# update on gun control



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long
opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post,
June 9, 2007

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past
couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a
"compromise" on gun control legislation.

The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong
signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written.
The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who
are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did
something about Virginia Tech.

So what's going on?

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see
http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA
leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the
McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been
introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been
posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative
particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as
reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves
legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government
would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send
more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the
background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds
could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence,
this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The
states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names,
many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and
perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with
minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have
their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000
military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a
chance to clean their records."

Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning
up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are
currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is
aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the
Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from
the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the
83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in
the NICS system.

After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs
are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for
cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there
is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the
NICS system.

Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which
prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are
barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed,
then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for
inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a
disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability
to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have
suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for
their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, 
have to
spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive
recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.

And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our
whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent
until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives
defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of
a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to
the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due
process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added
by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally,
added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now
the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that
backwards?

One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in
getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who
tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very
difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though
the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in
confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest
people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the
government, rather than vice-versa.

The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's
interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any
court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000
veterans.

Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law.

GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an
amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the
FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton
administration was considering doing.

GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the
Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told
that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith
amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun
organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you
contact your representative immediately. Please take action today
and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. You can call your Representative at
202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on
McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR
2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this
bill.

All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second
Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is
acceptable... period.

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."

Sincerely,

****************************

New Shocking DVD!

"The Gang," subtitled How A Government Agency Uses The Law To 
Destroy
Your Rights And Freedoms, is a DVD that details how the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has grown from a
tiny cell to a cancer that sucks a billion dollars a year from
taxpayers for the harassment of gun owners. BATFE -- The Gang -- has
no constitutional authority. It has no rules, and no congressional
oversight that holds it accountable.

A highly professional production from Jews for Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, the DVD has outraged viewers who were not
sympathetic to gun ownership and convinced them that BATFE has to go.
Finally, America can see what this increasingly rogue agency is
doing. "The Gang" could end the career of America's Gestapo 
if enough
people see it. Now available through Gun Owners Foundation at just
$25.

Also produced by JPFO: Innocents Betrayed. This DVD was shown by a
Philadelphia social studies teacher to all of his classes. It turned
the students completely around, even though they were being taught
gun control in all their other classes. Extensively documents that
all 20th century genocides were preceded by firearms registration and
confiscation.

Please see http://www.gunowners.com/resource.htm to order either or
both of these DVDs (and check out our ongoing book sale at the same
time).


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

First I will qualify my comments by saying I haven't done as much research on this article as I need to do, but I am looking for any information I can find. When I first read this it struck me as kind of strange and kind of not looking to be under the surface what was being attempting to look like on the surface. For example the number HR 2640 was said to be this new bill but don't look for it at Thomas.org because it is new it won't be there.

My first though was has the House actually gotten to 2640 plus bills in this new congress and if it is a new bill that was actually introduced it should appear on a government site somewhere. I couldn't find it. If it has never been introduced then it will not have a number assigned to it so where did this number come from.

Second thing that sounded funny was as far as I know the NRA has always been pretty anti gun control. I can't recall when the NRA actually sold us down the river, but maybe someone else can. Third thing was the article stated several times that nothing in the bill wasn't already being done now by other laws. If that is so then why worry about it.

So, I went looking and so far what I have found out is first, McCarthy is not the person behind what has been going on with congress and the NRA. The talks between the NRA and congress and that includes both Republicans and Democrats is about setting up a law that will allow the names of people that have been certified as mentally sick or unstable to be added to the data base of NIC's. I think a person would have ask themselves, why not. A felon's name is on the list so why not someone mentally unbalanced. Had the shooter at Virginia Tech been on that list he wouldn't have been able to legally purchase the guns he used.

I see where the article uses the number of 83,000 veterans that are on the NIC's check that cannot get themselves removed. Here I wonder just how relevant it really is since 83,000 out of millions of veterans is a very small number and what difference does it make if someone mentally disturbed is a veteran or not.

I did find a statement by a NRA spokesperson that said negotiations of this particular matter was reached to the NRA's satisfaction and they would support the measure when introduced, again indicating it has not been introduced, but the NRA went on to say that if there was any attempt to make this a gun control bill with added amendments they would pull their support and fight the bill.

