Senate Panel Sends Brady Expansion Bill To The Floor

[Lambo]

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.

[Kenshin]

One more step on the way to losing the 2nd amendment.

[Agent Smith]

I can't even express how pissed off I am at the NRA for doing this.

[NineseveN]

While I can understand the NRA's and the politicians' reasons for liking this bill (whether I agree with them or not), this whole unrecorded voice vote thing is just not cool. If they're proud of the bill, go on record...if they're not, they shouldn't be voting for it.

[billamj]

I made a point of contacting both Specter and Casey after hearing about this. I have not yet heard back from Casey but Specter sent me the following e-mail.

Dear Mr. billamj:



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

ETA: I'm still trying to find out where, other than the GOA alert, ANYONE says that the NRA backs the plan. They certainly are NOT in agreement with it anywhere on their site.

[rwilson452]

This is his standard letter his staff send out. They up date it once in a while when they think he has something else to brag about.

I made a point of contacting both Specter and Casey after hearing about this. I have not yet heard back from Casey but Specter sent me the following e-mail.



ETA: I'm still trying to find out where, other than the GOA alert, ANYONE says that the NRA backs the plan. They certainly are NOT in agreement with it anywhere on their site.

[KeithPA]

I'm getting sick of all of this "voice vote" crap. Can they actually keep doing this?

[rev214]

I'm getting sick of all of this "voice vote" crap. Can they actually keep doing this?

they can do anything they want...the fix is in, so to speak...like this that happened late on Aug. 2nd in the House:

Last night Democrats fixed a House vote in order to defeat a motion that would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving federal housing funds. The House voted 215 to 213 to deny housing and employment to illegal immigrants on the annual agriculture spending bill. The votes were counted, but the Speaker closed the vote with his gavel. The Democrats then unilaterally and imperially overturned this result—defying 218 years of precedent. The Speaker reopened the vote to ensure that the motion was then defeated by a vote of 212 to 216, disenfranchising the American people and paving the way for illegal immigrants to receive federal housing and employment benefits.

[billamj]

they can do anything they want...the fix is in, so to speak...like this that happened late on Aug. 2nd in the House:

You got that one right Rev. I was utterly amazed as I watched them change votes AFTER the gavel fell and then continued to change them after their "win" was entered into the congressional record. I am so glad that Pelossi and company are going to be the "most balanced leaders" in the history of congress. And our friends in the fourth estate just sit there and don't let the sheeple know about it.