Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, February 19, 2007

A little bit more about Zumbo--but mostly about NICS "Improvement" Act

I realize that I've been kind of hammering this Zumbo thing, to the point that even I'm starting to get a little tired of it--but there has been some more news worth sharing. David Codrea, at War on Guns, has confirmed that Remington is severing ties with Zumbo.

It might not happen often, but every once in a long while, circumstances line up such that the right thing to do as a matter of principle is also the right thing to do in terms of bottom line profit. Such a situation landed on Remington CEO and President Tommy Milner's desk, and he made the correct decision. Outdoor Life needs to follow suit, and so does the NRA (especially the NRA).

But enough (for now, at least) about Zumbo--what I really want to discuss today is the Carolyn McCarthy's H.R. 297, the so-called NICS "Improvement" Act. I made a glancing reference to it Saturday, but I think it's worth a closer look.

Actually, I talked a little about back on January 8th, but then, while I wasn't very enthusiastic about the idea, I hadn't yet come to understand just how grave a threat it poses to lawful gun ownership, and I say that despite my full awareness of the NRA's enthusiastic support for it.

While the NRA focuses on the measure's possibly beneficial effects with regard to addressing delays inherent to the current system, the GOA takes a much closer look, and finds some much more ominous elements.

For example:

The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Note the "under indictment"--in other words, this is about preventing firearms purchases by those who have not been convicted of any crimes. So much for the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt, eh?

Perhaps worse is the provision in McCarthy's bill for inclusion of mental health records in the national computerized database:
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.

This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.
Nice. We send these courageous men and women to hostile lands, to carry firearms in defense of our national interests, and when they come home, we tell them they can't have firearms for their own defense. Veterans aside, the mental health care community (as a whole, I realize that there are exceptions) is notoriously hostile to private ownership of firearms, and this bill would greatly enhance the power of mental health care professionals to deny the basic right of firearms ownership.

There's more than I'm going to get into here, so be sure to read the GOA's entire analysis of the bill. Also, ask yourself why rabidly anti-rights Carolyn McCarthy, who just introduced a bill to reauthorize the defunct ban on so-called "assault weapons," would sponsor a bill that is good for gun owners. The only answer that makes sense is that she wouldn't--whatever the NRA says.

Then, it might be time to ask them some questions.


Anonymous said...

McCarthy's ticket to relevance is written in blood. The more helpless people she can create, the more blood she has, to sail to more prominence.

That is obviously a deep draft boat she is sailing on the sea of blood. Her husband's death due to the exact conditions she would impose on everybody didn't satisfy her blood lust, nor her reach for power whose basis is in the horrid victimization of ordinary citizens. She is simply trying to provide herself with more atrocity to bemoan her way to more relevance.