Federal Spending bill risks more gun rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • eodtim

    Active Member
    Mar 9, 2014
    148
    Linthicum, MD
    See below from oped on Fox.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-risk-thanks-to-republicans-in-congress.html

    The Second Amendment rights of more than 4 million Americans are at risk thanks to Republicans in Congress
    John Lott
    3/23/2018, 12:09 AM

    Congressional Republicans are jeopardizing the Second Amendment rights of 4.2 million senior citizens. At the same time, they have voted to funnel tens of millions of dollars to gun control organizations and support other actions that Democrats will love.

    All of this is wrapped up in the giant $1.3 trillion spending bill that the House of Representatives approved Thursday on a 256-167 vote and sent to the Senate.

    Just before President Obama left office, his administration finalized new regulations banning Social Security recipients from buying a gun if they have trouble managing their finances.

    About 10 percent of all people 65 and older risked being classified as “financially incompetent” – about 4.2 million in all.

    Using the Congressional Review Act, Republicans and two Democrats passed a bill overturning the regulation. But the bill did more than that. It also prevents any future president from reinstituting the ban without new legislative authorization from Congress.

    Unfortunately, the spending bill passed Thursday allows the ban to be reinstituted because it reauthorizes the 2007 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act. This act allowed government agencies, not just the courts, to determine if someone is mentally incompetent to buy or possess a gun.

    House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said during testimony late Wednesday that he was “disturbed” that the bill would undo part of Republicans’ good work. But by Thursday morning, the House leadership had decided to go ahead with the measure.

    Despite the name Fix-NICS, the bill is likely to cause more problems than it is worth.

    Criminals are often dumb, but they are rarely so stupid as to buy a gun through a legal background check process. The people who get stopped are law-abiding citizens who simply have similar names to the criminals on the NICS list.

    These “false positives” are a real problem. From 2006 to 2015, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System denied gun purchases by 826,144 people. But all those denials led to only 488 prosecutions in the whole 10-year period – fewer than 50 a year. Less than half of these ended in convictions.

    This is an easy problem to fix. The government need only hold itself to the same standards it demands of companies performing background checks on their employees. But the problem isn’t being fixed, and so adding more names to NICS will only result in more false positives.

    Democrats want to “fix” NICS, but they won’t even accede to Republican requests mandating the full, annual NICS reports that the Obama administration discontinued in 2010.

    Another part of the spending bill provides $50 million for the STOP School Violence Act, which will provide schools with training in how to cope with attacks and how to identify violence-prone individuals. Despite President Trump’s push to encourage schools to arm teachers and staff, the bill expressly forbids schools from using any federal money to do just that.

    Sandy Hook Promise designed the STOP School Violence Act, tailoring it to the
    contracts that will be given out. Unfortunately, Sandy Hook Promise advocates extreme gun control measures and promotes such measures to teachers and students.

    Why should tax dollars from National Rifle Association members and other
    supporters of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms be used to fund organizations that teach children and teachers that gun ownership is bad?

    Another part of the spending bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do research on “gun violence.”

    But despite all of the claims by gun control advocates, the CDC was never banned from doing such research. In 1996, Arkansas Republican Rep. Jay Dickey placed a provision in the CDC budget stating: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” (Italics added).

    Democrats are already claiming the gutting of this provision as a major victory. But either Democrats have never read the Dickey provision or they’ve been intentionally misleading people. In fact, the Obama administration funded gun violence research anyway through the CDC and other agencies. There was no reduction in gun control research after the Dickey provision.

    It is bad enough that the government can’t keep politics out of its decisions about what research to fund. But what possible justification could there be for letting government agencies use federal tax dollars to “advocate or promote gun control?”

    Republicans can’t get anything on gun control through the Senate without 60 votes. With Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., absent for months to receive cancer treatments, that means nothing can pass the Senate without the votes of 10 Democrats.

    Republicans who value the Second Amendment have given up a lot. The millions of Americans who believe in the amendment and who believe in our right to self defense and to defend our families now have reason to be concerned.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was
    formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against

    Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on Twitter @johnrlottjr.
    The Second Amendment rights of more than 4 million Americans are at risk thanks to Republicans in Congress
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    As much as I think it isn't a great spending bill and I don't think the language restricting certain social security beneficiaries from possessing firearms is good, it also isn't some generalized threat.

    The language only makes those who have a representative payee, which are generally either those who are physically or mentally infirm enough they can't handle their own money or lack the education to (IE illiterate). BUTTTTTTT, only those who have been adjudicated as having a mental disability.

    So these aren't simply people with really bad depression who become prohibited, these are people likely with mental problems severe enough they can't handle their own money or represent themselves with the Social Security Administration.

    These aren't people with a bad back or collecting benefits because they are over 65.

    Again, I am NOT for the legislation, but the alarmist terms it is generally referred to on what is instituting new prohibitions is a little disingenuous.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,953
    Well, sure, if some old fogy can't keep up with online banking issues, he/she should definitely be denied the ability to defend him/herself. After all, they're no longer gainfully employed, and are a drain on the system. Also veterans with PTSD issues should be adjudicated incapable of defending themselves. Just send the local LEO to protect them from their firearms by forced seizure.

    Certainly the Alt-Left will never stretch or extend their definitions of competency to cover more and more people. They don't want to disarm the nation; it's just Common Sense.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,504
    Messages
    7,284,380
    Members
    33,471
    Latest member
    Ababe1120

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom