General

NRA A+ Rated Republican Announces New Gun Control Measure

ATF Form 4473

It is not often The Shooter’s Log finds new gun control legislation being offered by the Republicans. Even more rare is a Senator with an NRA A+ rating proposing new gun control measures. However, before you get your dander standing on end, look at the details and make an informed decision. Then, leave your comments below to give your “informed” two cents.

Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) has received an A+ rating for the NRA. His current proposed legislation also has the backing of the NRA.

While millions of gun owners are blamed and slandered by politicians and the media every time there is a high profile shooting, there has been a strong link in each case to mental health that is for the most part, if not completely, ignored. This fact has not evaded the radar screens of gun owners, politicians or the media. The difference has been that the mainstream media and many politicians pushing gun control have chosen to ignore it.

Even pro Second Amendment lawmakers have not taken action on mental health until recently. As a knee-jerk reaction, I would say that was a good thing. Legislation is good when it is well thought out and well reasoned, not when it is slapped together in response to a news headline the day before. That is what makes Sen. John Cornyn’s (No. 2 Republican in the Senate) proposal worthy of a look.

Misleading Measure or Misleading Media?

Cornyn’s proposed the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which address the heart of the problem behind high profile mass shootings—mental health. The bill seeks to reward states for sending more information regarding their residents with serious mental health issues to the federal background check system. Beyond simply data collection—because we all know passing a law will not prevent another tragedy—the new proposed bill would also bolster programs designed to treat mentally ill people and handling confrontations with the mentally ill.

“This legislation will strengthen programs that promote preventative screening and crisis response training so that we can better understand and treat the factors which may endanger public safety,” Sen. Cornyn continued. “By giving our communities the resources necessary to recognize and prevent acts of violence, we not only protect American families, but help those affected by mental illness.”

Mental health is a touchy subject. While it sounds common sense on the surface, and is often billed that way by gun control advocates and politicians, the definition is often too broad. Many veterans return from overseas tours carrying a weapon one day with the government’s blessing, then deemed unfit to own a firearm the next when they are stateside. Why? Because they sought needed help for depression or stress and in the process had their rights stripped from them.

ATF Form 4473
Sen. Cornyn’s new bill would not change requirements already in place. It would provide an incentive for states to share mental health information for background checks.

Two years ago, the NRA and Republicans soundly defeated a Senate measure that would have expanded background check requirements; Cornyn was a big factor in ensuring that defeat. Cornyn’s bill will now compete with a new Democrat sponsored bill that was introduced about a week ago. The Democrat-led effort seeks to go much further than Sen. Cornyn’s. Nevertheless, Sen. Cornyn is breaking new ground that has some pro Second Amendment forces wary. He’s marching through seldom-charted territory by a Republican by broaching anything that could be considered gun control.

If the bill passes, some firearm purchases will be stopped. Many Second Amendment proponents do not believe there should be any sort of background check as our rights are granted by the Second Amendment. This has gun owners debating whether this the common sense legislation that is needed, or whether Sen. Cornyn betrayed his NRA A+ rating? Cornyn has a rich history of opposing measures that sought to restrict firearm ownership, but supported others that limited firearm ownership of the mentally ill. This new bill follows that line.

“Gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” said Cornyn, R-Texas, in a written statement.

The NRA is backing Cornyn’s proposed bill. This is not much of a surprise. NRA leaders have been on the record for some time stating the high profile shootings are not a gun issues but instead a mental health issues. Will Sen. Cornyn’s bill advance the effort to prevent the next tragedy?

1 Gun Store Etiquette

Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”

Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015

The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 is designed to improve outcomes for people with mental health disorders that come in contact with the criminal justice system through a number of actions, including:

  • The authorization of pretrial screening, assessment, and supervision programs to improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses by ensuring they are accurately diagnosed and receive appropriate need-based treatment that focuses on increasing public safety.
  • An increase in the use of treatment-based alternatives to incarceration for people with mental illnesses.
  • The establishment of a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of diverting eligible offenders from federal prosecution, federal probation, or a federal corrections facility, and placing those eligible people in drug or mental health courts.
  • Improvements to reentry programming for people with mental illnesses who are released into the community by authorizing the deployment of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Initiatives, which are designed to ensure that people with mental illnesses receive treatment-based interventions.
  • The expansion of specialized law enforcement crisis intervention teams, which respond to and de-escalate mental health crises for federal law enforcement personnel.

The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 also includes reauthorization of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA), an essential funding mechanism that supports the use of mental health courts and crisis intervention teams in local law enforcement agencies. The bill would extend MIOTCRA for an additional four years, effectively filling critical gaps in the system, including providing additional resources for veterans’ treatment courts to help those suffering from behavioral or post-traumatic stress disorders. The bill also offers broader training during police academies and orientation as well as increased focus on prison- and jail-based transitional services and reentry programs that can help reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

Police Making an Arrest
The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 seeks to increase the odds of preventing a mentally ill person from passing a background check through increased mental health reporting.

