Say No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban"


New member
We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition: No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban"
Link Removed

get on it...

Semper fidelis


New member

Remember, this should be in addition to contacting your senators and representatives. This petition seems like it might be informal, I wouldn't want to risk it being my only expression against the ban.


New member
Petition signed. And I'm with Ishi, I've already contacted my Senators and House Rep. perviously on this lunatic MacCarthy from NY. In fact I write them regularly just to let them know they are being watched.


New member
I don't know, those assault rifles are pretty scary. Just kidding. :) Gladly signed it. Thanks for the link.


New member
Got this Today from NRA-ILA in my email


Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.
The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.

MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."
FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons." The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.

MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.
Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website Link Removed) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at Link Removed.)
Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."
FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."
Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."
They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.
Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.
FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."
FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.
Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.
Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at Link Removed) and reaches the same conclusion.

MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.
FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.
Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at Link Removed.

MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.
FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.
FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."
FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)
After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.


New member
This is a NRA sell-out...

I am a member of the NRA and I am disgusted by their position on it...

Read what GOA has to say about it...

An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151

Thursday, October 4, 2007

It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it onto your friends and colleagues.


Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel


New member
Did you know that the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership all oppose the Veterans Disarmament Act, sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640) and shepherded by Chuck Schumer in the Senate?

Last week, the American Legion stated that it "strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640... that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Senator Tom Coburn wants to offer a series of amendments to this obnoxious bill. I hope that you will stand with Senator Coburn and defend the constitutionally protected rights of all Americans. And by "stand with," I mean supporting ALL of Coburn's amendments -- not just one or two.

If we do nothing, we have already lost... George Washington


New member
As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
Of Relief For Gun Owners

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but
by the past. -- Patrick Henry, in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death" speech of March 23, 1775

Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to
make the same mistakes in the future.

Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun
ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals.

But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even
when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics
who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that
millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy

For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy
bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce
a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of
thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy
and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years

Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun
owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun
owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners
(and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill
that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament
Bill now.

Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of
goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to
screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their
constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to
all kinds of abuses.

The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses.
After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like
McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when
they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question
answers itself.


Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun
owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially
millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and
then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain
the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?

Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop
criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding
folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue
that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament
Bill) to fix the problem!!!

So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very
limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they
never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners
who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:

* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be
prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of
post-traumatic stress disorder;

* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection
seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the
family inheritance);

* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a
diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by
the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and
bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny
guns to as many people as possible.


A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a
significant number of Americans from buying guns because of
outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting
Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were
for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than
felony convictions.

Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners
inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when
those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).

Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms
because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of
their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season
this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which
is illegal.

And then there's the BATFE's dastardly conduct in the state of
Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after
legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy
firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of

Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has
seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court
opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v.
United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction
which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be
considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of
owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling,
and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's
gun rights.

Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the
McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been
enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions
of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.

The new language on the 4473 form asks:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are
incompetent to manage your own affairs)....

Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful
Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court
"ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to
judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA
psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.

This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the
BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This
means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying
a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a
potential danger to themselves or others.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the
McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For
the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."


Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises
from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does
the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored --
even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's
VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy
piece entitled, "Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640,"
which can be read at on the GOA

In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability
to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was
always an
expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans
Disarmament Act will be the same.

Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with
the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at
the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have
provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security.
The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.

If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath
waiting for the promised relief.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You
can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
Link Removed (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

to be continued...


New member

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

Dear Senator:

While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick
Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the
first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." Gun owners don't want
to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is
simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no
due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.

Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens
who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I
don't believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters
are promising.

After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it
tells me you don't care about a little thing known as the



To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
Link Removed on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.


New member
Could you guys start a HR 2640 thread? I opened the thread expecting to read about HR 1022...


New member
We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition: No to HR 1022, "Assault Weapons Ban"
Link Removed

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest member