Nine State Gun Rights Organizations Oppose H.R. 38 in Its Current Form

Concealed Carry
Nine State Gun Rights Organizations Oppose H.R. 38 in Its Current Form

Idaho-(Ammoland.com)- On election night in 2016, gun owners saw their dreams come true as Hillary Clinton was defeated and President Trump was elected, thanks in no small measure to the tireless efforts of grassroots gun owners.

After eight years of fighting with President Obama’s Administration to defend our gun rights, many gun owners assumed that 2017-2020 would be our chance to go on the offense in Washington D.C.

And that is why the membership and leadership of the undersigned organizations are outraged about the recent merger of National Reciprocity legislation with Senator Diane Feinstein’s ‘Fix-NICS’ gun control legislation!

In it’s current form, we absolutely oppose HR 38.

More, we are calling upon our membership to contact their Senators and demand they oppose any gun bill that contains language being pushed by Senators’ Feinstein, Murphy, Schumer and others to ‘Fix-NICS,’ which is nothing more than a massive federal gun registry in the making.

NICS didn’t stop mass shooters in Orlando, FL, Ft. Hood, TX., Las Vegas, NV., Charleston, SC., and many others and expanding NICS will be no more successful.

But Senator Feinstein isn’t worried about that. She’s simply using the recent tragedies in Las Vegas and Texas to attempt to create the largest federal gun database this country has ever seen.

But she could never accomplish this on her own.

Spineless Congressional leaders like Speaker Paul Ryan, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley and others have assisted Senator Feinstein in working to pass this gun control bill, a bill she couldn’t even pass under the Obama Administration.

Shame on them all!

The same goes for the National Rifle Association who have been working behind the scenes to orchestrate this entire thing.

At a time when gun owners needed them most, and trusted them to fight to expand our gun rights and stop Senator Feinstein and her allies, the National Rifle Association choked yet again.

Sadly, grassroots gun owners aren’t even surprised anymore after the National Rifle Association also called for a ban on ‘bump stocks’ via ATF administrative rules, in another feckless action trying to placate the D.C. Swamp.

Besides helping to enact bad policy, the National Rifle Association’s actions are just bad politics, as many anti-gun Democratic and weak-kneed Republican congressman can and will use this vote for political cover for years to come.

To reiterate, the undersigned organizations consider a “Yes” vote on HR38 as a vote in support of gun-control and will relay that to our members.

Thanks to state level gun rights organizations and social media, grassroots gun owners have never been more able to ‘look behind the curtain’ and see exactly how their gun rights are being betrayed by weak Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

To those gun owners who are angry about this betrayal, contact your Senators immediately, as this fight now moves to the Senate.

Then join a state and federal gun rights organization that won’t betray you.

If the gun rights organization in your state is hanging their head in guilty silence, and is too afraid to call this bill out for what it is, start a group of your own.

Nine State Gun Rights Organizations Oppose H.R. 38 in Its Current Form
Nine State Gun Rights Organizations Oppose H.R. 38 in Its Current Form

Signatories:

  • Christopher Dorr, Executive Director, Ohio Gun Owners
  • Aaron Dorr, Executive Director, Iowa Gun Owners
  • Patrick Parsons, Executive Director, Georgia Gun Owners
  • Greg Pruett, President, Idaho Second Amendment Alliance
  • Benjamin Dorr, Political Director, Minnesota Gun Rights
  • Alexandra Salsman, Political Director, Missouri Firearms Coalition
  • David Ball, President, Wyoming Gun Owners
  • Jason Storms, Chairman, Wisconsin Firearms Coalition
  • Thomas Walker, Chairman, North Carolina Firearms Coalition

(If you are the leader of a state level gun rights Organization and would like to add your name to this document, please contact Greg Pruett using the information above.)


About Idaho Second Amendment Alliance:Idaho Second Amendment Alliance

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance exists to fight for the 2nd Amendment rights of all Idaho citizens. Even in a gun friendly State like Idaho, the 2nd Amendment is under constant threat.

  • 29 thoughts on “Nine State Gun Rights Organizations Oppose H.R. 38 in Its Current Form

    1. I do not understand this argument over the fix nics addition to this when hr38 was passed without the addition of fix nics under the number HR645, why is there no discussion of HR645?

    2. To Vanns40
      Right now it takes a YEAR to fix erroneous NICS data.
      Nothing in the FixNICS bill deals with no-fly lists or PTSD from last year or 50 years ago.

      Chif Justice Taney said that all citizens could travel and cross state lines, sojourn [stay] as long as they wanted, singly or in company bearing arms the whole time. They could also attend school, speak on political subjects, serve on juries.
      Then SCOTUS Chief Justice Taney said that Black people could not be citizens.
      The part of te Dred Scott decision that says that Black people and former slaves could not be citizens is moot, having been disposed of by the Civil War and the 13th and 14 Amendments. BUT the rights of citizenship listed by Taney are just as valid as they were before the Civil War.
      You have to read ALL the Court opinions, the summaries are often edited for political correctness.

    3. @John Lewis: And Greg Pruett? What about him? Don’t try and connect him with NAGR because I know him and know he’s not. Be careful who your associating with what, it lends nothing to your credibility.

    4. HR 38 merged with HR4477 is the most Pro 2A bill that has happened in a long time. I read both bills, and I’m calling my Senators to vote for it! The in-fighting is not productive. Please urge your Senators to vote for this. I think I will help sway enough Democrat to vote for it.

    5. Look at the list of “gun rights” organizations at the end of this article and notice how they are dominated by the Dorr family. These are FAKE organizations associated with NAGR who collect donations from gullible gun owners and then work to DEFEAT real improvements in gun rights. For example: all of the advancements in gun rights in Ohio have been the results of tireless efforts by Buckeye Firearms Association who are the true representatives of gun owners in Ohio. The phony “Ohio Gun Owners” scam does NOT represent the majority of gun owners in Ohio but instead have been working to DEFEAT legislation that they PRETEND to support. Please go to buckeyefirearms.com and do a search for “Ohio Gun Owners ” to learn more about this scam.

      1. @John Lewis, If what you wrote is true or partly true, then who the HECK is vetting this propaganda. Those promulgating this are complict. Shame on those.

        Posted by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson “a bill she [Feinsein] couldn’t even pass under the Obama Administration.” I believe, in my opinion, this quote is rather disingenuous on many levels.

      2. Unfortunately, as much as I agree that any bill containing the “Fix NICS” language should be opposed, this is indeed a list of state-level organizations largely, if not entirely, linked to Mike Rothfeld, Saber Communications, and yes, NAGR, the gun rights organization Rothfeld created.

    6. This is the Fix NICS bill as passed by the House. If you read it you should see that fixing errors is the meat. There is nothing bad, nothing like obama’s social security crap…it is all just to make it accurate.
      https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
      SEC. 202. Accountability for Federal departments and agencies.

      Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended—

      (1) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the following:

      “(F) SEMIANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING.—

      “(i) IN GENERAL.—The head of each Federal department or agency shall submit a semiannual written certification to the Attorney General indicating whether the department or agency is in compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C).

      “(ii) SUBMISSION DATES.—The head of a Federal department or agency shall submit a certification to the Attorney General under clause (i)—

      “(I) not later than July 31 of each year, which shall address all relevant records, including those that have not been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of the department or agency during the period beginning on January 1 of the year and ending on June 30 of the year; and

      “(II) not later than January 31 of each year, which shall address all relevant records, including those that have not been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of the department or agency during the period beginning on July 1 of the previous year and ending on December 31 of the previous year.

      “(iii) CONTENTS.—A certification required under clause (i) shall state, for the applicable period—

      “(I) the total number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

      “(II) for each category of records described in subclause (I), the total number of records of the Federal department or agency that have been provided to the Attorney General; and

      “(III) the efforts of the Federal department or agency to ensure complete and accurate reporting of relevant records, including efforts to monitor compliance and correct any reporting failures or inaccuracies.

      “(G) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—

      “(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the head of each Federal department or agency, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall establish a plan to ensure maximum coordination and automated reporting or making available of records to the Attorney General as required under subparagraph (C), and the verification of the accuracy of those records, including the pre-validation of those records, where appropriate, during a 4-year period specified in the plan. The head of each Federal department or agency shall update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K). The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

      “(ii) BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS.—Each plan established under clause (i) shall include annual benchmarks to enable the Attorney General to assess implementation of the plan, including—

      “(I) qualitative goals and quantitative measures;

      “(II) measures to monitor internal compliance, including any reporting failures and inaccuracies;

      “(III) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance costs; and

      “(IV) an estimated date by which the Federal department or agency will fully comply with record submission requirements under subparagraph (C).

      “(iii) COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION.—Not later than the end of each fiscal year beginning after the date of the establishment of a plan under clause (i), the Attorney General shall determine whether the applicable Federal department or agency has achieved substantial compliance with the benchmarks included in the plan.

      “(H) ACCOUNTABILITY.—The Attorney General shall publish, including on the website of the Department of Justice, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a semiannual report that discloses—

      “(i) the name of each Federal department or agency that has failed to submit a required certification under subparagraph (F);

      “(ii) the name of each Federal department or agency that has submitted a required certification under subparagraph (F), but failed to certify compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C);

      “(iii) the name of each Federal department or agency that has failed to submit an implementation plan under subparagraph (G);

      “(iv) the name of each Federal department or agency that is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan under subparagraph (G);

      “(v) a detailed summary of the data, broken down by department or agency, contained in the certifications submitted under subparagraph (F);

      “(vi) a detailed summary of the contents and status, broken down by department or agency, of the implementation plans established under subparagraph (G); and

      “(vii) the reasons for which the Attorney General has determined that a Federal department or agency is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).

      “(I) NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES.—For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal department or agency that has failed to certify compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C), and is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding overtime pay, until the department or agency—

      “(i) certifies compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C); or

      “(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).

      “(J) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Attorney General may use funds made available for the national instant criminal background check system established under subsection (b) to provide technical assistance to a Federal department or agency, at the request of the department or agency, in order to help the department or agency comply with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C).

      “(K) BIENNIAL ASSESSMENT.—Every 2 years, the Attorney General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken under the title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 have resulted in improvements in the system established under this section.

      “(L) APPLICATION TO FEDERAL COURTS.—For purposes of this paragraph—

      “(i) the terms ‘department or agency of the United States’ and ‘Federal department or agency’ include a Federal court; and

      “(ii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall perform, for a Federal court, the functions assigned to the head of a department or agency.”; and

      (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following: “For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60 days after the date on which the Attorney General receives such information, the Attorney General shall determine whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of an erroneous record and remove any records that are determined to be erroneous. In addition to any funds made available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to comply with this subsection.”.

      SEC. 203. NICS Act Record Improvement Program.

      (a) Requirements To obtain waiver.—Section 102 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007(34 U.S.C. 40912) is amended—

      (1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence—

      (A) by striking “the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601)” and inserting “section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C. 40301)”; and

      (B) by inserting “is in compliance with an implementation plan established under subsection (b) or” before “provides at least 90 percent of the information described in subsection (c)”; and

      (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting “or has established an implementation plan under section 107” after “the Attorney General”.

      (b) Implementation assistance to States.—Section 103 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 40913) is amended—

      (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: “, including through increased efforts to pre-validate the contents of those records to expedite eligibility determinations”;

      (2) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

      “(2) DOMESTIC ABUSE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION INITIATIVE.—

      “(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—For each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the Attorney General shall create a priority area under the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (commonly known as ‘NARIP’) for a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative that emphasizes the need for grantees to identify and upload all felony conviction records and domestic violence records.

      “(B) FUNDING.—The Attorney General—

      “(i) may use not more than 50 percent of the amounts made available under section 207 of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022 to carry out the initiative described in subparagraph (A); and

      “(ii) shall give a funding preference under NARIP to States that—

      “(I) have established an implementation plan under section 107; and

      “(II) will use amounts made available under this subparagraph to improve efforts to identify and upload all felony conviction records and domestic violence records described in clauses (i), (v), and (vi) of section 102(b)(1)(C) by not later than September 30, 2022.”; and

      (3) by adding at the end the following:

      “(g) Technical assistance.—The Attorney General shall direct the Office of Justice Programs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to—

      “(1) assist States that are not currently eligible for grants under this section to achieve compliance with all eligibility requirements; and

      “(2) provide technical assistance and training services to grantees under this section.”.

      SEC. 204. National Criminal History Improvement Program.

      (a) State grant program for criminal justice identification, information, and communication.—Section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C. 40301) is amended—

      (1) in subsection (a)(3)—

      (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and

      (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

      “(C) identification of all individuals who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year”;

      (2) in subsection (b)(6)—

      (A) by striking “(18 U.S.C. 922 note)” and inserting “(34 U.S.C. 40901(b))”; and

      (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: “, including through increased efforts to pre-validate the contents of felony conviction records and domestic violence records to expedite eligibility determinations, and measures and resources necessary to establish and achieve compliance with an implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007”; and

      (3) in subsection (d), by inserting after “unless” the following: “the State has achieved compliance with an implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 or”.

      (b) Grants for the improvement of criminal records.—Section 106(b)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40302(1)) is amended—

      (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—

      (A) by striking “as of the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “, as of the date of enactment of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,”; and

      (B) by striking “files,” and inserting the following: “files and that will utilize funding under this subsection to prioritize the identification and transmittal of felony conviction records and domestic violence records,”;

      (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “and” at the end;

      (3) in subparagraph (C)—

      (A) by striking “upon establishment of the national system,”; and

      (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

      (4) by adding at the end the following—

      “(D) to establish and achieve compliance with an implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.”.