Right now I don't know enough about this bill, if it exists or ever will exist to make a judgment call one way or the other but I do have to wonder about the real motives of Gun Owners of America. Especially when they go completely off subject to promote a DVD they are selling.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hmmmmmm, interesting. Thanks for all that research. I will follow up also. I have never had them send misinformation before, but everything you have found looks like their wires are crossed. This is worth further scrutiny. I may have to be a little skeptical of their newsletter from now on.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know if they got their wires crossed, they are spot on, or what. Simply isn't enough information available yet but though I myself can't find anything and I thought something was suspect, I would still give GOA the benefit of doubt. This list at their site on bills in congress on gun control was last updated early April. We're in for a rough ride I think. This stuff is scary. http://www.gunowners.org/110anatb.htm

Update..11:18 P.M.

The bill in question (I think) passed a House voice vote tonight with only one nay vote which was from Ron Paul of Texas and the bill is now on it's way to the Senate. I still cannot find a full text of the bill or number of the bill anywhere but all reports are it was a bill to mandate all states to share information on criminals, illegals, and mentally ill. The NRA stated there was nothing in the bill to prevent anyone legally qualified right now from buying a gun if this bill is signed into law. The NRA went on to say they managed to have a provision included that the 90,000 veterans names that were put on the NICS no sale list by the Clinton administration would automatically be removed and further a provision to make it easier for a citizen to have their name removed if they believe it was unfairly placed on the list. If anyone runs into a cite for this bill please post.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, here is the latest on that bill.

McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as 
bargaining
chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

With all due respect, H.R. 2640 is not a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law. I think you know I'm certainly anti gun control and in fact am pro gun all the way. But what I'm seeing here is Gun Owners Of America simply trying to muddy the water and throwing out information that is not true. The entire text of the bill can be read here. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2640 Maybe someone else that reads it can explain to me just how this is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control Law. If this bill gets through the Senate with no changes and as is, I see no problem with it. Does anyone else see a problem other than a lot of Democrat supporters?

Here is the official NRA statement on the bill............

*NRA-ILA*

H.R. 2640, The "NICS Improvement Act," Passes House By Voice Vote

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640 by a voice vote. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," is consistent with NRA's decades long support for measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes some much needed, and long overdue, improvements to the NICS.

The basic premise of the bill is to provide an effective mechanism to help screen would-be gun buyers with adjudicated mental illness records. H.R. 2640would require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for use in the NICS, providing financial incentives to states to do so. It would not prohibit any additional people from owning guns. Those blocked from buying a gun due to newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law.

No piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes. However, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should to be included in the NICS. In addition, the NICS should be as instant, fair, and accurate as possible.

Among the numerous improvements contained in H.R. 2640 are:

* 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 is intended to address concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.
* 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.

This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout the 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 incompetent are included in the system.

*If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any adverse amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it! *


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any adverse amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!


That sounds good.

It sounds like GOA is afraid of any type of gun control. This looks reasonable, but gun owners have been back stabbed so many times they become distrusting. The bill as it stands now looks ok to me too. I am a little skittish about any new gun control though. I guess I will look at this as "guardedly optimistic".


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> It sounds like GOA is afraid of any type of gun control. This looks reasonable, but gun owners have been back stabbed so many times they become distrusting. The bill as it stands now looks ok to me too. I am a little skittish about any new gun control though. I guess I will look at this as "guardedly optimistic".


I agree and a person can't blame them or anyone for being skittish on a matter such as this. I think one problem is the use of the term gun control which raises a red flag with anyone with common sense. I am disappointed that GOA in my opinion is being dishonest in their reporting of this bill. I've always ranked GOA very high but now I think I will pay a little closer attention to what they say. Seems to me we do need some laws and there are in existence some laws that enhances our gun ownership and makes it safer for all of us but unfortunately the term gun control, and this new law is gun control, makes everyone suspicious. Like you I will also watch this closely to see if it comes out of the Senate as is.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Sad state we are in. Any gun control laws are bad. It should be this simple if you use a gun in a crime (real crime not just position) then you should be punished. Owning a firearm is guaranteed by the second amendment. Only if we could take gun laws back to 1985. Then Sound Suppressors should be unregulated except you have to call it in stating that you have one and the cal it is in. Getting a FA rifle should be different than regular rifle in one fact only that you should have to call it in also. Other than that unregulated.

