PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus package has no anti-gun laws...


leadcounsel
February 4, 2009, 11:59 PM
Is it a good sign that the stimulus package doesn't have any anti-gun ornaments... There are a lot of pet projects, and I think it's a good sign that there are no anti-gun measures.

jclayto
February 5, 2009, 08:19 AM
Leadcouncil, I was about to post a question similar to yours. You are saying that the bill contains no anti-gun measures. On the way in this morning someone called into a talk show ranting about the stimulus package including a 5 cent tax per round charged to the manufacture as well as some other stuff relating to serializing ammunition.

I generally take everything on talk radio with a few grains of salt, so I am curious if there is any truth to this? Does anyone know for sure if this is included or not? I have spent the past few mins searching the net and can not find anything regarding it. Are you sure that there is no firearms related stuff in the package? I am going to continue to research but as of now it looks like you are correct. As to whether that's a good sign that its not included, it's hard to say.

It would be hard to push a gun law as stimulus, but I am sure it will come up eventually stuck in some different package. I challenge all of us to stay alert, read and research and stay informed so that we can attempt to cut off any anti 2nd amendment issues before they are passed.

rdalrymple
February 5, 2009, 08:35 AM
I heard the same thing jclayto did, same caller I assume. I too have searched and cannot connect the stimulus plan to ammunition tracing, but this caller is a regular and is respected in regard to his knowledge of gun issues.

If he said it, and he did, I would normally be inclined to believe it. I sure wish I could find confirmation, one way or the other.

jclayto
February 5, 2009, 09:06 AM
Nice to see another Upstate resident on here! I am sure we heard the same guy, good ole' RT :)

jclayto
February 5, 2009, 09:08 AM
I fogot to add, I did find that there is a 4.19 billion dollar earmark for neighborhood stabilization. It appears this money will go to the fine folks over at ACORN, remember them from the campaign days?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

buzz_knox
February 5, 2009, 09:09 AM
It would be hard to push a gun law as stimulus, but I am sure it will come up eventually stuck in some different package.

Not really. These packages all have a statement in the title about "and for other purposes." That allows them to get around the requirement that bills state exactly what they are for up front. That's how birth control got put in as "stimulus" in the first round.

gc70
February 5, 2009, 07:27 PM
H.R. 1 - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1as.txt.pdf); this is the January 30 2009 version of the bill as amended by the Senate. The bill does not contain the word "ammunition" and only contains the word "firearm" once (in a reference to ATF funding).

The original version passed by the House (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf) did not contain either of the words "ammunition" or "firearm."

RevNate
February 5, 2009, 08:01 PM
Local radio talk show had a Mrs. Simone (I think) from NRA on today addressing this. She stated that there was no gun or ammo tax or bullet serialization legislation in this. I haven't read it, but I'm gonna say that if it was there, the NRA probably would have found it.

Just don't let your guard down.

ReadyOnTheRight
February 12, 2009, 05:22 AM
I heard a talk show host here in Minnesota this morning say that the Pork Steamroller Stimulus bill contained provisions that required transfer of ALL firearms to go through FFL dealers - nationwide. I have not heard it anywhere else.

I DID receive the following from GOA. Worth noting since a federal medical database can certainly be full of unintended consequences:


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


"HR 1 is about more than just pork. Millions of gun owners stand to
lose their gun rights without any due process." -- Larry Pratt, GOA
Executive Director


Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to
slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone
has an opportunity to read it.

The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The
only thing that matters is the "bigness." And, by shipping a bill of
nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren,
the package is really, really big -- bigger, in fact, than the budget of
our entire government for the first 170 years of our country's
existence.

But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of
Washington, Gun Owners -- and a lot of other analysts -- are beginning
to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of
HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical
records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True, the bill doesn't mandate that the data will be in a giant computer
under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be
reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology -- tasked with, among other things, "providing
information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of
care."

It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by
statute to try to influence your doctor's decisions with respect to your
medical care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database (which government can freely access)
will now contain all records of government-provided and private
psychiatric treatment -- including, in particular, the drugs which were
prescribed.

