Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Leahy: Veterans should be banned from owning guns

[warpedskydiver 0]

Veterans Disarmament Bill Could Come Before The Senate At Any Time
-- GOA provides Senators with several pro-gun amendments

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


"Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!" -- Patrick Henry, in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
speech of March 23, 1775

Wednesday, September 12, 2007


The Senate could bring up the Veterans Disarmament Bill at any time, as a result of its passage in the Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. The bill -- introduced by F-rated Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Patrick Leahy -- is ready to come to the floor.

Gun Owners of America delivered draft amendments to every Senate office yesterday, providing important changes that must be made to the bill. Among others, the most important amendment would make it clear that veterans suffering from PTSD are NOT prohibited persons, and thus, are not to be denied the ability to purchase a firearm simply because of emotional problems resulting from their service to this country.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the McCarthy-Leahy bill, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Military veterans are justifiably concerned that this bill will legitimize the very thing that President Clinton did over seven years ago, when his administration added 83,000 names of veterans -- suffering from maladies such as PTSD -- into the NICS background check system.

Proponents of the bill argue that this bill gives veterans a mechanism for getting their names off of the prohibited person list.
That's like giving a mugger access to your home, but then stating you can hire a lawyer and pay THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of dollars to eventually (maybe) get your stolen items back.

If the proponents are right -- that this bill will actually help gun owners -- then surely they won't object to friendly amendments that are designed to make it unmistakably clear that military veterans or grownups who suffered with ADHD as children will never be denied the ability to purchase a firearm, simply because they once had a "determination" from an anti-gun shrink that said there was the MINISCULE possibility that they could pose a danger to themselves or others.

You can be sure that if the McCarthy-Leahy bill passes, it will just be a first step. Consider some of the bigoted statements made by celebrities and politicians which not only show their contempt for gun owners but their pompous thinking which leads them to believe that we are all crazy for wanting to own a gun:

* "I don't know that he's mentally qualified to own that gun." -- Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, insulting a YouTube viewer during a debate after the man referred to his semi-auto as his "baby"
(July 25, 2007).

* "Isn't it possible that we all have that bit of insanity in us?
That's why I'm for gun control.... I don't really believe that a human being who feels [things] should have the option [that is, access to a gun] at their fingertips." -- Actress Jodie Foster, quoted in a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence press release (August 20, 2007).

And then there're the studies which will be, no doubt, used by liberal anti-gunners to strip away the gun rights from more and more law-abiding citizens, using the pretext that a shrink's diagnosis proves these people shouldn't own guns:

* "A quarter of the Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans treated with US government-funded health care have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to a study published Monday." -- AFP news (March 12, 2007)

* "The number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003, researchers report today in the most comprehensive study of the controversial diagnosis. Experts say the number has almost certainly risen further since 2003." -- New York Times (September 4, 2007)

Even before the studies started rolling in, gun haters were already working the legal loopholes as best they could. When the Veterans Administration got caught adding veterans' names into the NICS system during the Clinton presidency, they defended their actions by saying it was "required by law" -- a statement which was just flat out false.

But it's notable to hear what a spokesman for the VA said in an interview with WoldNetDaily (June 27, 2000). He said the most common way of finding a veteran "incompetent" is when he or she receives a formal rating of incompetency from a VA panel of medical representatives or from "a duly authorized VA medical center, government agency, or even a PRIVATE PHYSICIAN." (Emphasis added.)

That's what HR 2640 is all about. McCarthy and Leahy (and others like Sen. Chuck Schumer) are forging the legal chains that will be used to keep hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of decent, law-abiding Americans from owning guns... not because of what a court rules, but because of what ONE INDIVIDUAL says.

Over two hundred years ago, Patrick Henry warned about the "chains"
that were being forged to enslave them. If he were here today, would he not warn us again?

Thankfully, there are many of you who are sounding the alarm. State groups from all over the nation are pumping out alerts to supplement what GOA is doing at the national level. Just yesterday, the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition (NHFC) called its members to action, stating that HR 2640 is a Trojan Horse, which sounds justified on the outside with promises of keeping "mental defectives" from having firearms. But when one takes a closer look at the details of the bill, the group said, it reveals "a huge expansion in those who will become a prohibited person; an expansion that could potentially include most Americans."

