Posted on 09/23/2007 11:18:35 AM PDT by AuntB
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."
Won't get fooled again - no no. Hope you folks are stocking up and preparing for what none of us wishes to see.
That would be a serious mistake on the part of the grabboids.
They do some of their worst work that way. That's the way we got the Brady Bill/instant check in the first place, at least in the Senate.
So much better to disarm all the law abiding people, so when one one of these nutjobs, or criminals, do get a gun (they don't obey really important laws, like those against robbery, rape and murder), they have a safe "work environment" aka "unarmed victims zone". That worked real well at Va. Tech.
Current laws keep him from getting a gun, why do we need a new one just for vets?
Unlike the other renter who did have any diagnosed problems this was the only month he was late on his rent. A good man.
This is just part of the plan to make only those who refuse to own guns eligible to own guns.
Not what this bill does. What it does is try to prevent criminals and nutjobs can't stroll in and buy guns. It is not intended to disarm the law-abiding and sane. If you have specific objections, feel free to bring them -- but I find the NRA's assessment of the bill more convincing than the GOA's.
That worked real well at Va. Tech.
If there had been more guns on campus, someone would have stopped Cho Seung-Hui when he'd shot fewer people. If the background check had pinged, he wouldn't have been able to shoot any. Yes, of course there are black-market guns, but could you get one on short notice? I couldn't. I wouldn't even know where to begin to ask without risking being turned in.
(Actually, I have a couple of guns that are likely untraceable -- .32 revolvers than belonged to my great-grandfather, and probably weren't ever registered anywhere. One is in a shadow-box frame on the wall, and the other I found after my mom died. It had four rounds corroded in place, where they'd apparently been for the 55 years since he died. I gingerly took it to a gunsmith and had the rounds removed. He said the gun was fireable when he was done, but I feel no need to test the hypothesis. But yeah, I have a drop-piece, should it come to that.)
There are folks who should have guns and folks who shouldn't. I have no problem with approaching the problem from both directions, no problem with background checks. i support efforts to make them more accurate, more tightly limited to the actually unfit, and as I wrote above, I find the NRA's apprisal of this bill -- and my own reading of it -- more convincing than the GOA's take.
There is no new law just for vets. That is the GOA's distortion. The new law seeks to block the mentally unfit from buying guns, and some of those folks will be vets. Probably a disproportionate number, because they -- like cops, firefighters, ER docs, prison guards, and other folks who do the tough jobs -- receive more emotional trauma than the rest of us.
Good lord, I actually restrained a guy who, in his flashback, thought he was killing a North Vietnamese general while actually loading and stalking General Westmoreland. I had to choose between turning this lifer over for ruination or saying I was “goofing around”.
They weren’t there while I bulldogged the man and damn near killed him after he declared the general was “a gook target worth any amount of lives to take out”. This shell-shocked master sergeant loaded a live magazine into his M-16 during a practice exercise. As Westmoreland came down the little mountain to inspect the fortifications this sergeant rushed to a targeting platform of piled slabs while instructing me to get around “Charlie” through a gully on the opposite side. I scrabbled after the sergeant saying that he was stalking an American General, but he continued trying to get a bead on the man.
While there’s a lot of citizens out there who feel that Westmoreland was directly responsible for their children’s deaths I can not apologize for protecting him in that instance. The general went on to have a natural death and “Sergent Flashback” was minded over to eventually draw an honorable retirement and the better pay that brings (the man was a Vietnam hero).
But, Thomas Thomas, I’d trust that man as my neighbor to this day over the likes of those who immediately look to the government for the right thing to do. He got needed help while the majority of our fellow citizens voluntarily give in to a fantasy that our nation is somehow advanced through overall disarmament.
If guns are outlawed it’s just going to make the battlefield a lot sloppier.
It’s like somebody said a while back:
Libs out of power: Tin foil hat-wearing insane fruit loops. Total nutballs.
Libs in power: Dangerous tyrants who cast away their tin foil hats (until the next time they’re out of power).
ping
Thanks— The NRA will be called to explain themselves/
I do hope this was not created as a wedge issue.To divide and weaken the NRA
It still fits- eh? The line a junkies turn of the phrase—
and the turn still has a ring to it.And most anti-gunners are of th esame kind of dementia as them that ride that dark horse.
And I thank You for helping me with my homework. IMO
The NRA ought remove their endorsement anyway. Trusting
the government to do anything rational-beyond building roads—or maintaining a standing army is asking a bit much.
Interesting. Rep Chris Shays (R-CT) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) is on it. I know Mr. Smith was always a proponent of a National ID both back in the ‘90’s as well as today. FYI.....
When Taco Billl ran the Country close to an armed conflict
following the Waco Raid-—I began to inquire of the several
unorganized militia type groups.. Many of them are full of
former military—and most of them honor the clear language and intent of the authors of the Constitution.I agree with the Federalist the armed citizen is the major difference between the US and Europe—and what keeps us from tyrany.
But I am not affiliated with any group -on any regular basis.Too many in a bunch make it too easy to be seen.
ping...
“Medical records remain private unless you’ve been judged incompetent by a court of law. The doctor can accuse you of anything he likes.”
Not quite, doctors can judge you a drunk and get your drivers license revoked. He can judge you a danger to society and have you put in a mental ward.
And if some lawmakers get their way he can revoke your 2nd amendment rights.
“Sure don’t want to disarm folks who are legally determined to pose “a tiny threat” to themselves or others.”
He wasn’t judged a tiny threat. He was deemed dangerous and should have had his ability to purchase weapons restricted based on CURRENT law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.