House Passes DISCLOSE Act

[nw_hunter]

   

I received a letter from one of my states Traitor's(Senator) telling me why he was not only voting for it, but was one of it's sponsors. He thanked me for my concern, even if he didn't agree........Bless his heart, and the NRA

 

*
      House Passes DISCLOSE Act

      By: John Brandt and Chad Pergram, FOX News

      The House of Representatives has passed a bill to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court decision that ruled as unconstitutional curbs on outside organizations which buy political TV ads.

      The bill is designed to increase disclosure requirements for third party groups as a response to the so-called "Citizens United" case.

      Under the act, third party groups would have to list who their largest donors are along with other previously confidential information. The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., says that the legislation will add transparency to the electoral process. Conservatives say the act is an infringement on First Amendment rights.

      Some liberal Democrats objected to a recently added carve-out in the bill for large, established advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association. The bill’s sponsors said the measure would not have been able to pass without the special provision.

      The House approved the bill 219 to 206.

      More than 30 Democrats voted against the legislation. Two Republicans sided with Democrats on the issue: Reps. Joseph Cao (R-LA) and Mike Castle (R-DE).

     

[skarke]

Well, maybe a filibuster.

[Graybeard]

Once again the glorious NRA took a stance that so long as it doesn't impact us we could care less what it does to America. Until it loses LaPierre the NRA is more of an enemy of not only gun owners but all of America than a friend. In fact I put them right up there with obama they are peas in a pod.

[Redhawk1]

 

You all act as if the Disclose act is something new. It is just an extension of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Also show me where the NRA made a deal. I have had many talks with the NRA's former Vice President John Sigler, who is also the President of the 50 Caliber Institute. I have also contacted our local NRA representatives and they are adamant that no back room deals were made. It was some members of congress that thought by exempting the NRA, that it would allow the bill to pass. So I will wait for your proof that a back deal was made. 

[nw_hunter]

You all act as if the Disclose act is something new. It is just an extension of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Also show me where the NRA made a deal. I have had many talks with the NRA's former Vice President John Sigler, who is also the President of the 50 Caliber Institute. I have also contacted our local NRA representatives and they are adamant that no back room deals were made. It was some members of congress that thought by exempting the NRA, that it would allow the bill to pass. So I will wait for your proof that a back deal was made. 

What part of back room don't you understand?............................PROOF!
Listen to any of Wayne La Peeeeeeeuuuu's interviews and it should be obvious.

Did you even object to the NRA for throwing the rest of us under the bus?...............I doubt it!

It's also obvious you will find an excuse for them, no matter what they do to the American gun owner.

Back in my young and ignorant years I believed the NRA was my friend. That the small concessions they made would help protect the second A. It took me a few years to wake up to their agenda, but some folks apparently never will.

"PROOF"................

[Redhawk1]

Just what I thought....

[nw_hunter]

Just what I thought....

   

Hmm! Lets read what House Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) has to say about it

 "Now the NRA are the big defenders of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right to bear arms.  But yet they think it's all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill, and frankly, I think it's disappointing." -- House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), June 24, 2010

Friday, June 25, 2010

Well, if there were any doubt as to what greased the skids for the DISCLOSE Act's final passage... the quote above hits the nail on the head.

Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Boehner blasted the horse-trading that occurred behind the scenes -- noting that certain groups were made exempt from the legislation in order to convince them to drop their opposition to H.R. 5175.

Republican Dan Lungren of California called it an "auction behind closed doors."  Some groups won, Lungren said, others lost.

[sk330lc]

You all act as if the Disclose act is something new. It is just an extension of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Also show me where the NRA made a deal. I have had many talks with the NRA's former Vice President John Sigler, who is also the President of the 50 Caliber Institute. I have also contacted our local NRA representatives and they are adamant that no back room deals were made. It was some members of congress that thought by exempting the NRA, that it would allow the bill to pass. So I will wait for your proof that a back deal was made. 

