Three Federal Bills That Would Repeal Anti-Gun Laws

Gun Free Zones
Gun Free Zones
National Association for Gun Rights
National Association for Gun Rights

Colorado ––(Ammoland.com)- The past seven months have been a whirlwind of legislative battles on Capitol Hill concerning our Second Amendment rights.

It has been one assault after the next with Obama’s Executive Orders, Toomey-Manchin background check expansion, Harry Reid’s gun control package (S.649), radical anti-gun nominees and the crown-jewel, the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.”

It would be easy to get overwhelmed with such a wave of attacks and lose sight of other objectives.

Like any good coach will tell his team, the key to a good defense is a solid offense.

That’s why we at NAGR are constantly working with legislators on the Hill to push pro-gun bills that do one thing — repeal anti-gun legislation already on the books.

Here are three bills that I am personally excited to be pushing on the Hill.

Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
H.R. 35 by Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36) and H.R. 133 by Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)

Year after year, crime data shows that not only has the Gun Free School Zone Act not slowed or prevented shootings at schools, they have increased.

NAGR has always held the position that Gun Free Zones of any kind are essentially “criminal safe zones.”

Legislation such as the Gun Free School Zones Act just shows how the gun grabbers prize their twisted ideology above facts and common sense.

Simply posting a sign on school doors that proclaims “Gun Free Zone” will do one thing and one thing only: ensure that when an active shooting situation arises, there will be no armed citizen there to defend innocents.

We are proud to work with strong pro-gun legislators such as Steve Stockman and Thomas Massie.

Veterans Second Amendment Protection
H.R. 602 by Rep. Jeff Miller (Fl-1) and H.R. 577 by Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36)

In 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs struck a deal with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin forwarding names of Veterans who they had labeled “mentally incompetent,” all on account of their need (or desire) for assistance managing certain, often times complicated, financial affairs.

From 1998 through 2007, at least 116,000 of these individuals were reported to the FBI and immediately listed on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as ineligible to purchase a firearm. Reports today place that number even higher.

In most cases, these veterans have never been adjudicated by a court of law as being a danger to themselves or others and are being denied their Second Amendment rights without due process. This is an outrageous bypass of the rights of our Veterans and the rule of law.

NAGR will fight as long as it takes to restore these veterans’ rights and to make sure that such dangerous precedence never has the chance to spread.

Repealing the Sporting Purposes Distinction
H.R. 2277 by Rep. Doug Collins (GA-9)

Most gun owners are unaware that for decades the ATF, with little or no oversight, has successfully banned the importation of countless firearms and certain types of ammunition.

Even after congressional inquiry and attempts to put an end to these bans the ATF has managed to continue this tradition by pointing to the legal authority of the little known “sporting purposes” distinction.

The so-called “sporting purpose test” was enacted in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act.

It was imposed to distinguish between imports of firearms that would be allowed and those that would be banned, specifically most military surplus rifles.

In 1989, the ban was expanded by Executive Order, without congressional approval, to “semiautomatic assault weapons” based solely on cosmetic features. This served as a precursor to the so-called “assault weapons” ban.

Congressman Collins’ bill is short and simple.

Instead of writing new legislation to prevent such actions, or placing prohibitions on using federal funds to impose these bans, Collins’ bill simply deletes every mention of “sporting purpose” found in the Federal Code.

So far the bill has attracted some of the strongest legislators in the House as co-sponsors.

The battles coming in the future

With Congress heading into recess this month, gun rights activists like yourself can take a breath . . . but only for a short time.

You can bet the anti-gunners are re-grouping right now, planning their next gun control push when they arrive back in Washington in the coming weeks.

I'll be sure to keep you updated on any breaking developments.

In the mean time, always be prepared for the next battle to protect your gun rights.