      SEC. 205. Improving information sharing with the States.

      (a) In general.—Title I of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S. 40911 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

      “SEC. 107. Implementation plan.

      “(a) In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, the Attorney General, in coordination with the States and Indian tribal governments, shall establish, for each State or Indian tribal government, a plan to ensure maximum coordination and automation of the reporting or making available of appropriate records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) and the verification of the accuracy of those records during a 4-year period specified in the plan, and shall update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent biennial assessment under subsection (f). The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

      “(b) Benchmark requirements.—Each plan established under this section shall include annual benchmarks to enable the Attorney General to assess the implementation of the plan, including—

      “(1) qualitative goals and quantitative measures; and

      “(2) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance costs.

      “(c) Compliance determination.—Not later than the end of each fiscal year beginning after the date of the establishment of an implementation plan under this section, the Attorney General shall determine whether each State or Indian tribal government has achieved substantial compliance with the benchmarks included in the plan.

      “(d) Accountability.—The Attorney General—

      “(1) shall disclose and publish, including on the website of the Department of Justice—

      “(A) the name of each State or Indian tribal government that received a determination of failure to achieve substantial compliance with an implementation plan under subsection (c) for the preceding fiscal year; and

      “(B) a description of the reasons for which the Attorney General has determined that the State or Indian tribal government is not in substantial compliance with the implementation plan, including, to the greatest extent possible, a description of the types and amounts of records that have not been submitted; and

      “(2) if a State or Indian tribal government described in paragraph (1) subsequently receives a determination of substantial compliance, shall—

      “(A) immediately correct the applicable record; and

      “(B) not later than 3 days after the determination, remove the record from the website of the Department of Justice and any other location where the record was published.

      “(e) Incentives.—For each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the Attorney General shall give affirmative preference to all Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grant applications of a State or Indian tribal government that received a determination of substantial compliance under subsection (c) for the fiscal year in which the grant was solicited.

      “(f) Biennial assessment.—Every 2 years, the Attorney General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken under title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 have resulted in improvements in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40903).

      “SEC. 108. Notification to law enforcement agencies of prohibited purchase of a firearm.

      “(a) In general.—In the case of a background check conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to the request of a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of firearms (as such terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code), which background check determines that the receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, and such determination is made after 3 business days have elapsed since the licensee contacted the System and a firearm has been transferred to that person, the System shall notify the law enforcement agencies described in subsection (b).

      “(b) Law enforcement agencies described.—The law enforcement agencies described in this subsection are the law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location from which the licensee contacted the system and the law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location of the residence of the person for which the background check was conducted, as follows:

      “(1) The field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      “(2) The local law enforcement agency.

      “(3) The State law enforcement agency.”.

      (b) Table of contents.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–180; 121 Stat. 2559) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 106 the following

      1. It’s a bad Bill. Just two points: 1. There is no “look back” date beyond which you cannot go. Veterans from Vietnam forward who sought temporary help for PTSD and who have led productive lives can be put on this arbitrary “no buy” and then “no fly” list. 2. As for recourse, I’ll let the word of the Bill speak: “…For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60 days after the date on which the Attorney General receives such information, the Attorney General shall determine whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of an erroneous record and remove any records that are determined to be erroneous. In addition to any funds made available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to comply with this subsection.”.

        From the “time” the Attorney General receives such information. And I wonder how long that could take? Further, the AG “may” use such sums as are necessary for the FBI to comply blah blah blah. This is politics speak giving them an easy out.

        This Bill is a Liberal anti-gunners dream come true which is exactly why it’s sponsored by Feinstein & Schumer. The wording is everything and the wording just plain stinks for our vets and everyone else. Stop trying to defend a bad Bill.

      2. @Jim M, What meat? Seems like pure mush to me. If an agency head does not submit the proper certification, on time, then the name of their agency gets published. What a punishment! The head of every federal agency, state agency, and tribal government will sit down to their word processors twice a year, change the dates, hit print, sign and send the certification to the USAG. No muss, no fuss, no sweat. But they will take the funds alright.
        Thank God that we do not get all the government that we pay for.

