Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again, HR 297, HR 2640

[T Durdin]

Gun Owners of America sent out this alert today about the following. Please note the legislation discussed, McCarthy (HR 2640) is a compromise to replace the ill-conceived HR 297 but still allows for areas of serious concern. Please help contact our legislators to tell them to vote against this.

*******************************************
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone

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

"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long
opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post,
June 9, 2007

Tuesday, June 12, 2007


While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past
couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a
"compromise" on gun control legislation.

The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong
signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written.
The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who
are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did
something about Virginia Tech.

So what's going on?

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see
http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA
leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the
McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been
introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been
posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative
particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as
reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves
legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government
would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send
more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the
background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds
could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence,
this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The
states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names,
many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and
perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with
minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have
their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000
military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a
chance to clean their records."

Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning
up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are
currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is
aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the
Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from
the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the
83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in
the NICS system.

After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs
are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for
cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there
is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the
NICS system.

Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which
prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are
barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed,
then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for
inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a
disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability
to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have
suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for
their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt,
have to
spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive
recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.

And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our
whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent
until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives
defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of
a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to
the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due
process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added
by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally,
added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now
the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that
backwards?

One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in
getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who
tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very
difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though
the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in
confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest
people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the
government, rather than vice-versa.

The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's
interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any
court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000
veterans.

Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law.

GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an
amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the
FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton
administration was considering doing.

GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the
Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told
that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith
amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!

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 HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. You can call your Representative at
202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on
McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR
2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this
bill.

All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second
Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is
acceptable... period.

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."

Sincerely,

Your name
****************************

[Brick]

So this fight is in the Senate and here is Senator Specters response to my objection to this bill:

Dear Mr. Brickwood:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control. I appreciate you writing to express your interest and opinions on this important matter.


Millions of Americans own firearms for a variety of reasons: many wish to protect themselves and their property while others collect firearms as a hobby or use firearms for sport. Most gun owners are responsible citizens and understand the burden of owning a firearm. While a tiny fraction of the guns in this country are used in the unfortunate instance of the commission of a crime, the government should not prevent gun ownership which would punish law-abiding citizens. I believe the Second Amendment clearly defines the right of citizens to own guns and in my tenure in the Senate, I have a strong reco rd supporting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.


I opposed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act , more commonly known as the 'Brady Bill.' I believed this legislation to be onerous in its restrictions on individuals' right to purchase firearms and I believe it did not sufficiently address the relevant issues necessary to combat crime.


In the 109th Congress (2005-2006) , I voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act . This act limits the civil liability of gun manufacturers and reduces frivolous lawsuits. During the Senate's consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007 , I supported and the Senate adopted an amendment which would prohibit any funding provided by this legislation to be used for the purpose of confiscating firearms during a natural disaster or another state of emergency.


Thank you again for contacting me regarding the right to own firearms. I will keep your thoughts in mind if the Senate considers any legislation relating to guns or gun control in the 110th Congress. Please be assured, I will continue to support the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and own firearms. If you have any further questions about this issue or any other issue, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .


Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

NOTE: I've had NO reponse from Sen. Casey

I find it interesting that he relates his past support for gun owners, but doesn't state his position on this bill.

I oppose this bill because it doesn't set a standard for the states to meet with regards to "adjudicated mental defective". Before I support it, this must mean that the subject person under scrutiny. Must appear before a judge in open court, where he may oppose the State's attorneys and expert medical witnesses with his own legal counsel and physicians. In other words the rights of due process must be preserved for the individual.