For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

About:
The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the staff, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, or other sponsors and partners. See the Editorial-Review Process for more details.
  • 14 thoughts on “Three Federal Bills That Would Repeal Anti-Gun Laws

    1. New laws?, how about enforcing what is alr4ady there:
      1) U. S. Constitution: realizing that some types of people just cannot seem to understand tne phrase “shall not”. That verbiage has been in the 10 Commandments for several thousand years & they still dont get it.
      2) Title 18, US code, section 242; “Color of Law”. (quote) :”This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.”

      3) The “Dick Act, 1902” also deals with this subject. In particular it defines the levels of national security from the armed forces to the Militia. Militia being ARMED PRIVATE CITIZENS (EMPHASIS ADDED). As such militia members are expected to posesses firearms suitable for military action, i.e. so called assault weapons. This act also states that the act cannot be repealed or amended. It was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court in the same era itwas passed. By this act eveything Obama and the democrats have done are in violation, and subject to impeachment.
      Now find lawyers with guts enough to prosecute & “judges” that will do their judicial duty , not their personal socialist adgenda.

    2. Booneybutt: If you are a vet, then you may need to realize you are an oathbreaking scum. Your oath was to support and defend the constitution. The 1st amendment, and my freedom of speech is part of that, hence it should not matter to you if I am a vet. Secondly, yes, I’m an Army vet.
      Due to a neck injury I sustained on duty (11 broken vertebrae, plus head broke) I suffered some strokes. At one point a judge asked me if I needed help paying my bills etc, if I had said yes I would have lost my rights in a similar fashion to what is being discussed here. So I am quite in depth on this subject, in personal, military, and legal experience.
      I suspect as one pointed out above that your drug addled rant was more appropriately directed at Bill Butlers comment above, and that you confused our posts as I WAS on your side. I say was, as this is a common problem with conservatives tearing into each other until someone that WAS an ally becomes an enemy. Hence why the libs are winning, as they manage to stay on message even when the message is insane.

    3. boone1, you need to redirect your, probably steroid induced, rage at Bill Butler. You’re currently attacking someone that actually agrees with you. So, maybe you should realize that you have an ally instead of attacking him with all the ill will that your “only good for the Army” intelligence can muster.

    4. booney: Well, couple things: If you are a vet you supposedly fought to protect the rights of EVERYONE for free speech etc, so I should not have to qualify myself in that regard, unless you’re a traitor and won’t follow the oath you took when you joined. For those of you that think somehow only vets can speak, yes I’m an Army vet. Also, due to a stroke related to a neck injury received in the line of duty a judge once asked me if I needed help with my finances. I stayed strong and said no, if I had asked for help, I would have lost my rights under the same issue I talked about. So I consider myself lucky in that regard.

      This government has turned communist and is not following our constitution. Ironically if you read my comments in context you might get a clue that I was on your side. This is probably the biggest reason the libs are winning the propaganda war, too many conservatives want to quibble about small stuff and alienate each other, while the libs and dems have been smart enough to stay on point in the long run. Thus winning thru a thousand paper cuts.
      Another proof that you are probably just a fool though is your use of dollar signs in your calling me names in order to try to outsmart language filters on web sites. Thus, aside from laughing at your small member I would agree with you on the government. One word for you: Enzyte

    5. @boone1: Well, couple things: If you are a vet you supposedly fought to protect the rights of EVERYONE for free speech etc, so I should not have to qualify myself in that regard, unless you’re a lying traitor and won’t follow the oath you took when you joined. For those of you that think somehow only vets can speak, yes I’m an Army vet. Also, due to a stroke related to a neck injury received in the line of duty a judge once asked me if I needed help with my finances. I stayed strong and said no, if I had asked for help, I would have lost my rights under the same issue I talked about. So I consider myself lucky in that regard.
      I’m also, not that you have any right to know, a member of OathKeepers, NRA, GOA, SAF and POW/MIA. Not that this has any relevance at all to my comments.
      This government has turned communist and is not following our constitution. Ironically if you read my comments in context you might get a clue that I was on your side. This is probably the biggest reason the libs are winning the propaganda war, too many conservatives and even veterans want to quibble about small stuff and alienate each other, while the libs and dems have been smart enough to stay on point in the long run. Thus winning thru a thousand paper cuts.
      Another proof that you are probably just a whiner though is your use of dollar signs in your calling me names in order to try to outsmart language filters on web sites. Thus, aside from laughing at your small johnson I would agree with you on the government. One word for you boone: Roidrage

    6. Hey Bill Baker have you ever been in the military been in a war zone any of this if not keep your f##ken mouth close A$$HOLES like have not ideal what it’s like fighting wars that this sorry communist government starts and then run away from and won’t let us fight them.