Would Anything Change?

Arkadi Gerney, a gun policy expert for the liberal Center for American Progress, said prodding states to submit additional data to the background check system is “a good and smart notion,” but it would be better to push broader legislation “that covers all the gaps.”

If the antis agree, but think it does not go far enough, does that mean we should decide or oppose it? The current background check system already bars firearm purchases to people legally determined to be “mentally defective” and those who have been committed to mental institutions. Sen. Cornyn’s new bill would not change this. It would, however, provide more information on individuals who have already met the legal standard to have their gun rights suspended. Currently, states do not have any responsibility to share mental health information. This creates a gap in safeguarding the public versus practices.

“While potentially dangerous mentally-ill individuals are often known to law enforcement and local officials, gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” said Sen. Cornyn.

While Cornyn’s bill would not change the law or force state’s to comply, it purportedly would (these details are unconfirmed at this time) increase grants under the government’s main law enforcement program by up to 5 percent for states that send the federal system at least 90 percent of their records on people with serious mental problems. States providing less data could see grants from a broad range of justice programs penalized by the same amounts at the attorneys’ general’s discretion.

Well, that is about the long and short of what we know so far. How would you vote? Share your thoughts and concerns in the comment section.

[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (620)

  1. With the continued demonization of gun ownership by liberal groups a case could be made that you are simply crazy for owning a gun and should have them removed from your possession. More laws will not change anything:see NYC, Chicago, Detroit, LA, NOLA tons of regulations no results, they will never learn.

  2. This is the typical, wrong-headed approach to “solving” problems that we’ve heard for over 100 years: more government.

    From the very beginning (early 1900’s, and probably before that), when lawmakers proposed banning guns, background checks, registration, etc. etc. it never curbed violence or prevented criminals from causing evil. It didn’t work back then, it doesn’t work today.

    Why in the hell would more of the SAME create a different effect?

    It’s always the same for EVERY problem, “We need more government!” Yet, problems worsen, or at best, see no improvement. Agencies, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. cry “We need more money! We need more laws! We need more regulations! We need more agencies! We need more! MORE!” And most often, they get what they demand…but the same problems continue at the same rate or even get worse.

    I’m tired of this spinning merry-go-round we call history…and I’m beginning to believe these “common-sense” gun laws are really not intended to deter criminals or terrorists, but the law-abiders that look at government with a wary eye instead.

    Perhaps with a carefully crafted definition – backed by bureaucrats with PhD’s and paid by our own tax dollars – we will all be diagnosed with a “mental illness” and lose the few rights we have left.

    Those with good intentions can unwittingly support very bad legislation. (i.e. Why didn’t the massive NSA/FBI surveillance program [Patriot Act] prevent the recent California Muslim terrorist attack, along with the others?) As the saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.”

  3. I no longer trust Cornyn and if NRA supports this “do nothing” piece of legislation, I have paid my last NRA dues. To me, this is an attempt to be PC. With all the words in this legislation, there still is no real obligation for states to submit mental health information. Look at what already falls through the cracks. Besides, once on a list how do you get off if you were wrongly placed there or are “cured”? This is just a pure piece of crap legislation, besides it’s the perfect scenario for the anti-gunners to add the amendments the really want to destroy the 2nd Amendment. I’ve said this already, but I’m going to say it again just to be sure you know, I DO NOT trust John Cornyn and especially the piece of legislation.

  4. I don’t trust anyone with any kind of gun control measure whether it is Democrat or Republican it all adds up to losing our rights!

  5. We do need to address the mental health issue but much like the terrorist watch list it needs to be refined in such a way that prevents overreach by the anti gun establishment and focuses only on those who pose a dangerous threat to self and others.

  6. How right you are. There will be nothing left but a memory of this once great nation that I and my friends and fore fathers fought to keep free. Freedom is not free. It comes at a very high price. Please think about that when you go to vote. And vote for freedom!

  7. What a horror show this would authorize…It’s an open door for corrupt Government and trumped up charges against individuals behind their backs at the Government’s …Where are the indivualsl privacy rights…gone with this excuice. Just go back and look at the rules Nazi Germany came up with, not to mention Russia, what short memories we have, I guess a totalaterian government will eventally come here if this type of legislation is conrinually considered just think of buracricy this would create, in an effort to subjate our 2nd Ammendment Consr
    titonal rights…If this type of legislation conrinues there will be nothing left of the Constitution and this once great country will nothing but a memory and the progressive liberalsc would have won and most of us will be living in FEMA camp on the Government’s dole…Orwell was way ahead of his time…It’s almost time to LOCK&LOAD!!!