Any law is just a stepping stone. It is just like the song "one piece at a time" Soon my stuff will be gone and the gun crowd will have me against them also. Many think they will never come for their hunting rifle "sniper rifle". They are coming it is a fact that can not be deigned.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right People. We have heard that full metal should be outlawed because it penetrates to much. We have heard that hollow points should be outlawed because they are designed to kill (no #$#% Sherlock). We heard that scopes should be outlawed because they are designed to kill at long range. More than ten shells should be outlawed. Thumbhole stocks are for assault rifles. Semi autos should be outlawed. Lump everything together and we would have nothing left. The firearms haters, and the firearms ignorant are both dangerous. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. 
It's perhaps as simple as GAO doesn't want to give another and another inch.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Any gun control laws are bad


Do you think it is wrong for a felon to be denied a gun? How about a child predator? A wife beater? A mentally ill person under a doctors care? A convicted poacher? All of the aforementioned are denied gun ownership. Are any of these actually gun control or simply good laws. Either way they are labeled as gun control so should all of them be appealed and overturned. You say "Then Sound Suppressors should be unregulated except you have to call it in stating that you have one and the cal it is in. Getting a FA rifle should be different than regular rifle in one fact only that you should have to call it in also. Other than that unregulated". All of those "other than that's" are gun control. Can't have it both ways. Seems to me gun control and gun ban has been mixed into the pot so often we now call both the same. The Brady Bill was a gun ban. The new bill introduce by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady (HR 297) are gun bans. Neither were about gun control.

As for "they are coming", hell they been doing that every since Wyatt Earp banned guns on the streets of Dodge City. I think we are not only doing a disservice to ourselves but are actually hurting our fight for the second amendment when we make statements that there should be no laws concerning guns. At the very least we need to kill the term gun control and start using the proper term of gun ban where it applies. I'm sure sooner or later someone is going to take my comments out of context and say I'm pro gun control/gun ban, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  The problem is if I adhere to the second amendment as written and as how I understand it, I have to agree with People. However, if I am of the opinion that I don't want some nut case who walks down the street talking to invisible space aliens buying a gun, then I have to believe some laws (gun control) are necessary. It is a dilemma in my mind that seems to have no real answer as long as we confuse gun control with gun ban.


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

I've seen this happen in Canada and "control" leads to "confiscation" I inherited many firearms from my grandfather. Mostly old war relics with a few outdated pistols. I thought I was doing the right thing by "registering" them. Out of the blue the "man" sends me a letter to bring a colt pistol with a 4 inch barrel into the closest police station immediately or face jail time. Apparently my POS rusty pistol was "deemed" a prohibited firearm and was much too evil to sit in the safe for another 40 years collecting dust. Rather then let this pistol become some crooked gov't officials new toy I bent the barrel in the vise so it was pointing straight back. I brought it in and asked them if it was still considered "prohibited" Next day the swat team was at my house searching for weapons. Don't allow the gov't to strip you of your civil liberties, they would like nothing more then to see you defenceless. It makes it easier for them to violate the few rights we have left when you can't fight back.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Gohon you are right. What many others forgot is those felons gave up their gun rights along with other rights when they committed those crimes. I do not think that is gun control it is just good laws for individuals that do not know how to play nice.

As far as the sound suppressors and FA weapons go I would like to just go buy one also. Heck if we can repeal the NFA law from 1934 I would be ok with that, but as a compromise just call it in. Taking it back to 85 will repeal the "no new FA guns". This will lower the cost of that M-16 I want to about 500 well 700 if we still have to pay the 200.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wouldn't it be nice to go back before 1968. Before Kennedy got shot and the liberals went nuts you could order firearms through the mail without a dealers license. I'll bet the sport shops supported the law where that was discontinued. You young fellows perhaps don't know about it, but a lot of military surplus weapons went for $9.99, $19.99 and $29.99. I think it was a 6.5 X 55 Swedish in perfect condition that my dad got for $19.99 in about 1957 or 58. 
Firearms were everywhere then and we didn't have the problems then that we have today. The news covers it to much and some fruitcake will kill a few innocent people to make it on the news. Also, we have become so concerned about our children's self esteem that they grow up thinking they are so important that anyone who crosses them deserves to die. A few are that nuts. 
A fellow sure could have fun if good rifles were under $100 again.


----------