    7. Well….

      I’m in favor of the “mental illness” if they are willing to acknowledge liberalism as a mental disorder.

      I’m even more in favor of ALL politicians and bureaucrats, as well as all judges, be required to pass the same background check before holding any elected or appointed government office.

      That would necessarily require all agents of any law enforcement agency…

    8. I’m sick of worrying about these idiots attacking my inalienable right to self-defense, period. How is it even legal for them to do so when they have SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?

      How about a bill that holds politicians CRIMINALLY accountable for breaking their sworn Oath of Office?

      They surely don’t want to lose their right to self-defense, but if they attack our rights they should LOSE theirs.

      Keep it up retarded Liberals and it will be Civil War all over again. The gun owners will win too, so SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE F**K UP.

    9. @ElderAmbassador: Nonsense, your point of ‘If you have been adjudicated mentally ill by a Mental Health…’ Adjudicated: Judge, refers to a judicial process. A doctor can diagnose you, but it takes a court to adjudicate you.

      Which is part of the issue for the veterans as many of them simply asked a judge to get them help with paying their bills, which was interpreted as being incompetent, and then misapplied as being somehow dangerous and losing their 2nd amendment rights.

    10. So if they remove the “sporting purpose” from federal code, I assume that would allow easier importation of parts kits. I wonder if that would have any effect on importation of barrels for “assault weapons” since importation of barrels is currently banned.

    11. If you have been adjudicated mentally ill by a Mental Health practitioner in private practice – NOT any type of government employee – AND are confined to an institution treating your issue, yes. No car, no guns, no knives of any kind, no alcohol, on illicit drugs, etc.
      However, once you are declared “cured” by competent authority, all restrictions must come off. You are NOT mentally ill anymore so no need for them. And they come off automatically, I have no need to prove a negative.
      As for those “whack-job” veterans (shame on you and the VA “person” for labeling), no status change until they are ADJUDICATED by competent authority, NOT to include some PA or MD at the VA but a competent Mental Health practitioner in private practice.

    12. I think that I disagree with “Rob and Becker” on this issue. If a person is already identified as mentally ill, incapable of caring for themselves, I do not feel comfortable with their owning firearms. If they cannot make good decisions in their lives, how can they make good decisions with deadly weapons?

      There is a process through the NICS system that allows any person to prove their competancy or correct I.D. confussion. If anyone feels that they have the ability to safely own firearms, in spite of any mental impairment, they may appeal the NICS decision and regain the ability to purchase and own forearms. Common sense and good judgement need to prevail in this emotional issue.

      As a VA physician once said: “All veterans are not venerable!” If you’ve ever sat next to some of these “whack-jobs” in a VA waiting room, you will understand my thoughts on this issue.

    13. When you ban anyone from owning firearms because they have any kind of “mental” issues is not only to find them guilty before they are tried, but to find them guilty before they have committed a crime. This will not fly with anything else in any state or the nation. I don’t see how the rules can be changed for gun ownership. Needs to be challenged big time in court.

    14. All good news, but a problem I noticed. You’re acknowledging the notion that anyone is ineligible to buy firearms. That is incorrect. The right of the people to keep and bear arms comes with no conditions, no limitations, no exclusions, no exceptions, and no equivocations in it’s prohibition against government infringement. Government simply has absolutely NO authority to deny anyone arms. None. What authority it THINKS it has was manufactured out of thin air by SCOTUS, based on a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution (the nicest way to put it). Stop acknowledging this false authority.

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments