The Largest Gun Control Bill In Years

[Kennedy 0]

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade."

It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
"No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control]."

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

========

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
-- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)

How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?

And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the 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.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
"generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!

But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
"diagnosis."
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn't)?

Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!

Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
"adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
especially when it comes to banning guns?

After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)

So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
"substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
LIFETIME gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
list" (S. 1237).

While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
right now.

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY"
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
have to
be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
"any danger" at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Douva 0]

Here is the NRA's interpretation of the bill:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018

Background Checks/ NICS
H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act"

The new version of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (H.R. 2640) would require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for use in NICS. It would also provide financial incentives to states to do the same, by rewarding states that provide records to NICS and penalizing those that refuse to do so over an extended period of time.

Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would “prohibit” thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only enforce current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.

The following are the key provisions of H.R. 2640, introduced by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), which passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote on June 13, 2007.

Key Provisions of H.R. 2640

H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
For example, NICS currently accepts Veterans` Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an “adjudicated mental defective” where there was no “adjudication” at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights.
H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments (such as the VA) to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” The bill allows de novo judicial review when an agency denies relief--that is, the court would look at the application on its merits, rather than deferring to the agency`s earlier decision.
As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed. Criminal records can be expunged or pardoned, but mental records cannot.
While BATFE used to have the ability to accept applications to remove individuals` prohibited status, appropriations riders every year since 1992 have barred it from doing so. Allowing this process through H.R. 2640 would be an improvement over the current law.
Under H.R. 2640, even if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency, the person would have an opportunity to correct the error--either through the agency or in court.

H.R. 2640 would prevent reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

H.R. 2640 would also make clear that if a federal adjudication or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a person from possessing or receiving firearms under the Gun Control Act.
This actually restores the person`s rights, as well as deleting the record from NICS--a significant improvement over current law.

States that receive funding would also need to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments. State relief programs would have to provide for de novo judicial review, as in the federal programs.
Relief granted by a state program would remove the federal prohibition on the person possessing or receiving a firearm under the Gun Control Act--again, an improvement over current law.
Many states have processes for temporary emergency commitments that allow a short-term commitment based only on affidavits from police, doctors or family members, without opportunity for a hearing. Because federal law prohibits gun possession by a person who “has been” committed, a person committed under such a process can`t possess a gun even after full release from the temporary order. By requiring participating states to have a relief program that actually removes the disability, H.R. 2640 would be a significant improvement over current law.

The legislation would improve the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report people such as Virginia Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho--that is, people who were found after a full court hearing to be a danger to themselves or others, but not reported to NICS due to lack of funding or contrary state laws.

The legislation requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

The legislation prohibits federal fees for NICS checks. Under current law, only annual appropriations riders prohibit the FBI from trying to impose fees by regulation (as the Clinton Administration proposed in 1998). A permanent ban on such a “gun tax” has been an NRA priority for nearly a decade.

The legislation requires an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds already spent for criminal history improvements. There has only been limited documentation of how hundreds of millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs such as automated fingerprint systems.
Voluntary Psychological Treatment

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.


Posted: 6/13/2007 12:00:00 AM

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Kennedy 0]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110e0TJE9
This is the link to the bill as posted by the library of congress, for those who wish to read it (relevant considering references made to specific sections)

Douva -

Lord knows I'm not one to say every psycho and criminal should be armed (they're already dangerous). Section 101-d-1 seems to make it so that only people judged to be a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective such that they can't manage their own affairs are added to the list. The bill even makes mention of removing names from the list (something the schumer amendment specifically precludes).

The problem is I can't see the positive change actually happening, but I do see the list getting bigger. Every time I read over the list, I try to do it form the perspective of someone who is trying to make it as all encompassing as possible (what any gun controller or bureaucrat might do). When I do, I see the language being twisted or "living breathing" interpretted in a way that does nothing positive.

You think the BATFE and DOJ are going to pull names of the list because this bill says they should? "Nah, schumer amendment says we shouldn't. Conflict of laws. We'll go with the more permissive law. Sorry you went to a doctor who said you're nuts, but you're on the list. Deal with it. No soup gun for you!"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Oh, one other important thing to mention...

Current federal law didn't prevent Cho Seung-Hui from buying guns, and HR 2640 still wouldn't prevent Cho Seung-Hui from buying guns. Something to think about.

One other thing to think about before talking about VaTech wen considering this bill - NICS only applies to purchasing guns. It has nothing to do with possessing guns. Let's not forget that a black market exists in guns just like any other highly valued and regulated item. Responses to prevent/mitigate other VaTech incidents need to cinsider that the bad guy can get a gun regardless.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydyvr 0]

Reminder to the non-US posters here -- it's not just the Bush administration "trodding down the Constitution".

The Liberal Left has every bit as much a hand in doing that as the Conservative Right, and this post illustrates one of their favorite ways.

. . =(_8^(1)

[JohnRich 4]

Watch in the years to come, as anti-gun liberals move to put more and more people on this list, of people prohibited from purchasing firearms.

If they stick with listing only those people who have been judicially determined, with full process of law, to being mentally defective, fine.

But I fear that the categories of people included on this list will expand exponentially.

It's said that one-third of returning war veterans have PTSD. Disqualify 'em!

Anyone under stress from a nasty divorce? Disqualify 'em!

Ever see a psychologist for personal problems? Disqualify 'em!

[kelpdiver 2]

It's always a potential threat, but the lurid writing of the first article, contrasted with the opinion of the NRA-ILA, leaves me to take the dire warnings of the first rather lightly.

This is a problem typical for the GOA and other minor gun rights groups. They make the NRA look reasoned and scholarly. Meanwhile the leftists refer to the NRA as jack booted thugs because they have all the political muscle that the others on both sides wish they had.

[Misternatural 0]

...yes an interesting conundrum,
It seems that the regulatory problem is much more far reaching and universal as well. My theory is that the more people that are packed in a certain space, the more rules are needed to maintain a reasonable homeostasis. This applies to many facets of human life.
I say exercise as many freedoms as you can now as they will surely slowly erode as human population increases.

Today I killed a woodchuck in my garden with a carefully placed shot in the ear canal with a .22 mag...lights out- and now I have a tasty meal- for some of us a gun is the proper tool for a specific job, too bad that I may at some time have to bludgeon an animal with shovel instead because of a few misguided souls in the Govt.

restricting gun purchase is one thing,but if we are not careful a knock on your door ordering you to hand them over is not far off.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys list?

They're talking about adding millions of names to the prohibited list. Most certainly, a significant percentage of those people being added, will be gun owners. As soon as their name hits that list, they become illegal gun owners. And then the government will have to send out squads to confiscate their guns...

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

[juanesky 0]

And how would they go about that John, what would be the new criteria of adding names in that list other than criminal?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Watch in the years to come, as anti-gun liberals move to put more and more people on this list, of people prohibited from purchasing firearms.

If they stick with listing only those people who have been judicially determined, with full process of law, to being mentally defective, fine.

But I fear that the categories of people included on this list will expand exponentially.

It's said that one-third of returning war veterans have PTSD. Disqualify 'em!

Anyone under stress from a nasty divorce? Disqualify 'em!

Ever see a psychologist for personal problems? Disqualify 'em!

To some degree this "extension" of the law is already in effect in many states. The reasoning goes like this.

You are getting a divorse. It is an ugly one. You spouce get a no contact order . By default you can not now posess a gun

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

what would be the new criteria of adding names in that list other than criminal?

You are demonstrating that you aren't up to speed on your current events for this issue. We're not talking about criminals. We're talking about doctors having the power to decide that you can't be trusted with a gun. Get a prescription for Prozac, and lose your 2nd Amendment rights...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To some degree this "extension" of the law is already in effect in many states. The reasoning goes like this. You are getting a divorse. It is an ugly one. You spouce get a no contact order . By default you can not now posess a gun

Yes, that's the offshoot of the "domestic violence" gun ban enacted by Lautenberg a decade ago. All it takes is a restraining order, and your guns are gone. And we've seen how those are routinely abused by spouses using them as power plays in a divorce. So, just as that has been abused, you can also bet that any new Bill allowing doctors to put their patient's names on a "no gun" list, will also be abused. This must occur only after full judicial review.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

To some degree this "extension" of the law is already in effect in many states. The reasoning goes like this. You are getting a divorse. It is an ugly one. You spouce get a no contact order . By default you can not now posess a gun

Yes, that's the offshoot of the "domestic violence" gun ban enacted by Lautenberg a decade ago. All it takes is a restraining order, and your guns are gone. And we've seen how those are routinely abused by spouses using them as power plays in a divorce. So, just as that has been abused, you can also bet that any new Bill allowing doctors to put their patient's names on a "no gun" list, will also be abused. This must occur only after full judicial review.

As I understand it, a full judicial reveiw is not required in Iowa! Anybody out there confirm or debunk?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

what would be the new criteria of adding names in that list other than criminal?

You are demonstrating that you aren't up to speed on your current events for this issue. We're not talking about criminals. We're talking about doctors having the power to decide that you can't be trusted with a gun. Get a prescription for Prozac, and lose your 2nd Amendment rights...

Yes John, I am not up to speed, just got back home from a deployment, and figured that after a long time carrying open a pistol and an M-4 this was just a non issue, therefore my question.

In some states already forbids you to have guns if you have a history of mental illness, had any depression, use drugs, and some other things of that nature, yet don't know if it also applies on a Federal level

Thank you for your answer.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[birdlike 0]

This is all well and good, but certainly you don't expect that pointing out the unfairnesses inherent in this bill will make those who have contempt for your right to have guns, period, suddenly turn sympathetic?

They rejoice in any legislative unfairness that impedes your right to have a gun. This will not spur them to oppose unfair legislation! It will cause them to be glad!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[normiss 892]

medical records databases are rumored to be included also...anybody ever take prescriptions to stop smoking....remember Zyban? It's also used for depression as wellbutrin! It would suck to have any similar prescription in medical records...

[mnealtx 0]

I wonder how they're going to make this work with HIPPA??

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706