Call your elected officials

[warpedskydiver 0]

VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS


By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.

Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.

But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns.



Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.

Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.



If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act -- misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act -- will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished."

© 2007 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved

[AWL71 0]

I have already let my represenatives know that this legislation should not be passed. All 2nd amendment supporters should do the same.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I have already let my represenatives know that this legislation should not be passed. All 2nd amendment supporters should do the same.

If this bill gets signed into law, you will see Rape Victims, Victims of Haneous Crimes, and Accident Victims being stricken of the right that they were born with.


That should NEVER be allowed to happen.

Just because someone has PTSD does not mean they cannot be trusted with a firearm, look at all the Veterans of WWII, they fought from the time they were inducted until the time the war ended, either by their own death, or serious wounding, or the surrender of the enemy.

To think that none of those men should have kept their Second Amendment Rights is an abomination.

[billvon 3,119]

Any sane, law-abiding adult living in the US should have the right to own a gun. However, if they are diagnosed by a doctor as being a threat to themselves or others, they lose that right. Doesn't matter whether they were a decorated vet or a garbageman.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Any sane, law-abiding adult living in the US should have the right to own a gun. However, if they are diagnosed by a doctor as being a threat to themselves or others, they lose that right. Doesn't matter whether they were a decorated vet or a garbageman.

Nice job of dodging the entire point...again

You fail to mention that PTSD does not mean that the person is a danger at all, but the diagnosis of said behaviors must be made on an inidivdual basis.

This bill will ban Veterans for only having been diagnosed with PTSD, in any form or severity.

I guess you are ok with that huh?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns.

[billvon 3,119]

>You fail to mention that PTSD does not mean that the person is a
>danger at all, but the diagnosis of said behaviors must be made on an
>inidivdual basis.

?? I am sorry I did not provide you the answer you wanted to hear! Surely if that's your goal you can just answer your own posts.

Once again - if the person is judged to be a danger to himself or others by a doctor, he loses the right to own a gun. If it's just PTSD, and the person is judged to NOT be a threat to himself or others by a doctor, then no problem.

HR 2640 does not prevent people diagnosed with PTSD from obtaining a gun. Indeed, it only clarifies reporting requirements and methods for clearing said records. In fact it PREVENTS some medical records from ever making it to the database. This HELPS veterans going through voluntary psychiatric treatment to buy their guns.

Not sure why you're so up in arms about this. It won't "disarm veterans" and indeed the NRA supports it because it will allow people to more easily clear their names if they have mental problems.

Or to put it in your language - why, oh why are you against veterans owning guns?

[warpedskydiver 0]

It seems that the way you would have it, a person could have his rights taken from him without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.


The person would not have to be adjudicated by a Judge, to be too dangerous, to be allowed to keep his second amendment rights.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Or to put it in your language - why, oh why are you against veterans owning guns?

Indeed!

HR2640 section 101:

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

and section 105:
Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.


I can't see what Warped's grumbling about

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

It seems that the way you would have it, a person could have his rights taken from him without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.


The person would not have to be adjudicated by a Judge, to be too dangerous, to be allowed to keep his second amendment rights.

You didn't actually read the bill, did you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

It is full of holes, and the removal of names from the list?

You mean like they were supposed to before?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

It is full of holes, and the removal of names from the list?

You mean like they were supposed to before?

From the NRA's web site:

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.


and

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.


So you're now claiming the NRA is anti-gun?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems that the way you would have it, a person could have his rights taken from him without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.


The person would not have to be adjudicated by a Judge, to be too dangerous, to be allowed to keep his second amendment rights.

You didn't actually read the bill, did you?

Yes I did and they leave this bill wide open for abuses.

To think that any of you would give away anothers right is truly sad, I guess if skydiving were determined to be indicative of a mental disorder, you would gladly be held to the standards you have set.

I am pissed because I know for a fact that BOTH OF YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.

Damn you disspoint me at times.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I think the NRA made a deal and that deal was far from the perfect course of action.

BTW are either of you members of the NRA?

I am a distinguished lifetime member, and my interest in these issues is not soley for my own sake.

read the entire bill, play devils advocate and see if you cannot pick it apart and find a way to use it to defraud people of their rights, for having never done anything wrong, nor indicate they truly would.

Being diagnosed is not equal to being judged in a court of law, it appears that this bill will allow both scenarios.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I think the NRA made a deal and that deal was far from the perfect course of action.

.

You make a convincing case.

Damn those anti-gun-rights folk in the NRA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

> It seems that the way you would have it, a person could have his rights
>taken from him without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Yes - if a doctor judged him insane. People with Alzheimer's generally lose the right to drive, fly airplanes, operate construction equipment etc when their derangement gets bad enough. Not because they are bad or evil or undeserving, but because a guy who can't even remember his own name could kill a lot of people if he kept driving a bus.

(Note that your comment and my reply do NOT apply to the bill under discussion.)

[warpedskydiver 0]

As for swallowing everything any organization says, that is silly.

Just take a look at Joaquin Jacksons comments, and that ignoramus is a NRA official.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Physicians should diagnose, treat, and when applicable, educate.

They are not to be judging anyone

[warpedskydiver 0]

John by your logic, if an organization is for something, you should just agree.

I think we need to eradicate alot of laws, and replace them with a a few very simple ones.

Are you sure you are a Liberatarian, or just a Liberal?

[billvon 3,119]

> Physicians should diagnose, treat, and when applicable, educate. They are not to be judging anyone

A diagnosis IS a judgment.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Physicians should diagnose, treat, and when applicable, educate.

They are not to be judging anyone

Tell that to my Aviation Medical Examiner.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.