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."
Re: Your post #29
I don’t think the politicians realize just how close they are pushing America towards civil war. If they come for our guns, and that’s exactly what they will get. Wasn’t it Jefferson who said (and I’m paraphrasing): The Second Amendment is for when they try to take it away.
How about banning any politician suffering from PW syndrom, from holding public office?
(If you have to ask, your imagination is fractured.)
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson
The responses here on this thread or the congressional bill.........:o)
Amen bro. Plus the larger the group the better the chance for some real looney Rambo wannabee’s!
Which means that 54 percent favor carrying guns to school, training or not!
Yes, that’s the quote. (Like I said: I was paraphrasing, as I couldn't’t remember the exact language.)
The pols seem to forget that maxim. Also, the gun-grabbing left always seem to forget (or, maybe they never knew) that their heroes JFK and Hubert Humphrey both said that at the heart of the Second Amendment was the prospect that the American People might one day have to fight their own government because it became too tyrannical.
Here is the “offending” section:”
(iv) A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution (as determined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.
This discussion is really old and tons have been written about it so I'm not all that interested in re-engaging. But the truth is that this sentence is factually incorrect. A doctor can offer the opinion that you a risk to yourself and others, but only a court can commit you against your will, and at that point, the court makes your medical record a matter of public record, and not before.
When was the last time a doctor went into your wallet, took your license away and told you that he proclaims you unable to drive? And when he did, why didn't you just slap him and take your license back? The doctor has no authority in that regard.
Uh. . .what?
We need to make sure the American people know about this. They won't tolerate having their veterans treated this way.
A simple PTSD diagnosis isn't the same as being adjuacted mentally defective.
No one is judged "a tiny threat. It's a distinction that does not exist in the law. It's just another loaded phrase the GOA peppered its press release with.
I assume you left out a "not" above -- and I agree, but his history wasn't in the system. It should have been, and this bill clarifies that.
Here is a link http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
Funny how strengthening the Brady law (which used to be considered gun control) is not gun control.
I tend to agree with you, even though there probably are some vets who do have some sort of combat-related problems.
I was listening to NPR this morning on the drive to work and some dingbat reporter babe was interviewing a Viet Nam vet who is claiming he is now suffering from PTSD because of the IRAQ war!!!! He said he was an electrician in Nam and serviced a bunch of gen-sets and once had to "shoot into the jungle". So now he's looking for benefits because what is going on in Iraq is bringing back horrible memories...of what, shorts, dangling cables????!!! What a bunch of crap!
Cuttnhorse
Swift Boats, 1965-66
I agree; we need to disarm women that are going through postnatal depression, women that still have their monthly cycles, gun owners (from the view of hoplophobiacs & tyrants), christians (from the view of muslims), etc.
I’ll see your sarcasm, and raise you one.
Mental health is no reason ir no reason to deprive a citizen of essential rights — I mean where would be be if we had applied this standard to Chapman, Hinckley, Oswald,, Guiteau, Ray, Czolgosz, Kliebold, Harris, Berkowitz, Capone, Biancho,bouni, Whitman, DeSavo, and Bothe?
Some folks should not have guns. See paragraph above.
Ok. Here are a few for you Whitman (speculated as medically caused), Williams/Mohammed, Watson, Ferguson, Roberts, Kinkel, Carneal, Johnson, and Golden.
The point is that murder is a crime, all these people (and the ones you listed) knew that it was at the time they committed the murders. So the question is what is the difference other than the mental health part? Absolutely zero, so then it comes down to if we ban menally ill from possessing, does it stop murders? No.
We don’t need to ban mentally ill from possessing firearms, if a person is a threat to themselves or others they don’t belong in public. Once they are deemed safe to rejoin the public, they should be just as safe as you to possess firearms.
*All other pro gun groups are opposed to this bill. *This bill expands the Brady Bill, which used to be called gun control. *Note who the sponsor and co-sponsor are. *A crime could be a felony in one state and be a misdomeanor in another and would show up in NICS making someone prohibitted from owning. *What about states that prohibit sharing mental health information, those that would be prohibited would not be listed. Taxpayers would still be footing the bill for this law. *The bill would included domestic violence restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor records in NICS, even though many ROs are boilerplate for divorces when no violence has happended or threatened. In some places, yelling at a spouse is domestic violence so you could loose your right for do so. *The bill states "an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other government entity determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease--(i) is a danger to himself or to others; or (ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." A "board, commision or other government entity" does not provide due process and could find gun owners, Christians, conservatives, etc. as having "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease".
I don't think it's unreasonable or intrusive to have a higher standard to imprison someone than to halt a gun purchase. There are other instances where practical exigencies require some restrictions of liberty before a full adjudication: the rights of speech and assembly are limited by temporary restraining orders, speech limited by gag orders, and folks can be and often are jailed without a conviction if the court determines that they are a high risk to commit more crimes or skip bail.
I think your position is reasonable, but I don't share it, so this is a question of degrees where we apparently will just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Ok. Here are a few for you Whitman (speculated as medically caused), Williams/Mohammed, Watson, Ferguson, Roberts, Kinkel, Carneal, Johnson, and Golden.
There's no consensus on whether Whitman's spree was caused by his tumor. It was in an area on the part of his brain that could inhibit impulse control. There aren't enough case histories to establish whether that is sufficient to explain his crimes or whether he was criminally responsible. He had a history of domestic violence, but it was never reported, and in the '60s it wouldn't have stopped him from buying anyway.
Not to mention that there were no background checks in place when he got his weapons. The fact that someone crazy bought guns in the absence of screening and without a record doesn't have any bearing on the effectiveness of screening based on accurate, up-to-date records. Ferguson was bats---t, but I don't know how hw obtined hes weapons.
Of the DC snipers, Mohammed was clearly crazy -- but there was never a court finding of same. Malvo was a minor who couldn't buy a gun, so screening is moot in his case, as well as those of the school shooters.
Watson, johnson and Golden aren't names that ping with me. And they[re common enough names that I can't look them up without more of a lead.
The point is that murder is a crime, all these people (and the ones you listed) knew that it was at the time they committed the murders. So the question is what is the difference other than the mental health part? Absolutely zero, so then it comes down to if we ban menally ill from possessing, does it stop murders? No.
Lot of assumptions there. A determined criminal will find a way to get an illegal gun. A crazy might not know how or be able to figure out how. And a red-flagged attempt to buy could be the red flag that leads to jail or an involuntary committal. By definition, what might have happened isn't measurable.
If Cho Seung-Hui had been unable to buy guns legally, I doubt he would have been able to find a contact to buy one on the street. If he tried to ask around, that would be likely to attract attention. Would he have still gone postal? Likely. But if he did it with a bat or a knife, someone would have stopped him sooner and there would be fewer bodies.
We're not talking about a wall to gun ownership. We're talking about a speed bump. I find it reasonable. You do not. Again, I understand your position, and I find it reasonable and logical, and I'm not going to spit invective. You're not a "gun nut" and I'm not a "gun-grabber."
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.