What part of back room don't you understand?............................PROOF!
Listen to any of Wayne La Peeeeeeeuuuu's interviews and it should be obvious.

Did you even object to the NRA for throwing the rest of us under the bus?...............I doubt it!

It's also obvious you will find an excuse for them, no matter what they do to the American gun owner.

Back in my young and ignorant years I believed the NRA was my friend. That the small concessions they made would help protect the second A. It took me a few years to wake up to their agenda, but some folks apparently never will.

"PROOF"................

      (No Flames Please). Could you please explain to me? What you believe the NRA's Agenda is? I'm asking so I can better under stand your View.
 
   After reading allots more on the subject there are pluses and minuses to what the NRA did.  I will say I don't think it would have Mattered If the NRA would Have apposed the bill to no end. The Dumb butts in DC would still have passed it.  Look what they did with Health Care. The NRA just dodged the Bullet more or less.   

[nw_hunter]

     (No Flames Please). Could you please explain to me? What you believe the NRA's Agenda is? I'm asking so I can better under stand your View.
  
   After reading allots more on the subject there are pluses and minuses to what the NRA did.  I will say I don't think it would have Mattered If the NRA would Have apposed the bill to no end. The Dumb butts in DC would still have passed it.  Look what they did with Health Care. The NRA just dodged the Bullet more or less.  

Well.......I don't think the leaders of the NRA have the same agenda as the gun owners they pretend to represent!

Facts speak for themselves, and I'll just mention a few here.

In 1968, the NRA "signed off" on Thomas Dodd's Nazi-inspired Gun Control ActAnd never forget how the NRA actually helped resurrect the Brady Bill (the whole story is told at http://www.rmgo.org/brady.shtml ) -- under which you must now beg for and receive the government's permission to buy a gun -- after it was considered to be as dead as a doornail in Congress.

This is exactly how the NRA described the passage of the first national gun control law since 1968. On November 20, 1993, the Senate passed a bill that would certainly impose a minimum of five days waiting period everywhere in the United States. Yet the Associated Press reported that NRA "spokesman Bill McIntrye" was saying that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners."

One thing they do well is make money, and distribute it  to their top brass.
.
WAYNE LA PIERRE EXEC VP, $673,617
CHRIS W COX EXEC DIR, $487,176
WILSON H PHILLIPS JR TREASURER, $407,192
KAYNE B ROBINSON EXEC DIR, GENERAL, $413,317
EDWARD J LAND JR SECRETARY, $350,001
(doesn't include the President or the three 1st V.P.'s)
Revenue
2007 $332,270,545
2006 $165,496,153
Membership dues 2007: $228,619,274

They also are good at endorsing candidates that are "NO FRIEND" of the gun owners. They haven't been a friend to our veterans either.

There is a long list of things the NRA has done to the detriment of gun owners over the years, and it's understandable, why some of the other grass roots groups are trying to educate the gun owner about the treachery of them..................................I guess some are not capable of seeing it, and it's a damn shame

[Redhawk1]

nw_hunter, why is it just the NRA you are going after, AARP is exempt as well as a bunch of big Unions. No you just have this thing in your head to go after the NRA, like your beloved group the GOA..

I have a letter released from Chris Cox of the NRA to the board members, but even if you read that I doubt it would convince you any different. You have already tried and convicted the NRA. So go ahead and bash the NRA. You are the one selling all the other gun owners short with your divide and concur sentiments.

[Redhawk1]

They also are good at endorsing candidates that are "NO FRIEND" of the gun owners. They haven't been a friend to our veterans either.

If you look at the NRA, it is in there Bi-laws to defend the Second Amendment. They are a single issue group. "the Second Amendment" If a person votes in favor of pro-gun issues and always is on the side of gun issues, sure they give them a high rating. But the people in the NRA and others voting should not just use the NRA's rating on second Amendment issues to vote. They are just telling you how that person stands on the second Amendment.

Where do you come off saying they are not friends of our Veterans?

[nw_hunter]

[/quote]

Where do you come off saying they are not friends of our Veterans?
[/quote]





H.R. 2640, The “NICS Improvement Act,” Passes House By Voice Vote  With the blessings of (GUESS WHO)
Also known as the veterans disarmament act
 
Friday, June 15, 2007
 

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,” by a voice vote.  H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA’s decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others.  Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).


I know this is a waste of my time, so I'll let this be my last response to you.
If Wayne L, and Cris Cox were caught on a double date with Sarah Brady, and Diane F. you would make an excuse for them. Well! You know what they say about excuses?

[Redhawk1]

While the media continues to characterize this bill as a “gun-control” measure, nothing could be further from the truth.  The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and “spinning” the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.   
 
 

Here are the facts:  H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records.  Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.     

The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible.  While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms.  H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:

Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms.  Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.

Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.  (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a “prohibited” list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)

Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court.  This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade.  While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year.  This provision would not expire.

Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.
Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.”  Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments.  Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.   

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.”  Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”   

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help.  No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.
This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.  NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.

[sk330lc]

     (No Flames Please). Could you please explain to me? What you believe the NRA's Agenda is? I'm asking so I can better under stand your View.
  
   After reading allots more on the subject there are pluses and minuses to what the NRA did.  I will say I don't think it would have Mattered If the NRA would Have apposed the bill to no end. The Dumb butts in DC would still have passed it.  Look what they did with Health Care. The NRA just dodged the Bullet more or less.  

Well.......I don't think the leaders of the NRA have the same agenda as the gun owners they pretend to represent!

Facts speak for themselves, and I'll just mention a few here.

In 1968, the NRA "signed off" on Thomas Dodd's Nazi-inspired Gun Control ActAnd never forget how the NRA actually helped resurrect the Brady Bill (the whole story is told at http://www.rmgo.org/brady.shtml ) -- under which you must now beg for and receive the government's permission to buy a gun -- after it was considered to be as dead as a doornail in Congress.

This is exactly how the NRA described the passage of the first national gun control law since 1968. On November 20, 1993, the Senate passed a bill that would certainly impose a minimum of five days waiting period everywhere in the United States. Yet the Associated Press reported that NRA "spokesman Bill McIntrye" was saying that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners."

One thing they do well is make money, and distribute it  to their top brass.
.
WAYNE LA PIERRE EXEC VP, $673,617
CHRIS W COX EXEC DIR, $487,176
WILSON H PHILLIPS JR TREASURER, $407,192
KAYNE B ROBINSON EXEC DIR, GENERAL, $413,317
EDWARD J LAND JR SECRETARY, $350,001
(doesn't include the President or the three 1st V.P.'s)
Revenue
2007 $332,270,545
2006 $165,496,153
Membership dues 2007: $228,619,274

They also are good at endorsing candidates that are "NO FRIEND" of the gun owners. They haven't been a friend to our veterans either.

There is a long list of things the NRA has done to the detriment of gun owners over the years, and it's understandable, why some of the other grass roots groups are trying to educate the gun owner about the treachery of them..................................I guess some are not capable of seeing it, and it's a damn shame

Ok So you talk in circles.  WHAT DO YOU THINK THE NRA'S AGENDA IS??
 Don't Give me a few things they supported or what they Make. Tell me what you think they are about.
As far as what the head people make. Thats about on Par with any Group.

[nw_hunter]

Circles?...........

Your good at asking questions, and I have tried to answer them, but it's obvious you and the redbird are not going to be satisfied with the truth.

What do YOU think their agenda is?
Look! I know anything the NRA does is going to be hunky dory to you, so go ahead and pay your dues like a good boy, and Wayne and his lackey's will love you for it.

[beerbelly]

The NRA was formed as a single interest group. They only have one agenda, the second amendment! They were not formed to fight for any other amendment!
    It is not their job to fight all your battles for you. They are to try and protect your right to own a gun! Nothing else!
   I think they are doing a poor job, but they are the only one doing the job. I know a few of you have jumped on the GOA band wagon,  so far they have done nothing but bash the NRA and try to steal those membership dollars from them. I personally think they are doing more harm than good!
                                       Beerbelly

[sk330lc]

Circles?...........