In addition to pointing out how many shrinks could prohibit average Americans from owning guns, NHFC points out that many pediatricians could make similar anti-gun "determinations" (using the language of the bill) to disarm their patients -- since after all, these docs believe that "any household with firearms is 'dangerous,' even if they are properly stored."

Good point.

ACTION:

1. Stay informed. GOA has a mammoth section on our website which both gives the specifics of the Veterans Disarmament Act and answers the claims made by supporters of the bill. Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to get more information, including the proposed GOA amendments that were delivered to each Senator on Tuesday.

2. Alert others. Forward this alert to pro-gun friends and family and ask them to take action as well.

3. Take action. Please contact your Senators, even if you have already done so. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

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

Dear Senator:

I oppose the Veterans Disarmament Act, which is being pushed by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (HR 2640) and Sen. Patrick Leahy. This bill will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans, among others.

I understand that Gun Owners of America distributed several amendments yesterday to every senatorial office to address the mistaken arguments that supporters of the bill have. I also understand that proponents of this bill are claiming it will actually help gun owners.

They argue that this bill gives veterans a mechanism for getting their names off of the prohibited person list. That's like giving a mugger access to your home, but then stating you can hire a lawyer and pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to eventually (maybe) get your stolen items back.

Well, if the proponents are right -- that this bill will actually help gun owners -- then surely they won't object to friendly amendments that are designed to make it unmistakably clear that military veterans or grownups who suffered with ADHD as children will never be denied the ability to purchase a firearm, simply because they once had a "determination" from an anti-gun shrink that said there was the MINISCULE possibility that they could pose a danger to themselves or others. That is what the GOA amendments are designed to do.

I still believe that the Brady Law has done more to register gun owners and deny guns from of law-abiding Americans than to keep guns out of criminals' hands. But adopting these amendments will at least prevent an anti-gun administration from doing what the Clintons did in 2000 when the Veterans Administration added the names of some 83,000 veterans into the NICS system.

Sincerely,

[warpedskydiver 0]

Here is Rep. McCarthy elightening the rest of America on what features of a firearm should be banned and why.

Here is Carolyn McCarthy for those who are unfamiliar:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Well, now that she has opined, we should all just smelt our fireams into shovels, and dig a fucking grave for ourselves.

[Zipp0 1]

No lifetime ban, but people with PTSD should probably not have easy access to firearms.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[mnealtx 0]

Cool... maybe next we can go after their 1st Amendment rights... who KNOWS what those messed up fuckers might say, right?

Oh, better keep them from voting, too... can't tell what damage THAT might do!

Maybe they should lock them up in asylums....it's "for their own good", right?

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

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

No lifetime ban, but people with PTSD should probably not have easy access to firearms.

Wow you are in favor of that?

You might want to read up on PTSD and it's symptoms.

Please do.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Cool... maybe next we can go after their 1st Amendment rights... who KNOWS what those messed up fuckers might say, right?

Oh, better keep them from voting, too... can't tell what damage THAT might do!

Maybe they should lock them up in asylums....it's "for their own good", right?

Anybody know how much PORK is stuffed into that bill who who requested it?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

No lifetime ban, but people with PTSD should probably not have easy access to firearms.

Wow you are in favor of that?

You might want to read up on PTSD and it's symptoms.

Please do.

Like substance abuse, depression, aggressiveness, fight or flight? It should also be noted that some PTSD subsides quickly, while othrs are afflicted for years.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I'm not an expert on PTSD, but still, the title of the article and the title of the thread are misleading.

It implies that they're denying people access to guns based on their veteran status, but actually it bans gun ownership based on psychological status.

-----------------
Should there be some law banning psychologically-unstable people from owning guns, regardless of whether they are veterans?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[warpedskydiver 0]

It also states the Veterans will be banned for ANY PTSD, whether the person poses an unreasonable threat to society or not.

So have nightmares? STFU

Have panic attacks? STFU

Have fight or flight issues? STFU

you see where this is going?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I'm not an expert on PTSD, but still, the title of the article and the title of the thread are misleading.

It implies that they're denying people access to guns based on their veteran status, but actually it bans gun ownership based on psychological status.

-----------------
Should there be some law banning psychologically-unstable people from owning guns, regardless of whether they are veterans?

There already is, and it is one of the questions on a form 4473

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I oppose the Veterans Disarmament Act, which is being pushed by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (HR 2640) and Sen. Patrick Leahy. This bill will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans, among others.

It's probably a more effective letter when you actually refer to the proper name of the bill, being the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," and then go on to say what you think it is meant to do.

The above, a clear form letter, isn't going to sway any legislator. The staffers will count the number of the letter they get and send a form letter reply (one form letter for another).

The fact that the NRA continues to support this bill says something about the accuracy of the GOA message. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018

It's pretty likely this bill will sail through, so if it puts veterans at risk, best approach will probably be a followup bill to fix it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You might want to read up on PTSD and it's symptoms.

I have seen it up close and very personal after the last nation building adventure we took during and after the South East Asian War Game.

A hell of a lot of Nam Vets DIED in the Nam and did not even know it till they got back here and managed to off themselves one way or another. Others ran away and are still camping out up in the mountains.. still others have coped with it by being street people for the last 30 years.

Giving them access to a gun when they are that fucked up.. got a lot of wives and families killed.....and a whole lot of sucking on a barrel and dieing "accidentally"

It is what it is.......dont mean nothing.. not a thing.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I oppose the Veterans Disarmament Act, which is being pushed by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (HR 2640) and Sen. Patrick Leahy. This bill will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans, among others.

It's probably a more effective letter when you actually refer to the proper name of the bill, being the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," and then go on to say what you think it is meant to do.

The above, a clear form letter, isn't going to sway any legislator. The staffers will count the number of the letter they get and send a form letter reply (one form letter for another).

The fact that the NRA continues to support this bill says something about the accuracy of the GOA message. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018

It's pretty likely this bill will sail through, so if it puts veterans at risk, best approach will probably be a followup bill to fix it.

Oh I did not write the letter, it was found on another site, I included it for sake of discussion.

The fact the NRA is backing this may be a good thing, but in actuality, it is watered down alot.

Having to fight a legal battle to restore ones rights, and icur huge costs is idiotic.

It should be free, you know, as in FREEDOM.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not an expert on PTSD, but still, the title of the article and the title of the thread are misleading.

It implies that they're denying people access to guns based on their veteran status, but actually it bans gun ownership based on psychological status.

-----------------
Should there be some law banning psychologically-unstable people from owning guns, regardless of whether they are veterans?

There already is, and it is one of the questions on a form 4473

You mean this one?

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (including having been adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

Do you view that question to be a sufficient threshold for preventing unstable individuals from owning guns?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[BIGUN 1,486]

Quote

one of the questions on a form 4473

Ding Ding Ding... we have a couple of winners.
First - it is not called the Veteran's Disarmament Bill,
Second, it is a way of adding those deemed mentally incompetent to the NCIS database for the purposes of background checks.

As any first year law student will tell you, asking someone who is mentally incometent to enter into an agreement is void (Form 4473)... Therefore, if someone who is mentally incompetent fills out the form and says, "Nope, I'm OK" and they're not, how does the matter get pursued and how do they find out while running the background check...

Quote

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.

Now, on the flip side - if you're going to fight this fight; fight with the right ammunition - entering one's medical history into a national database could be a violation of the goverment's HIPAA Act on Medical Privacy... there's your argument counselor.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

No lifetime ban, but people with PTSD should probably not have easy access to firearms.

Wow you are in favor of that?

You might want to read up on PTSD and it's symptoms.

Please do.

A few years ago I talked to a Vietnam Vet who had a 6 hour stand off with the police while holding his girlfriend at the time's daughter hostage, she was 8, because a loud noise brought him back to Vietnam mentally.......he was very lucky nobody got shot. He was armed with a couple of rifles and a shotgun. Not sure if that would classify as PTSD or what....but in that kind of situation it's hard to endorse gun ownership for an individual with those kind of problems.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[warpedskydiver 0]

The incidence rate of PTSD sufferers that are veterans who commit a crime or become violent is actually less that that of the general population.

So what would you do, lock up the entire population in a prison camp for everyones safety?