    Germany, Russia

  8. The following is just a heartbeat away from happening to anyone: Patrick Coyle, a Deserted Spouse has been “imprisoned in mental health” for simply asking the State to help where his Wife is in desertion and for the children to be returned to the Family Home with him and the two children she left behind.

    This case opens up a horrifying parallel with what happened when Stalin imprisoned millions of Russians in the Gulags in Siberia claiming they must be mentally ill if they did not agree with Communism and the State taking control of everyone’s lives and Family.

    Patrick Coyle DOB 5th October 1973 is the Deserted Spouse and Husband in the Coyle Family and has been in mental health unit since 31 July 2015 against his wishes and without any evidence of a mental illness. His diabetes is poorly managed. He was wrestled to the ground by 9 staff, his mobile was robbed and returned broken. His second mobile has been robbed. He has been denied phone calls and visits. He has refused consent to being admitted there, to the assessment, to the diagnosis and to the prescribed medication and has requested release many times.

    He believes that he has been kidnapped to traffic his 4 offspring, 7, 8, 13 & 14 into the hands of the Social Services and his Wife who deserted him and took two of the children with her. You know the rest of the story.

  9. In almost every case of a mass murder with a weapon bought by the shooter, The failure in the system was failure to update the data base. No one to my knowldege has been held accountable for failure to update the database. Virginia Tech shooter had been to mental institutions but no mention of that in the database. Arizona shooter was never entered in the database. Colorado shooter not reported by his psychiatrist. No law will work if the weakest link doesn’t do their job. Hold them accountable at that level. The Sandy Hook shooting was a total breakdown. Firearms should not have been in the house. The mother payed for her collosal mistake with her life.

    1. @ Sam Vonn,

      Define failure. No one failed to do anything. The so-called “data base” is unlawful per the Second Amendment and thus it cannot, and will not ever be enforceable. The reason that, “No one to [your] knowledge has been held accountable for failure to update the database” is because nothing was done wrong, nor did any failure occur that anyone could be held accountable for in the first place.

      This is a Federal database only, and as I’ve already stated, it violates the Second Amendment, yet oddly it is the Tenth Amendment that prevents the Federal Government from forcing the States to contribute to it. That is why the Fed had to make contributions into it purely optional on a voluntary basis for the States that wish to participate.

      Even when the Federal Government and the few States do unlawfully contribute to the database, the Federal Legislation states they may only add names of individuals which have been lawfully adjudicated by a court as mentally insane. None of the individuals you’ve brought up were ever required to undergo such adjudication, and thus did not meet the reportable requirement anyway.

      So again, I challenge you to define failure. You can’t – because what actually happened here was life. It will always happen, if not with guns, then with something else. Just look at China – which has the same problem, but swords are used instead. China, as well as many other citizen gun-less countries, deals with hundreds of sword killings every year by their crazy and criminally insane. It’s just life, so be prepared to protect yourself and stop expecting the government to do it for you.

  10. if the clinically ill were put back in custody, where they belong, the number of nut case shootings would drop almost to zero. i don’t remember a single instance (but there may have been one) prior to releasing the disturbed into general population en masse where a nut job went on a killing spree with a gun. but then, it is barbaric to lock people away just because they are not capable of caring for themselves, are a predictable threat to the rest of us, or otherwise a victim of an uncaring society. we are only as strong as how the best of us treat the least of us.

    right?

  11. “You say, “we the voting public still have the power to put into power or remove from power those we feel can do the best job for us” Okay how about using some of that “power” to remove your president. He been there too long already.

  12. Dave, I’m not sure what you are drinking, but those people in D. C. can’t be trusted to write a bill correctly to preserve the rights of the gun owner. That bill will be loaded in gray matter so deep that one can’t understand it after reading it. If Obama were to sign this bill into law, we instantly know that we just got screwed.

  13. I live in Texas and was shocked when I first heard about this bill. There are some reports that the bill also includes safeguards against false accusations and clear legal standards to regain legally owning firearms and a mechanism to get them back before they are destroyed. If all that is true I could back this bill.

    1. @ Dave Jackson,

      There are some reports that there is a bill which also includes safeguards against false accusations and clear legal standards to always rightfully legally own firearms and a mechanism to never worry about their confiscation or destruction. If all that is true could you back that bill? If so, it’s called the Second Amendment. How’s it been working out for you?

  14. What is says NOW is not as important as the court rullings that have amended it.
    The court forced amendment process is what gives us many of the programs that are gutting our republic.
    We no longer have property rights. The govt can take YOUR house and land and give it to any private individual they think might make the gov’t more money.

    Not for public use like a road or other project but give it to a private individual they think will produce more taxes. This is just one of many.

    The water that runs off your roof is not yours, it belongs to the EPA.

