who used a rifle to defend this country and later suffered the effects of doing so and put them on a list of people who can't own guns. Getting vets in to talk about their problems was and is a major problem. When the word gets out that after they come home and want to go deer or elk hunting or just do a little trap shooting if they ever went into the VA to treat PTSD they are on a dangerous list. Nope democrats deserve a black eye at the polls.
Going to try and paste in part of an article from Gun Owners of America. Here goes:
"Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. 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. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system."
OK, I guess it worked. Now it's time to undo some Clinton mischief
The Clinton's, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer have carried Ted Kennedy's hate of guns forever. Obama, has not exposed his feelings on guns, but being from Illinois I would think of him as another gun-grabber.I hope that voters will give a lot of thought to Representatives and Senators this coming election. Conservative dimmos are a must.Same applies to repugs.
The NRA and Democrats come together over something to address one of the problems one of you refers to and the only thing you've got to say is, "damn dems"? Exactly why should the Democratic Party make any attempt to behave in a rational manner regarding the 2nd if all the feedback is "damn dems"?
oh well
$10 says that the moonbat prohibitionists will add some poison pill amendments to this, effectively killing it. Give 'em a millimeter, they'll demand a light year.
Chuck, did you see the other gun-related story in the WaPo about Bill Richardson's gun hobbies? I didn't know he had a CHL. I have mixed feelings about Richardson, but at least he appears to be staunchly pro-2A.
He is pro 2A, he is pro a lot of things meaningful. He stinks on illegal immigration.
There comes a point where we understand that NOBODY will stand with anyone of us on everything. Yes, there are places we dare not go, we need to pick carefully.
Richardson does appear to be pro-illegals. He's also pro-NAFTA, and I just found out he voted for the "assault weapon" ban. Arrgghh.
I'd still love to see a westerner elected. I took this presidential candidate quiz and it put Ron Paul at the top. Not surprising. But it also suggested Mike Gravel. Name sounded vaguely familiar. So I looked at his record, and while I don't agree with everything he stands for, he strikes me as someone I might be able to support. But looks like he has an ice cube's chance in hell thanks to the Hillary/Obama corporate steamroller---he can barely afford bus fare. Thanks for that link to the Nation article on Hillary, by the way. Not surprising, but nice to have the facts at hand.
I think ideally I'd like to see Al Gore in the White House and a Republican Congress. Not because I like Republicans (I must admit to liking Al Gore, though), but only because stalemate is good. Al is weak on the 2A, but he's very strong on the environment, especially climate change, which I see as BY FAR the most pressing issue of our generation. As much as I complain about Democrats, the Republicans are absolutely horrible on the environment, which is the only reason I've never voted for one. I just wish there was a Dem who consistently supported ALL of the Bill of Rights. Not gungrabbing hypocrites like Obama or Hillary.
I guess it comes down to which corporate lap-dog you prefer. If for no other reason I will only vote for a candidate that has a record of supporting ALL the bill of rights. If that makes me a one issue voter, so be it. I despise the old saw " it was either him or..." Sounds like Lieberman doesn't it. At this moment Ron Paul has my vote or Edwards, here I toss a coin. I hold firmly that not voting is as democratic as is voting.
Post a Comment