Remember last year's "NICS Improvement Act" -- otherwise known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF's attempts to make you
a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist's finding
that you are a "danger" -- without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer's... or police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the
new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences
of its sanctions -- YET. And the chief reason is that their records are
not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable,
computerized form.

The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly
hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned
psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive
database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does
business with the government.

This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical
treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to
protect your privacy.

But this turns the concept of "privacy" on its head. The privacy which
is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government -- not
privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After
all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with
mountains of information stolen.

So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric
records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the
gun rights of those with Alzheimer's, those with ADD, and those with
PTSD.

ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout
bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your
psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database
against your will -- without you getting your day in court.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Prewritten Letter -----

Dear Senator:

I am particularly concerned about sections 13101 through 13434 of the
new bailout bill (HR 1). These sections would set up the infrastructure
to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a
government-coordinated database, including psychiatric records.

It is scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute
to try to influence my doctor's decisions with respect to my medical
care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database will now contain all records of
government-provided and private psychiatric treatment.

Last year's "NICS Improvement Act" codified ATF's attempts to make a
person a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist's
finding that he is a "danger" -- without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

Now, this new government-coordinated database threatens the gun rights
of people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder... seniors with Alzheimer's... police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder... and many other law-abiding Americans.

Please vote against cloture on HR 1 until this provision is removed.

Sincerely,


****************************

Bartholomew Roberts
February 12, 2009, 10:02 AM
Not one of GOAs better legislative analyses in my opinion. I think they are trying to stretch a justified concern over a centralized medical database into a "gun control" argument because they feel the issue is important, even though it has no real impact on gun control. The fact that they mischaracterized (again) The NICS Improvement Act to make the point is just icing on the cake.

NAKing
February 12, 2009, 12:19 PM
Oh, boy. Here we go again. I have read the bill and already posted on the lack of anti-gun laws on another gun forum.

NAKing
February 12, 2009, 12:20 PM
First off, yes, I completely read this stuff - raw from the horse's mouth. I freely admit that I am a total nerd.

That said, this legalese makes even me want to http://members.cox.net/wmclark/Suicide.gif

The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (HR2640) that the Gun Owners of America referenced was introduced on January 5, 2007 by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY] and became law on 1/8/2008. It is a bill, "to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes." It consists of three titles and amended the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (18 U.S.C. 922 note - for those that want to read it - it's not very long.). Basically, it forced the states to "make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm..." This "releveant information" is information such as misdeameanor crimes of domestic violence, adjudicated mental defectives, or those committed to a mental institution. Notice, your possible relationship with any psychiatrist is left in tact. Thanks to the NRA lobbying, this bill protects veterans designated to have psychological conditions and those successfully treated for mental illness. Reading the bill, I could not find any expansion of the "mental defective" definition, as some suggest. The bill clearly defines such by referring back to section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code just like every other piece of legislation requiring the definition.

Now, for the current legislation (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). While there are medical privacy concerns, I simply cannot connect the "Health Information Technology Implementation" (as the bill puts it) to stripping gun rights. Not once does the bill mention NICS, background checks, or guns. Section 3009 clearly states that the bill will, "take into account the requirements of HIPAA privacy and security law." Some are confusing this database with NICS. The two are completely separate.

In short, I believe the Gun Owners of America article to have some accurate information, along with voicing valid privacy concerns; however, I find the article to have exaggerated conclusions and some misleading information:

The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to
slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone
has an opportunity to read it.

True. President Obama has billed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" as his top priority. He has actively urged the House and Senate to pass it in a timely manner.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of
HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical
records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True. The bill pretty much takes your currently available health information and digitizes it. There are valid privacy concerns here (especially regarding the searchability of the database), IMHO. That said, Section 3009 clearly states that the bill will, "take into account the requirements of HIPAA privacy and security law." The above quote is misleading because the information is not specific to gun owners and is separate from the NICS system and any state or federal background checking system/database.