    Nor are you standing between me and tyranny. Its already here.
    So knock off the chest thumping,

    I don’t need protection by someone who does not know who I am
    or what my capabilities are. — Icorps 1970
    =======

    SO YOU HAVE SURRENDERED YOUR RIGHTS…Icorps 1970?
    =====
    I HAVE A COURT ORDER DOCUMENT
    AFTER BEING CHARGED WITH DEADLY CONDUCT IN STATE OF TEXAS

    THE JUDGE FORCE THE CHIEF OF
    THE DPS (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY) DISTRICT
    IN TEXAS,

    TO NOT ONLY RETURN MY 8-SHOT 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN,
    HE WAS TO RE-ARM ME WITH THE 50 SHOTGUN SLUGS
    I WAS CARRYING AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST.

    THUS MAKING ME AS DANGEROUS AS THE DAY I WAS ARRESTED..
    NOW THAT WAS A PICTURE I WISH I HAD MADE AT THE TIME..

    YOU ARE A SLAVE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU CHOOSE,
    YOU CHOSE TO SURRENDER, INSTEAD OF FIGHTING.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

    THESE PEOPLE FINALLY WENT BANKRUPT
    AND THE PROJECT FAILED.

    Icorps 1970?
    WHICH ONE OF THESE BUILDS FELL FROM A FIRE..?

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=267806366723796&set=a.246935488810884.1073741831.246649902172776&type=1&relevant_count=1

    Icorps 1970?
    BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT> OPEN PIT MINING???
    WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
    KILLING THE WILD MUSTANGS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW

    In Nevada, a Chinese King of the Hill
    Mr. Liu, a little-known Chinese business mogul, is the primary financier for a $1.3 billion plan to blast the top off a hill called Mount Hope just north of Eureka to remove its lode of metal called molybdenum

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324296604578178693593527394

    The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971

    WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN THE BLM WAS TAKING OVER GRAZING RIGHTS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BLM (CONGRESS) ALLOWS FOR THE SELLING OF BLM LAND TO THE CHINESE’S?

    YOU MUST HAVE BEEN SLEEPING… RIGHT
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/

    I ‘M SUPPOSE TO FILL MY CAR UP WITH GAS,
    FIND YOU, AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS,
    WHERE YOU ARE.

    GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASSETS
    SURRENDER OR FIGHT…FOR YOU RIGHTS

    LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT ME…
    WHEN THE US MARSHALS or THE FBI COME TO MY DOOR
    THEY COME WITH A UNIFORM OFFICER or
    THEY COME WITH A HIT TEAM.

    THE LAST TIME THE FBI CAME, HE (ONE OF THEM)
    SAID WE CAME BY EARLIER BUT YOU WERE NOT HOME,
    NO ONE ANSWERED THE DOOR.

    I SAID I KNOW, YOU ALL WERE SITTING DUCKS
    IT WAS AT THAT POINT HE REALIZED,
    THEY WERE “ALL” SITTING DUCKS…

    AT THAT RANGE I COULD BE POPPING BULLETS
    DOWN THE BARRELS OF THEIR GUNS ALL DAY LONG..
    ..AND NOT INJURE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM..

    BUT HAD THEY DISPLAYED A WEAPON..
    WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NEWS THAT NIGHT…

    IF YOU ARE IN MY FREE SPEECH ZONE
    (THE RANGE OF MY BEST RIFLE) 2 MILES – 4-6 IF I TRY HARDER

    AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON SOMEONE
    RIGHTS I WILL STAND BETWEEN YOU AND TYRANNY.

    BUT
    DON’T EXPECT ME TO
    FILL MY CAR UP WITH GAS,
    FIND YOU WHERE EVER YOU ARE HIDING,
    AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.!
    1 of 3% STANDING BETWEEN YOU and TYRANNY..

    IF 3% STAND UP AND FIGHT THEY CAN’T STOP ANY OF US

    YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 1 PERSON
    1 PERSON WITH A GUN,
    CHALLENGES THEM.
    THE ENTIRE STATE COMES TO A HALT.
    ==================================
    BLOW YOU NOSE AND SUCK IT UP
    PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOMS
    ==================================
    I (BY WHAT I SAID) (SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF A LOT OF PEOPLE)
    SAVED AN ENTIRE CLASS OF BATTLESHIPS.

    USS Missouri (BB-63) (“Mighty Mo” or “Big Mo”)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldUzWWq8iQ

    REMEMBER YOUR HISTORY
    (PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOMS)
    REMEMBER THE HMS HOOD – ONE HIT – ONE SECOND…
    3 SURVIVED OUT 1418

    This explosion broke the back of Hood and the last sight of the ship, which sank in only three minutes, was her bow, nearly vertical in the water.[66] A note on a survivor’s sketch in the British RN Historical Branch Archives gives 63°20′N 31°50′W as the position of the sinking.