Your good at asking questions, and I have tried to answer them, but it's obvious you and the redbird are not going to be satisfied with the truth.

What do YOU think their agenda is?
Look! I know anything the NRA does is going to be hunky dory to you, so go ahead and pay your dues like a good boy, and Wayne and his lackey's will love you for it.

You still haven't answered what I asked.
 "Circles” you just keep stating the same thing over and over. I can go copy and paste all kinds of bills and letters and post.   Please help me understand your thoughts on the NRA. (YOUR THOUGHTS)  
Please explain what you feel the agenda is?  
 NO not everything the NRA does is all right with me.    
 They are Backing Strickland for Gov. of Ohio.  Sure he is pro Gun But he is running this state into the ground with his policies and such.   By the way GOA are backing him as well   seems they may have a few things in common.

Edited for spelling.

[Graybeard]

The NRA was formed as a single interest group. They only have one agenda, the second amendment! They were not formed to fight for any other amendment!
    It is not their job to fight all your battles for you. They are to try and protect your right to own a gun! Nothing else!

That's simply NOT true. Clearly you've done little to no research on the NRA. They were formed with no thought of the Second Amendment in mind and operated in that matter for most of their history.

They were only involved in shooter training and sponsoring matches for a long long time. That is still their primary charter. They have just fairly recently in terms of their full life time to delve into Second Amendment issues. While I can't prove it I strongly believe that without their involvement GCA68 would never have become law.

[nw_hunter]

The NRA was formed as a single interest group. They only have one agenda, the second amendment! They were not formed to fight for any other amendment!
    It is not their job to fight all your battles for you. They are to try and protect your right to own a gun! Nothing else!

That's simply NOT true. Clearly you've done little to no research on the NRA. They were formed with no thought of the Second Amendment in mind and operated in that matter for most of their history.

They were only involved in shooter training and sponsoring matches for a long long time. That is still their primary charter. They have just fairly recently in terms of their full life time to delve into Second Amendment issues. While I can't prove it I strongly believe that without their involvement GCA68 would never have become law.

No Doubt GB!

1968     General Franklin Orth, Executive Vice President of NRA, testifies before Congress in favor of the Gun Control Act (GCA'68) that "[NRA does] not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States," /2/  (a ban on the mail-order sale of firearms). His statement of NRA support generates heated opposition from the (presumably insane) portion of the NRA membership, creating split between "sportsmen" and "hardliners."

[Graybeard]

And they haven't improved one bit since. They are still selling us out at every chance they get. I just can't understand why some folks can't see it.

[dukkillr]

And they haven't improved one bit since. They are still selling us out at every chance they get. I just can't understand why some folks can't see it.

They can't see it because they've been reading the NRA propaganda for too long.  For some it becomes a part of their personality... they associate who they are with the group, and then it becomes so personal to them they cannot evaluate rationally.  That problem is in no way unique to the NRA or even issue groups...

[beerbelly]

I have watched the NRA oppose and help defeat many anti-gun politions over the years. I beleave with out them our guns would have been gone years ago.
    I get angrey with them from time to time, but they are all we have that is trying to do anything. I know there is the GOA and maybe others, but they are to small to have any efect.
   I wish they were doing a better job, but I think we are better off with them than with out them.
                                           Beerbelly

[blind ear]

duckkillr, sounds like you may be talking about Democrats and Republicans. eddiegjr

[dukkillr]

duckkillr, sounds like you may be talking about Democrats and Republicans. eddiegjr

Yup, or die hard fans of a sports team, or a region of the country, or whatever.  It has been my experience that when people tie who they are with a specific group, team or cause, they can no longer think about that part of their life rationally. 