Remember last year's "NICS Improvement Act" -- otherwise known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF's attempts to make you
a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist's finding
that you are a "danger" -- without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

False. Thanks to the NRA lobbying, HR2640 protects veterans designated to have psychological conditions and those successfully treated for mental illness. Reading the bill, I could not find any expansion of the "mental defective" definition as some suggest. The bill clearly defines such by referring back to section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer's... or police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the
new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences
of its sanctions -- YET. And the chief reason is that their records are
not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable,
computerized form.

The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly
hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned
psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive
database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does
business with the government.

Misleading and/or false. Misleading: I don't know how the writer of the article was able to conclude that sanctions would follow the act of digitizing previously-existing records. I could not find any information suggesting this. False: Again, veterans with PTSD are exempt thanks to the NRA's lobbying efforts on HR2640. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has no such provision and will not modify the NICS system or HIPAA laws.

So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric
records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the
gun rights of those with Alzheimer's, those with ADD, and those with
PTSD.

False. The NICS database is completely separate, and HIPAA laws remain unchanged.

I'm as wary about this as the next guy. There are valid privacy concerns and legitimate criticism for putting this in a "stimulus bill;" however, there is exaggeration in the article.

Again, I made sure to only use primary sources presented from "non-biased" sources. I hope this "fact checking" helped somebody. :o

ThorntonMelon
February 12, 2009, 02:18 PM
ReadyOnTheRight is dead on...there may not be any direct anti-gun legislation in the bill, but this healthcare record-keeping proposal will be used to prohibit as many people as possible from owning guns by declaring them 'unfit' without due process.

405boy
February 12, 2009, 02:29 PM
I agree with ThorntonMelon, they will pass the law, then use the info gained against us all, EVENTUALLY, may be months or years, but having this kind of personal info is nobodys business but your own. I voted for less government damnit.

Kjeil
February 13, 2009, 04:31 PM
I was listening to either Mark Levin or the Laura Ingrahm show last night and Anne Coulter was a guest caller. She said something about a provision in the stimulus bill that turned some highway into a national park area which therefore made it a "no gun zone"

I haven't been able to find anything else on this, has anybody else heard of it?

the highway was somewhere in Virginia and some other state. I know it's vague but that's kind of the point.

Huey Long
February 13, 2009, 05:38 PM
I was listening to either Mark Levin or the Laura Ingrahm show last night and Anne Coulter was a guest caller. She said something about a provision in the stimulus bill that turned some highway into a national park area which therefore made it a "no gun zone"

I haven't been able to find anything else on this, has anybody else heard of it?

Anti-gun Land Bill On The Move (http://gunowners.org/a021009.htm)

You might want to consider signing up for GOA's email alerts. They'll keep you on top of things pretty well.

Kjeil
February 13, 2009, 10:16 PM
Wow, so I'm I little confused as to what to think. You would have thought the NRA would have said something about this but instead they sent this out:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4430

It almost seems like they either didn't do their research and find this other bill or are trying to divert attention away from it. Either way it's not good.

gc70
February 14, 2009, 02:23 AM
You would have thought the NRA would have said something about this but instead they sent this out:

Although they try, it is hard to refute something that exists in someone's imagination.

Kjeil
February 14, 2009, 03:16 AM
Well what I meant was that instead of just dispelling it as a simple rumor about the stimulus bill they should have said that it was not part of the stimulus bill BUT it was part of Senate Bill 22 which does included the "rumored" provisions.

shortwave
February 14, 2009, 08:56 AM
Lets not be confused. Although there may not be something written outright about restricting guns/ammo in this legislation, before things are done and if the anti-gun political society history holds true, there will be some political moron try to use his/her interpretation of something in it to manipulate our 2nd amendment rights:rolleyes:. Bound to happen.

Mike Irwin
February 15, 2009, 12:04 AM
Right now the firearms and ammunition industries seem to be the only segments of the economy that are blazing.

I was at the gunshow at Dulles outside of DC today and it was a frigging madhouse.

Heard a bunch of people were talking about how the stimulus package was going to "rob us of our gun rights."

Sigh.

Mike Irwin
February 15, 2009, 12:08 AM
Lets not be confused. Although there may not be something written outright about restricting guns/ammo in this legislation, before things are done and if the anti-gun political society history holds true, there will be some political moron try to use his/her interpretation of something in it to manipulate our 2nd amendment rights. Bound to happen.


Yes, but that's really not to the point now, is it?

Let's face it, someone in Congress could well use interpretations of existing laws to declare white males illegal residents and have us shipped off to some other local...

Right?

How about we worry about what is right in front in of us right in black and white right now, and let's not try to create a billion and one screamingly paranoid "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS BY INTERPRETING THAT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT......!!!!!!!!!!!"

It doesn't do anyone any good, and in fact tends to make people look bad...

shortwave
February 15, 2009, 01:05 PM
Mike, not trying to create a thing. You made my point for me. Whats 'been in question in black and white' is the Constitution. I`ve not sit down and read the stimulus package(neither has senators or congressman) but I`ve learned from a lifetime of watching how the anti-gun society has manipulated whats clearly written in black and white(the Constitution). If there`s a gray area in any legislation that the anti`s can use to promote taking guns/ammo they will and gun owners should be aware(not paranoid) of how things are written and 'could' be used. IMO thats just being aware, not paranoid and does not make anyone look bad. My feelings stand.

Mike Irwin
February 15, 2009, 08:49 PM
"Not trying to create a thing..."


Oh really?

"before things are done and if the anti-gun political society history holds true, there will be some political moron try to use his/her interpretation of something in it to manipulate our 2nd amendment rights. Bound to happen."

That's called creation -- creating the spectre of what MIGHT happen.

As I said, worry about what's in the bill that just passed, NOT what you think might happen days, months, or years down the road.

Prognostication is best left to Jimmy the Greek and Jean Dixon.

Around here it tends to turn into the screaming mimi of all conspiracy theories.

"Made my point for me."

In order for someone to make a point for you, you have to have a point to begin with.

Running around in circles and screaming fire at the top of your lungs isn't making a point.


As I said.

There's plenty of complete and total crap in the stimulus bill. Concentrate on that, and give the crystal ball back to Mesmerino.

shortwave
February 15, 2009, 11:10 PM
Yes really! And our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution, thats spelled out in black and white, never thought that it would be manipulated either did they. If they could see things now! Our whole Constitution has been manipulated from time to time. Does it register to you the history of the fight thats been going on with our 2nd Amend. and some of the backdoor tactics the anti`s have used on the Amend. and other past legislation to further their cause. You expect me to take what is written in this bill at face value and believe that politicians won`t use the grey areasand manipulate them for their own agenda`s gun related or not. Ha! Go ahead and believe that if you want. History has shown me different and with the group thats in there now, IMO we`ll see manipulation of alot of legislation before its over with. As I said, IF THE ANTI-GUN SOCIETY HISTORY HOLDS TRUE, there will be some political moron manipulate it if given a chance. 'Creative' and 'careful' of what can happen are two different things. If your theory of " Prognostication " is correct then none of us should be ccw`ing for self defense cause its only "in the stars" that something could happen. We carry cause of the possibility that something can happen . I worry about grey areas in all legislation for the possibilities of what can and has happened. Lastly, not trying to create conspiracy or any other kind of theories. My point in the first post I was trying to make was that if the anti`s can take any grey area of this bill,manipulate it now or in the future, they will and thats something that concerns me and should you as well. Hope I`m proven to be wrong and this bill is never manipulated in any way. For now I`ll just agree to dissagree with your line of thought. P.S. Hope to see you at the march, Spring of 2010.

Re4mer
February 16, 2009, 12:43 AM
I have not looked into how the bill affects gun laws specifically but in general it seems to be yet another step on the road toward a socialist government in the US. The only true debate is whether or not it will be the final step.

Mike Irwin
February 16, 2009, 01:30 AM
"And our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution, thats spelled out in black and white, never thought that it would be manipulated either did they."

Really?

You've ever heard of the Alien and Sedition laws, which heavily manipulated the Constitution, and which were passed by many of the same men who WROTE the Constitution?

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that the Framers laid down the Constitution, quit there, and retired to have their likenesses carved into marble for posterity.

They didn't.

The entire US Code, passed in increments throughout the 1790s through the early 1800s, was an exercise in manipulating the Constitution.

How about Louisiana Purchase? Nothing in the Constitution gave the Federal government the right or ability to add to the nation through outright purchase of land from a foreign government. Jefferson and many of the men who wrote the Constitution manipulated it to make the purchase legal even though there were calls that it was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal government.

If the Framers could see things now, they'd see a continuation of the process that they started. Nothing more.

Some of them would be supremely ******. Others would likely be more than fine with much of what's gone on in the past 200 years.

I'll say it one last time.

Unclench your buttocks, pull your skivies out of your rat hole, and concentrate on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Don't fight the battle that you THINK you might have to fight, fight the battle that is in front of you.

Your advocacy is far more effective that way.

shortwave
February 16, 2009, 02:15 AM
Your right Mike. Thats all the anti`s are trying to do to the Framers version of the Const.(2nd Amend.) today. Just re-frame it alittle. I love this bill and you`ve talked me into accepting it as written. It will be the greatest thing a Pres. has ever signed and if it is manipulated, you,me,children,grandchildren and our forefathers will be proud. It will be done in a positive way. Could have done without some of the cute,sarcastic words you used as a mod. but your thoughts are appreciated;). The condition of my buttocks and location of my skivies are personnal and i don`t want people to get the wrong impression of you and I. Again,hope to see you at the march.

Nnobby45
February 16, 2009, 02:36 AM
Is it a good sign that the stimulus package doesn't have any anti-gun ornaments... There are a lot of pet projects, and I think it's a good sign that there are no anti-gun measures.

For the most part, it's a spending bill. Hard to tell, of course, since nobody seems to have read the thing. I think even the people who created it put what they wanted in there and passed it on to the next liberal without much concern to what they might add in.

Not a good sign at all. They're going to attack the 2d Amendent with more than just stuff they snuck on to some other bill. Not to say they've abandanded that tactic completely, either.

pnac
February 16, 2009, 02:13 PM
This might be a good website to see what's actually in the stimulus bill.

http://stimuluswiki.com/w/index.php/Main_Page

armedtotheteeth
February 16, 2009, 10:35 PM
i got this in a email. I hope its Bs. Some one help me please
"
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.”

As to why these US Troops are being prepared to be unleashed upon the American people one need look no further than the massive New World Order ‘stimulus’ bill President Obama is set to sign in Denver, and which unknown to virtually all of these poor souls had ‘slipped’ into it, in ink, and just minutes prior to its passing by the US Congress (rendering them unable to read it), a provision titled “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009” and named after a 16-year old honor student in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago who was murdered in May, 2007.
It is no wonder that this new law has been kept secret from the American people by their propaganda media organs as with its coming into law means that every single American owning a firearm will have to possess a US National Firearms Permit [Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following]and that all guns in the United States will have to be registered and that no private sales of guns [Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act] between Americans will be allowed, all of which are designed to effectively disarm the entire population of this Nation exactly one year [SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS.The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.] upon President Obama’s signing on February 17th."

that was just an exerpt from the whole thing. I hope its Bs

gc70
February 16, 2009, 11:15 PM
i got this in a email. I hope its Bs. Some one help me please

Yes, it is an inaccurate report. H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) was NOT "slipped into" or in any way included in the stimulus bill (H.R. 1).

Check for yourself; H.R. 1 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1pp.txt.pdf) contains the word "firearm" precisely once, in relation to ATF funding. H.R. 45 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:) contains the word "firearm" 112 times.

armedtotheteeth
February 17, 2009, 07:39 AM
thanky GC70. I kinda figurd it was crap. I found on http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4430 that this is probably false, but i did not know how up to date th Nra was . Im guessing they are on top of things.