    Hood sank with 1418 men aboard. Only three survived: Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs, Able Seaman Robert Tilburn, and Midshipman William John Dundas.[68] The three were rescued about two hours after the sinking by the destroyer Electra, which spotted substantial debris but no bodies.[69][Note 2]

    3% OF HOW MANY MILLIONS IN THE GOOD OLD USA…?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WJJVSE_BE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0zp9uX9B6I

  15. Gentlemen, while I applaud you for very eloquently using your first amendment rights to argue your second amendment rights, Your comments do not adequately address the issue at hand. People are dying at the hands of mentally ill persons with guns because somewhere along the line we the people have failed to be both accountable and responsible for our actions.

    Since the mentally ill are clinically proven to be unable to make a rational decision that would render their actions responsible and hold them accountable for such a decision; then the burden is passed to us the gun seller to be responsible enough to know that while it is EVERY American’s right to own a gun, not every American should or is mentally capable enough to possess such a deadly weapon. Therefore any information or policy that we could use to better ascertain that decision would not only safeguard society, but would help insure that those who are mentally capable enough to own and carry a gun would be able to do so for centuries to come.

    Herein lies the problem, who defines exactly what mentally capable is? We all know that the powers that be are famous for or should I say infamous for twisting and manipulating the law to fulfill their own agenda. So again, according to the Senator’s bill Who will decide what formula will used to determine exactly what defines mental illness? Is there anyone in Washington who we the people can trust to make a common sense, rational decision on our behalf?

    The Problem of guns winding up in the wrong hands is an age old problem that no law will prevent nor eliminate , but we the voting public still have the power to put into power or remove from power those we feel can do the best job for us, or take down those who fail to do so. Having sited the obvious, I believe that if such a bill to prevent the mentally ill from acquiring guns is to become a law, then such a bill should be written and passed by the people, for the people and must include safeguards to prevent politicians from using such a bill to take away or hinder the rights of the people.

    1. @ Johnny,

      There are major ethical as well as legal obstacles that can never be addressed through your philosophy. First there do in-fact exist many mentally ill persons that are quite capable of rational decision who can and do lawfully own guns. So that is out.

      In this Country every single person is innocent until proven guilty. You cannot pass Orwellian laws that systematically anticipate one’s actions and prosecute them to be stripped of their rights before they’ve ever even committed a single bad act. Yet that is precisely the fate you have advocated for some people here.

      And since you back that, at what point do we just go ahead and profile every man, woman, and child and jump straight to locking up the ones that meet the government’s pre-determined conditions as “most likely” to commit a criminal act? I’m sure that will be okay with you once the “formula” is figured out is “passed by the people, for the people”.

      You write as if you’d agree to this legislation if certain safeguards are put into place to presumably prevent government abuse that would hinder the rights of the people, yet time and again this same government has already proven they cannot comply with the current laws or the will of the people.

      A prime example of abuse is our Vets, and not just the mentally ill, that are placed into the FBI NICS and stripped of their right to bear arms simply for needing help managing their finances. Some Vets are forced into government assigned fiduciaries against their will or they will otherwise lose their benefits. There is no court, no adjudication, and no prosecution… they just get added to a ban list and it’s a done deal.

      Does that not beg the question – why the Federal government has singled out a particular class of Veteran citizens to strip of their gun rights while not applying the same policy evenly throughout the rest of society? It is because they know it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and society as a whole would raise hell.

      So instead they chip away at the areas they can give the illusion of control. Aging Vets dependent upon their monthly disability pay are an easy mark to start with. And now we hear of Obama’s attempts to start going after the elderly living on Social Security next. Again, another example of a system ran exclusively by the Federal side of government. Are things starting to look a bit conspiratorial yet?

      By law the Federal government cannot compel the States to report a single thing into NICS and many States refuse anyway to protect their citizen’s rights; so instead the Feds conspire to leverage the power we provide them through our own tax dollars by withholding that money from those Vets that have earned it rightfully through their service and bloodshed.

      This bill is simply an expansion of the same corrupt policy to gain more Federal control, nothing more and nothing less. It must be resoundingly rejected.

  16. You did actually read and understand what I wrote? The Federal Gov’t, through the courts amending the Constitution with no input from Congress or the States has fundamentally changed large parts of the Constitution. What this has done is given the Federal Gov’t powers it was never intended to have. What is says NOW is not as important as the court rullings that have amended it. The court forced amendment process is what gives us many of the programs that are gutting our republic. We no longer have property rights. The govt can take YOUR house and land and give it to any private individual they think might make the gov’t more money. Not for public use like a road or other project but give it to a private individual they think will produce more taxes. This is just one of many. The water that runs off your roof is not yours, it belongs to the EPA. Nor are you standing between me and tyranny. Its already here. So knock off the chest thumping, I don’t need protection by someone who does not know who I am or what my capabilities are.

