NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (HR 2640) and the Judification of the NRA

A new issue and concern has developed that could affect everyone that visits this website, every member of the Nationalist Coalition, and perhaps everyone you know that owns or plans on owning a firearm for personal protection; anyone exercising their Second Amendment rights.

In the Spring of this year US Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), one of congresses most virulent gun control advocates, introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that has the potential of taking away the gun rights for anyone that could possibly be diagnosed as “mentally defective” - which are the actual words used in the resolution - by a medical professional. On its face it does not sound that unreasonable until you do some research. The bill, presently known as House Resolution 2640, is worded in such an ambiguous way that it could easily be used against any patriotic American that wishes to defend his; self, property, family or country.

This is an extremely dangerous bill that threatens everyone’s Second Amendment Rights, especially those of us that might be deemed as not having a politically correct agenda. It threatens the rights of all patriots, dissidents and even our military veterans. In fact, one organization – the “Military Order of the Purple Heart” – has come out in strong opposition to the proposed legislation. In a letter to their members, dated June 18th, 2007, they say: “For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.”

This bill has already passed the House of Representatives, and is on its way to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review. The Senator that is sponsoring this bill is none other than Charles Schumer, a Jewish gun control advocate (D-NY). If the bill is fast-tracked through the Senate, which is highly likely, then we could see it brought up for a vote within the next couple of weeks.

To make matters worse, the NRA has already thrown their support behind the bill. Yes, you read that correctly! The NRA, an organization that is supposedly defending the rights of Americans to “keep and bear arms” is in support of this bill. An organization that has historically always come down against gun control measures and gun control advocates like Senator Schumer, is actually supporting this bill.

Many of the supposedly “pro-gun” members of the Senate will likely cast a blind affirmative vote for the bill, simply because of the support that it has from the NRA. In addition, it is also just as likely that President Bush will support the bill for the same reason.

So, if all these people who wish to see this bill passed are “pro-gun”, why is it such a bad idea? That answer lies within the wording of the bill itself. But, before we discuss that, a little background into the history of the resolution is necessary.

The bill began as HR 297 in April of 2007. It was introduced by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once an NRA board member, and by McCarthy as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings in early April. The original intent of the resolution was to “clean up” the National Instant Check System (NICS) and make it easier for local authorities to track the purchases of guns by people who were declared as “mentally defective” and not legally permitted to purchase firearms. By cleaning up the database, NICS would quickly flag purchases by these individuals, and local law enforcement authorities could then be notified. Further, if the dealer finalized the sale to the individual, they would be held responsible for the actions of the purchaser. Again, on its face it does not sound that unreasonable but that is only at face value.

The legislation didn't stop there. Wording was included that gave the BATF broad authority to brand anyone “mentally defective” who so much as spoke a word that indicated their intentions were seemingly hostile.

The bill went though a number of compromises until it was introduced in its final form as HR 2640. Then, on June 13th, the bill was brought up for an unrecorded “voice vote” by the representatives that were present in attendance in the House on that day. Those that were not there were notified by email a few hours before the vote, which was not nearly enough time to change plans and attend the session! The resolution passed, and the legislation was on its way to the Senate.

Within the text of that final “compromise” are a number of paragraphs which should be of concern to all of us. For instance, one paragraph indicates that no agency or organization may notify the NICS of anyone that they are aware of a “mentally defective” person, “unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.” With such a broad definition, it could easily be argued that someone who has “flipped the bird” to other drivers on the highway is dangerous! Certainly anyone holding politically incorrect views, any dissident voice, could be deemed as a danger to others.

Another disturbing aspect of the legislation is that anyone who is so unlucky as to have their information posted into the NICS database might find it nearly impossible to get relief. The law offers relief but under some pretty broad conditions: “(This legislation) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process ... (if) the person’s record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” So until a “lawful authority” declared that anyone holding politically incorrect views, any dissident voice, would not pose any danger to public interest, that individual could be banned from owning fire arms.

The entire legislation is written in the same broad scope as these small sections! Imagine how difficult it would be for any of us to remove our names from NICS based upon these conditions. The only thing that our enemies would have to do is send a letter to the court informing them that the person in question is a member of a “neo-Nazi gang” and if he owned a gun it is likely that they would begin terrorizing the neighborhood! How many of our judges would not rule on the side of those who oppose politically incorrect dissident voices – especially if such a letter came from the ADL or the SPLC? Perhaps half of them?

Some might ask, “Why, then, does the NRA support this bill?” I've asked myself the same question! Then I remember that recent elections within the NRA governing board have added many more of the “chosen people”, you know, more board members from Charles Schumer’s tribe, to the ranks of those with a controlling interest in the organization. You can bet that the Jews are well aware that this legislation would make it a lot easier to take our firearms away, therefore the NRA is supporting legislation that a majority of their members would oppose if they knew the real truth. If nothing else, this bill lays more gun control groundwork for that looming, slippery slope.

While it's possible to “name names” in regards to the Judification of the NRA, I think that the actions of the group, as a whole, speaks for itself. For example, in the March 2007 issue of the NRA magazine “America's 1st Freedom,” there is a biographical article on Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a Russian sniper in WWII. A quote from the article reads: “To Hitler, the subordination of Ukraine would be an ideal foothold for Lebensraum, and a chance to murder a large percentage of the Slavic population” (emphasis mine).

Another article, in the November 2006 edition of the same magazine, is a book review of “The Swiss and the Nazis”. This book, written by Stephen Halbrook, is extolled by the reviewer with “unbiased” comments similar to this one: “Though neutral, Switzerland by no means intended to stand idle while threatened by a regime that left the whole of Europe in ruins.” (emphasis mine)

It is thinking of this type represented in the NRA that jeopardizes our rights in this country. An organization that is supposedly defending our Second Amendment rights should not be playing judge and jury on events that they are not qualified to evaluate. Since the organization has taken dramatic turns toward bowing down to pressure from the Zionists, including the election of a Jewess for NRA president in 2005 and the election of another Jew as president in 2007, it is not surprising that they are willing to support an agenda that could easily take away the firearms from those who would oppose the Judification of the United States of America.

It's time for us to make our voices heard in the Senate. I'd encourage all of you to send letters to your senator and ask them to oppose this legislation. If they are willing to listen to reason, you might even ask them to at least remove the vague wording in the text of the bill and resubmit it to the committee for approval. Be firm, yet professional, when corresponding with your senator. Let them know that veterans associations and pro-gun organizations have strongly opposed this bill from the beginning.

If you wish to get more information about the legislation, the “Gun Owners of America” (http://www.gunowners.org) has an entire section of their site dedicated to the bill. Within their site is a form where you can email your senator and ask them to oppose this legislation.

Once again McCarthy and Schumer have put our rights as gun owners at risk. It's up to us to make sure that legislation like this is soundly defeated. Will you do your part?