Dingell, McCarthy, Working on 'Compromise' Gun Bill


Well-Known Member
May 27, 2007
Here not there

1. It is imperative that you contact your Representative immediately and urge him to oppose the McCarthy/Dingell bill. A "compromise" [read: gun control] deal is in the works and all legislators -- especially those who are pro-gun -- need to hear from gun owners right away.
GOA members have received a mailing from us within the past week, asking them to send postcards to their U.S. Senators. It is IMPERATIVE that you mail those postcards in. We want to increase the heat on these legislators by deluging them with thousands of postcards. Now, once you've sent in those postcards, we would ask you to e-mail the specially-tailored message that is included below along with contact information.
2. Please circulate this alert to all your pro-gun friends and family, and encourage them to take action as well.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Anti-gun Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) continues his assault on American gun owners.

Dingell has been tapped by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker a compromise with Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on H.R. 297, a gun control bill being pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.

The bill provides about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm... regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

As GOA has pointed out in previous alerts, this could lead to millions more Americans being included in the FBI's database of prohibited persons.

Dingell, being a former NRA board member, is in a unique position in the Congress on Second Amendment issues. Despite the fact that he betrayed gun owners by supporting the Clinton semi-auto ban, he is still viewed on the Hill as one of the few pro-gun Democrats.

So his support gives the bill the appearance of having the support of gun owners, when actually it is the most massive expansion of gun control in over a decade.

McCarthy, of course, is the most notorious anti-gunner in the Congress. Her sitting down with Dingell to decide the fate of our gun rights is like two foxes deciding how to best guard the henhouse.

To make matters worse, Dingell is in negotiations with the NRA to come up with a 'compromise' as quickly as possible.

The NRA itself told Newsweek in an exclusive interview on April 24 that the group "backs [the] proposed new legislation" in the House.

Newsweek reported, "The NRA's position puts the group at odds with the Gun Owners of America, which has already launched a public campaign to block the legislation that the NRA supports, warning that the proposal could 'block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.'"

Politicians always seek to pass laws in the aftermath of a tragedy, as if one more law will stop evil people from doing evil deeds. Instead of passing more and more laws that ultimately will snuff out our liberty, we should consider repealing gun control laws that prevent citizens from defending themselves when a madman strikes.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative at 202-225-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative:

Gun Owners of America informs me that H.R. 297, a colossal gun control bill, is on the fast track. I strongly urge you to oppose this bill.

The Virginia Tech tragedy, which Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is using to try to push this bill, highlights the failure, not success, of gun control.

Instead of passing yet more laws that restrict my Second Amendment rights, Congress should consider repealing the failed gun control laws already on the books -- laws that increasingly result in law-abiding adults being disarmed just when they need their guns the most.

Please oppose the McCarthy bill, H.R. 297, and let me know what you intend to do.
This bill doesnt have a chance. While I dislike the President, he will surely veto this if it as bad as you say. But you have posted dribble and no link so one can actually read the bill for themselves or find out the different groups involved without putting our blind trust in these two posts.
This bill doesnt have a chance. While I dislike the President, he will surely veto this if it as bad as you say. But you have posted dribble and no link so one can actually read the bill for themselves or find out the different groups involved without putting our blind trust in these two posts.

H.R.297 Here is the bill.
Here is what the Washington post said about it.
New federal gun law on way?
NRA-backed measure would tighten loophole on background checks

JONATHAN WEISMAN; The Washington Post
Published: June 10th, 2007 01:00 AM
WASHINGTON – Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers. The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System, and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.
To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. 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.
The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.
“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,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., a former NRA board member, who led the talks.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby – she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road – ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.
By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado.
Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy’s background-check bill.
Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, said Saturday that the organization will strongly back the legislation as written.
“We’ve been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It’s not only good policy, it’s good politics,” he said.
But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a “gun-control wish list” as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.
You will notice that congress and the NRA struck a deal. So whats to stop them?
As the bill stands under its current structure without any amendments or changes, there is no provision that I spotted that would ban any private sales or gun show sales. As a hunter and owner of many firearms for various reasons, I dont think this is a bad bill. It doesnt bring back the draconian laws of limiting types of firearms or magazine capacity that proved to be totally ineffective from the original Brady Bill. What this bill does is require states to keep thier records updated through the federal database we go through each time we buy a new gun. How is that a bad idea? Now I am the first one to denounce reactionary laws stemming from one or a few isolated incidents such as Virginia Tech, but the fact of the matter is that the shooter in that case should not have been in possession of a gun under federal law, and as one can see, rightfully so. If the state of Virginia had kept thier records up to date with the feds, there may have been a different outcome. But nowhere in that bill does it talk about private sales of guns, this as it is written would not stop you from picking up a second hand gun from a garage sale for instance.
But nowhere in that bill does it talk about private sales of guns, this as it is written would not stop you from picking up a second hand gun from a garage sale for instance.

... or by picking the lock on the gun cabinet or from your parent's hiding place, etc. The statistic I found interesting is that more people are killed by guns committing suicide than murder in the United States. Guns are here to stay.
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Thursday, June 14, 2007

Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late. Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making, unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House. The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as bargaining chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns; and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership to explain to its members what they would gain by working with McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time. Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it. To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.
Immigration Bill Could Outlaw Gun Shops
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control. Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either.

Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.

Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID bill passed by Congress in 2005.

Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card before you can get a job.

In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun store in America.

Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.

When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.

At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.

The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.

In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:

* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and

* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.

So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."

This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."

There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.

While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).

If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.

Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).

And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."

Hence, no National ID card... no job.

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 http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

-----Pre-written letter-----
Dear Senator:

Why does the Congress seem bent on pushing gun control every chance it gets? First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill in the House (HR 297) that would greatly expand the Brady Law. We don't need more gun control as a response to Virginia Tech shootings. We need to repeal the gun free zones that turn people into mandatory victims!

Now, the Senate wants to sneak gun control past us in the form of an immigration bill. The Senate immigration package is a horrid piece of legislation in such a wide variety of respects.

But, in addition to everything else, section 205 could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, PUT EVERY MAJOR GUN SHOP OUT OF BUSINESS.

All it would take is for the shop to commit two felony paperwork violations -- and an anti-gun administration willing to find that this was a "primary purpose."

Similarly, a family driving to church or to the movies -- with a gun in the glove compartment -- could be a "criminal gang" if it passed two schools, and an anti-gun administration determined that protecting his family was one of the father's "primary purposes."

Again, I urge you to OPPOSE the immigration package as long as this anti-gun language remains in the bill.


TVC Motor Clubs Are A Pro-gun Alternative To AAA

GOA endorses this motor club as an alternative to AAA -- which supports the equivalent of no-knock entry for motorists. That is, AAA supports what are called primary seat belt laws which enable motorists to be pulled over for that alone. This only increases the risk of an officer asking about guns and doing an illegal search. TVC does not support such legislation.

Executive Director Larry Pratt has been pleased with their service. See http://www.tvcmatrix.com for details.

" or by picking the lock on the gun cabinet or from your parent's hiding place, etc. The statistic I found interesting is that more people are killed by guns committing suicide than murder in the United States. Guns are here to stay."
GUNS CUT THE CRIME RATE DOWN!!! Remember that teen was killed being abducted at Target on June 10th and killed later? If she had a gun her she would been still alive today.Bill OReilly is right you have to protect youself nowadays why you think its tough to abduct people in texas and in florida? Cause of those "" MAKE MY DAY LAWS"" Florida & Texas have laws that people can carry guns in their cars and their pockets.And theres not a damn thing the Police can do about it. You see states like in Maryland and New York if you shoot and kill a criminal who trying to rape you or abduct you if you shoot emn yeah the cops will charge him with the crime.But he will turn right around and charge you with illeagal possesion with a firearm.Like that Girl in NYC she used pepper spray on a guy who was trying to rape her in a parking garage she blinded the attacker she dialed 911 and the cops came arrested the guy who attacked her.And the Cops turn right around and confidscated the pepper spray and citied the girl with a $175 ticket and the officer said Maam,Pepper sprays are illegal in new york city. See the Police dont really protect you.I dont like cops nether cause cops are not fair and they break the laws because they wear that badge.
While I havent read the immigration bill, I have read the "gun control" bill, and once again I will say that as the bill is currently written, all it pretty much does is require states to comply with federal laws concerning people who cannot own guns under past laws, as states should have been doing a long time ago.
In Alaska there is no requirement for a concealed carry license. Yet as a gun owner I dont carry a gun, it doesnt make me feel safer to do so. I see no reason in toting one around.
In the immigration bill, it requires gun shops to comply with law, that isnt a bad thing at all. Once again, this is just dribble from GAO who would it seems prefer to have a Ma Duece mounted on the roof of every mini-van.
Wow, it's nice to see a gun owner (and perhaps enthusiast?) with common sense. You sure don't fit the Alaska stereotype. :)
Segep, well I guess I will take that as a compliment. I think I still do fit the Alaska stereotype quite well. I own well over a dozen guns for various purposes, since there is no waiting period in AK, I have walked out of the gunshop with my purchase in less than 30minutes every time. I will be the first to say many state laws concerning gun ownership are dumb, but all the original poster is doing is forwarding on propaganda including cut and paste letters we are supposed to send to lawmakers in an attempt to further a fringe, nearly radical political lobbyist group.
It is interesting how all of the other major players in the gun control debate are signing onto this bill. They can dribble all they want about not being able to buy second hand guns, not one place does this bill mention anything about that. The crux of this legislation is to give money to states to keep thier end of the bargain in keeping the database current.
I'm sorry, I did mean it as a compliment. And I didn't mean to imply (which I realize now that I did) that Alaskans were not...rational, I guess. You get my drift. It's just nice to see someone who doesn't automatically buy into the rhetoric.
Rhetoric is all this is. I carry a gun in the non-winter months anytime I travel into the woods because of very large brown animals with sharp claws and big teeth, I also hunt just about anything worth eating. But this bill is a good one and has been endorsed by the NRA. This just goes to show what the GOA true colors really are. A machinegun in every baby stroller might as well be thier motto. I find some truth in having arms in the hands of everyday citizens as being an alright idea. But one needs to only look at Iraq as a perfect example of allowing every home an AK-47 as not the best idea.