  17. Icorps 1970
    The Constitution was intended to allow the Federal Gov’t to ONLY have authority over those things mentioned in the Constitution but the COURTS spurred on by POLITICIANS have turned it around to the point that NOW the way its read the Feds can do anything that it does not specifically prohibit.

    WRONG, WRONG ,WRONG…
    NINTH & TENTH AMENDMENTS .
    =======================
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
    shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [1]

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]
    ======================
    WE ARE THE PEOPLE
    WE HAVE RIGHTS COMING OUT OUR ASSETS…

    QUESTION IS,
    ARE YOU, ARE YOUR CHILDREN
    GOING TO FIGHT FOR or SURRENDER THOSE RIGHTS
    TO A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT…?

    WE ARE (ALWAYS) ONLY ONE GENERATION
    AWAY FROM LOOSING THIS COUNTRY..

    LIKE I SAID BEFORE THERE IS A LINE OUT THERE,
    (GOOD Vs BAD) (GOOD Vs EVIL).
    NOT SAYING WHERE IT IS , BUT WHEN IT IS CROSSED
    THERE WILL BE A WAR.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.!
    1 of 3% STANDING BETWEEN YOU and TYRANNY..

  18. agree with you about turning the “expressly granted” into “if not prohibited”. my reply was based more on the observations you made about the constitution declaring black humans were/are not whole persons, and thereby disrespecting their humanity and inherent value. the game is lost. we (or anybody) will never see the day the country returns to the constitutional republic envisioned by the founders. once the populace determines that freedom with responsibility is to be avoided at all costs, there is no going back. never happened in the history of the world. like any “system” in the universe, entropy applies.

  19. I would thing that one faces eternal court dates and bankruptcy trying to win the argument that laws which violate the constitution are to be ignored with impunity. Haven’t actually read/heard about a convicted felon winning an illegal gun possession case. Academics are great in seminars, reality bites !!

    Speaking of felons and guns, where in the constitution is there an exception for people held in jails/prisons? If 2A is absolute, incarcerated persons should be able to possess guns. No? Then preventing convicts from possessing weapons is an agreeable carve-out/exception. And from there we are arguing only about which carve-outs we like.

  20. peccatun Dei is correct….academically. The only formal, direct, “legal” way to alter the constitution is via the amendment or convention path. What is being overlooked is that there is a difference between “formal” and “effective”. Legislation can indeed alter any provision of the constitution, without formal ratification by the states. The simple truth is that if congress passes legislation and the president signs, the legislation becomes law, regardless of what the constitution provides. When politicians and the courts combine (conspire?), the constitution has little or no meaning. There is a mythical judicial tool to stop/correct political abuses, but judges are perhaps the most political of all (they want a “proud legacy”). The chief constitutional lawyer in the land (B.H.Obama) declared early in his first term, “…we can’t let the constitution stand in the way of doing the right thing.” Most jurists agree.

    So, one could argue that any legislation that changes the constitution (effectively) is not a “legal” or valid change, and is to be ignored. Good Luck with that !!

    1. This is why the Jury Trail was implemented. But if the jurors are chosen to be ignorant of their power or are never told then the jury trial is meaningless. Jurors are to vote their CONSCIENCE. According to John Jay (anyone who does not know who he is should inform themselves) jurys are to judge not just the facts of the case but the law as well. if the law is not being properly applied. If the law conflicts with the jurors conscience then they are to vote to acquit. But if you tell the court you will vote your conscience they will kick you out of the Jury Pool. So the Jury trial, our final protection, is disabled. Worse judges lie to the jury and will tell they they must take the law as the Judge gives it to them when in REALITY is a jury trial, trial at law, the JURY is (or used to be) the judge the judge is just there to maintain order in the court and the pass sentence. Look to “Fully Informed Jury” for more information. But if course people that will try to explain this are ignored, suppressed or made out to be a “kook” by the gov’t and their lackies in the “media”. So the unformed continue to be uninformed and the Gov’t gets its way in the Court Room.

  21. THIS IS WHAT I CARRY IN MY WALLET BECAUSE ,
    THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE WANTING TO KNOW THE LAW,
    WHILE I’M STANDING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.

    ===========
    Presidential Orders ONLY APPLES to FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER HIS CONTROL TO MAKE THEM OBEY THE LAW, it DOES NOT give him DICTATORIAL POWERS OVER THE PEOPLE
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

    BASIS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
    Where right secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    BASIS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
    An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; afford no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
    Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442.

    BASIS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having form and name of law, is reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutional dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    16 AM Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.

  22. have a look here:
    http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

    in short, slavery was permitted under the constitution.

    as to slaves not being whole persons, that decision (3/5ths person) was not done to slight black humans, but to limit the power of slave states to increase the number of representatives slaves states could have. slave states could import unlimited numbers of slaves, and since representatives to congress were based on state population, slave states could create more delegates that the northern states. the 3/5ths decision/compromise was a means of slowing or preventing the spread of slavery. the compromise had nothing do to with assigning limited value/respect to black humans as persons.

    1. The REASONS some court ruled in some way or another have little or nothing to do with what the Constitution actually states. For the Federal Gov’t to control something it had to be (according to the founders) WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. But the COURTS have stretched the wording to the point its current meaning would not be recognized by the people that worte it. YOU are confusing what some COURT said with what the CONSTITUTION says. The Constitution was intended to allow the Federal Gov’t to ONLY have authority over those things mentioned in the Constitution but the COURTS spurred on by POLITICIANS have turned it around to the point that NOW the way its read the Feds can do anything that it does not specifically prohibit. The ONLY way the Constitution as written could be said to condone slavery was if it STATED that the black race could be kidnapped and made into slaves. It does not. As a result this was up to the individual states as the Constitution states. Here is another example of overreach and ignoring statements of the Founders. Today in a Jury trial the jury is told it must take the law as the Judge gives it or in some cases the Judge can overturn the juries verdict. How did this happen? Through corruption of out judicial system. I suggest you look up Courts at Law and Equity Court what the differences are SUPPOSED to be and what the truth is today. What is means is we have lost the 4th leg of Gov’t which is the PEOPLE rejecting laws that are passed though the legislatures, signed by the executive and pronounced “OK” by judges through voting their CONSCIENCE in the jury room. Now if this is done its “jury lawlessness” when in reality the jury is ABOVE THE LAW (according to John Jay). Dred Scott was a classic example of the COURT ruling not on the Constitution but on POLITICAL convenience or at worst racism. Dred Scott may be the first instance of the Constitution being ignored or rewritten by the courts.

  23. Uncontrolled courts are the highest form of “effective” changes to the constitution. as it stands, our history is not one of adherence, but of expedience. It has been 155yrs since a significant portion of the population said “no” to those in the country who believed “effective” changes to the constitution were legal and approved.

    The Game has been over for generations. We can get the popcorn and just enjoy the slow train-wreck, or we can pretend nothing matters besides ourselves at any given moment. There is no turning back; it is too broken to be fixed, and a large majority of the citizenry would come completely undone mentally if it were ever possible to return to a constitutional republic (called “democracy” by the masses).

    1. Yep, ole Abe’s war really made a mess of the free and independent. And most people think they are free. Instead of freeing the black slaves, Abe made slaves out of us ALL. When one is forced, at the point of a gun, to live and abide by laws he doesn’t agree, he becomes a slave. Abe stands squarely at the root problem with today’s version of the Second Amendment.

      “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

  24. does your mommy know you hang out on these forums? does she know how poor-mannered you are?

    i will gladly review the string, because i may have replied to the wrong commenter. there was a string under this posting where molon labe was discussed, and i was merely trying to add a bit of historical context to that discussion.

    hope your nap goes well. and maybe some cookies and milk to make it all better.

  25. curiously, the same US govt that argued (with guns) that no state could secede from the union allowed half a state to legally secede from the rest of the state. it would have been one thing if what is now west virginia had been declared the legal/legitimate state of virginia. instead, the US govt created as entirely new state from a portion of a state that had not seceded (since secession was considered null by the US govt). would the US govt (stetting the civil war aside) have recognized a west virginia if the real virginia had not attempted to disconnect from the rest of the union?

    yankees always want to have it whichever way they want it at the moment (remember, the worst racial integration riots/disturbances were in northern states).

  26. yep. and that executive order thing is really wide-ranging and allows a president to not let the constitution get in the way of doing the right thing.
    how ya’ likin’ it?

  27. Sounds kinda like what the VA is doing to vet, declaring the mentally incompetent and taking they’er gun rights. Who determine ‘ s if a gun owner is mentally competent, the govt ?

  28. It seems like we are loosing sight of what is going on here this is a discussion about a supposed republican senator who wants gun control that the NRA is backing. Now for years I have been told that the NRA was the defender of the 2nd amendment but now they are backing a senator that wants to restrict the freedoms of the people that have supported the NRA for many years and all law abiding citizens. That is just wrong any way you look at it. so lets stay focused and put a stop to this senator and the NRA’s madness and take our country back in this next election!

    1. @ george from fort worth.

      Well you know, up until June 1863. There WAS NO West Virginia, NOT ALL Virginian’s were Southern Sympathizers. In the 13 or so Counties of Northern Virginia, about half were Northern’s (Unionist) all just living side-by-side with the Southerner’s, Neighbor’s…

  29. Have read in history books that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS reported to Lincoln that if the southern states took the matter to trial, the outcome was not certain, in that the Chief Justice could find where the southern states had done anything wrong.

    Whether slavery be good or be it evil, it was enshrined in the constitution, and the northern states were attempting to limit a constitutional provision through simple legislation (restricting the right of new stated to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery). The northern states were attempting to modify the constitution without the nasty process of ratifying an amendment.

    1. Since the Constitution does not mention slavery it would be up to the states at least until the late 19th or early 20th c. It was a COURT that decided that blacks were not human and thus had no rights not the Founders. In fact IIRC several founders wanted it banned. But it was not something that could be done at the time if they wanted a Constitution to pass. So it was lost in “compromise” it was a good idea at the time. but they likely did not think that a panel of Judges would rule that a black man was not a man….

    2. Since the 13th Amendment specifically addresses Slavery, I assume your intent was to say that the Constitution as originally passed does not mention slavery. While the word itself may not appear, slavery was indeed referenced in the original document. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 refers to the importation of people. More to the point, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 contains the widely misunderstood three fifths compromise. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the northern free states did not want slaves counted in the census as they could not vote, but their inclusion would have expanded the congressional power of the southern slave states. The southern states of course, wanted them counted as whole people. The three fifths compromise was reached as a way to keep the southern states in the union, but to prevent them from having an overwhelming majority in the House or Representatives.

  30. MOLON LABE

    http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Pages/47931_Spartaquotes.htm

    ‘Come and take them.’
    When Xerxes requested: ‘Deliver up your arms’, King Leonidas’ defiant reply.Note: It would have been said with the bitter taste of, ‘If you think your good enough…’. Leonidas’ actual words were ‘Molon labe’ (μολών λαβέ) using Dorian Greek. “Molon” is a participle that means “after you come” and labe(λαβέ) comes from the verb lambano (λαμβάνω) that is still in use in modern greek and as imperative (λάβε in modern, λαβέ in ancient) meaning ‘take’. In ancient greek with one or two words you can have a very specific meaning like this. The exact translation in modern greek would be ‘αφού έρθεις, να τα πάρεις’ or ‘ερχόμενος λάβε τα’ or not in exact translation ‘έλα να τα πάρεις’.

    1. Guys like you piss me off trying to sound intelligent but falling way short. I know that I do not need a lesson on Greek and do not care to have one you are so off topic it is stupid. What does anything you wrote have to do with Senator Corn hole and his legislation? Nothing!

  31. ‘Fraid I must, must I tell you, enter here.

    There are two types of restrictions to consider: direct; effective.

    Regards altering the constitution, direct “modification” would be a constitutional amendment ratified by the states (or constitutional convention). Effective “modification” would come through congressional legislation or presidential order.

    One can argue that non-constitutional amendment “modifications” are not valid, but the courts say they are (in most cases, including the round-up of Japanese-Americans during WW2, which violated multiple rights). Any law that effectively restricts exercise of any constitutionally recognized/guaranteed right is, in reality, a “modification” , however brief the alteration is. Another example of non-amendment restriction is the various state and federal laws regarding permanent removal of the right of felons to KABA. Indeed, if 2A is absolute, the government cannot forbid people in jails to KABA. (if one thinks that restriction is OK, then we are no longer talking about absolute rights, only admitting there are certain non-amendment restrictions we like).

    Theory vs. reality? Principle vs. reality? The effect of non-amendment restrictions vs. God-given rights?

    Reality wins every time.

    1. The problem is activist courts that contain judges that are put there to allow the Constitution to be “modified” by Unconstitutional laws that are then ruled as Constitutional by the Court. The SCOTUS that allowed the Japanese to be sent to concentration camps is the same court that gave us social welfare which James Madison stated was not in the Constitution and Federal gun control which is shown to be far from the intent of the Founders if we read THEIR writings on the subject. See Federalist Paper #46 by James Madison for one of the explanations of the Second Amendments REAL purpose and one of the reasons for a STATE controlled military IE militia according the the Founders. So the courts are completely unreliable in this regard. I.E. Telling us what is or is not Constitutional. If they ignore the WORDING and THE INTENT and historical rulings then what good is their ruling? If they invent rights from whole cloth (abortion and social welfare). Then we have Obama telling us that he will transform the legal system. This by appointing more activist anti-Constitution judges. Do this long enough and its a done deal. And in started in the mid 1930s so its been going on for a long time. They have though court mandated “amendments” literally turning the Constitution inside out so up in down, right is left and Unconstitutional is Constitutional. Bingo the US is fundamentally changed and it has not been for the better. We are so socialist now, so totalitarian that the Founders would be starting another revolution to restore our lost liberty. Worse it cannot be turned around. Hitler said if you incrementally remove rights and freedoms in small steps that by the time the people wake up its to late. We have reached this. When the Federal Gov’t can BAN the manufacture of MILITIA arms we have a serious problem. Then we have loss of property rights and a host of others that nobody seems to even know about.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.