[nw_hunter]

I have watched the NRA oppose and help defeat many anti-gun politions over the years. I beleave with out them our guns would have been gone years ago.
    I get angrey with them from time to time, but they are all we have that is trying to do anything. I know there is the GOA and maybe others, but they are to small to have any efect.
   I wish they were doing a better job, but I think we are better off with them than with out them.
                                           Beerbelly

Truth is Beerbelly, they have time and time again, especially in recent years endorsed candidates that are not friendly to gun owners. As far as the GOA and other smaller org's. not having any effect, I respectfully disagree with you.

I receive almost weekly a letter from the GOA keeping me informed of legislation pending that would effect our rights as gun owners.Also info to pass out to friends who are not members (Without asking them to join) I might add.

I suggest you go to the NRA website, and GOA website, and look at the ratings they give to politicians.

Then do a search on the voting records of these individuals. I think it may change your mind.

I believe what we need to do is make these smaller gun rights groups bigger by joining them as they fight for our rights!

[Redhawk1]

I have watched the NRA oppose and help defeat many anti-gun politions over the years. I beleave with out them our guns would have been gone years ago.
    I get angrey with them from time to time, but they are all we have that is trying to do anything. I know there is the GOA and maybe others, but they are to small to have any efect.
   I wish they were doing a better job, but I think we are better off with them than with out them.
                                           Beerbelly

Truth is Beerbelly, they have time and time again, especially in recent years endorsed candidates that are not friendly to gun owners. As far as the GOA and other smaller org's. not having any effect, I respectfully disagree with you.

I receive almost weekly a letter from the GOA keeping me informed of legislation pending that would effect our rights as gun owners.Also info to pass out to friends who are not members (Without asking them to join) I might add.

I suggest you go to the NRA website, and GOA website, and look at the ratings they give to politicians.

Then do a search on the voting records of these individuals. I think it may change your mind.

I believe what we need to do is make these smaller gun rights groups bigger by joining them as they fight for our rights!

You do not have to sign up to the NRA to receive the NRA ILA new letters, get your facts right.

The NRA rates the politicians on how they vote on "gun issues only". It is not there responsibility to look at anything but that. It is the VOTERS responsibility to be informed. Sorry but there are a lot of dumb voters in this United States, and they can't make an informed decision. It is not the Responsibility of the NRA to educate the voters on any other issue,other then the second amendment. What don't you understand about a single issue group?

You cannot get everyone to just join the GOA, it is just not going to happen. When the GOA attacks another gun rights group, and expect people to trust them, you have got to be crazy to think they will. The NRA has never attacked another pro-gun group out there. It is these smaller groups that want there slice of the pie (money). If you don't think that is the reason, it is you that is blinded by your own doing.

I have talked so many people out of joining the GOA, and will do it every chance I get.

[sk330lc]

Circles?...........

Your good at asking questions, and I have tried to answer them, but it's obvious you and the redbird are not going to be satisfied with the truth.

What do YOU think their agenda is?
Look! I know anything the NRA does is going to be hunky dory to you, so go ahead and pay your dues like a good boy, and Wayne and his lackey's will love you for it.

You still haven't answered what I asked.
 "Circles” you just keep stating the same thing over and over. I can go copy and paste all kinds of bills and letters and post.   Please help me Understand your thoughts on the NRA. (YOUR THOUGHTS)  
Please explain what you feel the agenda is?  
 NO not everything the NRA does is all right with me.    
 They are Backing Strickland for Gov. of Ohio.  Sure he is pro Gun But he is running this state into the ground with his policies and such.   By the way GOA are backing him as well   Seems they may have a few things in common.

NW-Hunter,
I'm Still Waiting for you to. Please explain what you feel the NRA agenda is?

[nw_hunter]

LOL! Well you know the old saying about "Till hell freezes over"

I have given you the facts about their agenda........If you have the mental capacity to digest that, do so.
You and the Redhawk, with statements like "I have talked so many people out of joining the GOA, and will do it every chance I get." will not listen to reason, so you have heard the last from me on this subject.