      3. Jim: I know you’re going to be a proponent of this no matter what so there’s really no point in continuing the back and forth. We’ve had some really good RKBA and legal minds look this over as well as those versed with ATF and how they act/react. The opinion of all is that this fixes nothing and could well be a disaster. There are those that are willing to give up, literally, anything in order to get what, on the surface is called National Reciprocity but has problems of its own. I’d be in favor of that were it not attached to a Bill which it could be severed from, almost immediately, after passage. That’s one thing you can’t argue. There is no non-severability clause in either version. Now care to argue how you can support a Bill that can be stripped of Reciprocity as soon as it’s passed, setting aside our differences on the NICS Bill?

          1. Hello Wild Bill,

            I’m good. I’ve been busy at work which has cut down on my “reading ” and subsequent posting. I’ve been shootimg IDPA. Came in 8th place last match. My home range burned down last Tuesday. Search “Angeles shooting range.” Yesterday, i was at Raahauge’s for a CRPA 2A bbq. I’m planning on retiring in 54 weeks. Lastly, how have you been?

          2. Hello Wild Bill,

            I’m good. I’ve been very busy which has cut down on my “reading” and subsequent posting. I’m shooting IDPA. Came in 8th place at the last match.

            My home range burned down last Tuesday. Search Angeles Shooting range to see pictures. I was at Raahauge’s last Saturday for a CRPA 2A bbq.

            I plan on retiring in 54 weeks. Lastly, how have you been?

            1. @Eric. I used to live three miles from Raahauge’s in Norco, on Roundup Rd! Good job on the IDPA.
              It was a tough year. Two of our oldest dogs died in my arms. The scrawny dog that came for breakfast and dinner every day liked to chase cars. She caught one. She is buried in the pasture on a little hill that she liked.
              If you are retiring… Texas is calling. Also retirementliving.com

            2. @Wild Bill, Sorry to hear about your dogs. I know what it’s like to loose one. I stopped pheasant hunting when my German Shorthaired Pointer died. He was a great dog came out in a GSP calendar too. Thanks for the web site referral.

    7. Another article with lots of emotion and few facts. Be specific! What is the problem with the bill passed by the house?

    8. Th GOP legislators are simply cowards who will not stand for our rights.
      While I know the NRA works to advance gun rights, they have shown themselves to be ready to trade away rights as they see fit. This all or nothing approach does not help because we have lost many of our rights thanks to the GOP and the NRA.

    9. If you have a pistol permit in your home state , you are in a data base. I think the fear of a Nat’l base is overblown.
      We still have our long guns with no trail, and that’s what the grabbers really want to abolish.

      1. It is my belief that they want all guns. And are willing to play the long. Death by a thousand little laws until the anti gunners achieve their goal of total disarmament. This bill with the added Fix NICS is just a step in the total disarmament agenda. For God’s sake it was originally written by Dianne Feinstein, wake up. That witch has only one goal, disarm America. The NRA has always been about compromise. NO MORE COMPROMISES!

    10. Don’t give an inch and don’t try to find justification for it. Just stop, because they won’t.

      The NRAs public announcement on Bump Stocks and their willingness to write off a small niche within our hobby shows their true backbone… (I became a GOA lifetime member that day)

      Read the writing on the wall.

    11. I have read HR 4477, and it does not change the original NCIS, it does not create new groups of prohibitive persons, it does not create more gun control. The fear mongering and conjecture is not warranted. I feal this gun lobbying in-fighting is not productive and hurtful to the cause. I feel some these groups want to recruit more members off the back of the NRA with the use of fear. Read the bill.

      1. HR 4477 does not come without a hefty price tag. $615 million to 900 million in its current form. I do not want to pour more money into NICS. Not with a plan written by democrats, especially Dianne Feinstein.

      2. There are more than one bill in Congress with similar names. IF you read the actual bill that passed the House as HR 38 you will see that HR 38 DOES NOT create a list of CCW/CCH . It does not register any guns.
        Fix NICS DOES NOT create any new categories of prohibited persons. It just makes sure the government actually reports the convictions from Court Martial. News seems to be that besides the Sutherland Church killer, the Las Vegas killer was also prohibited but not reported. Fix NICS is clerical.
        It also includes funds to get names OFF the list that are wrongly included.

        1. Jim: I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion on this but you’re just wrong on the “Fix-NICS” Bill. It will put thousands of people in a database who don’t belong there, deny them their Rights and cost them thousands of dollars and possibly years to get off it. This is a horrible bill which will “fix” nothing but will destroy lives.

      3. My sentiments exactly. I don’t like comprise either. Hell no one does really. We just want what we want. However instead of fear mongering the way the libs do we need to read the bills and not just presume what is in their. Ps Feinstein is horrible and I can’t wait until she retires.

    Leave a Comment 29 Comments

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