Particularly upset are the members of DSGL.org, which is an organization of MD's. The initials stand for Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws.
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."
All? List, please. The NRA, by far the largest, is for -- GOA, clearly second, is against. I could not find a position for the JPFO, and I did search and browse their site. Past those three, I don't keep a roster.
*This bill expands the Brady Bill, which used to be called gun control.
The original Brady Bill called for a seven-day waiting period. Instant background checks were introduced, with the full support of every pro-gun group I know if, as a less-intrusive alternative.
*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.
If true, that's a bug to fix. It doesn't invalidate the concept. I don't use DOS any more. Anything new has flaws, so then you fix 'em. And go o to something new with new flaws, and then you fix them.
*What about states that prohibit sharing mental health information, those that would be prohibited would not be listed.
IANAL, but I believe that all 50 require pshrinks who believe there is an imminent threat to report same. No change.
*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.
Not new. That restriction was passed a decade ago. It is an issue, but not the present issue.
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070424.htm for JPFO’s take. Basil would know more about who does and doesn’t support this as she is on the front lines.
I stated that it was speculated that Whitman’s tumor may have caused it, if so even at today’s laws would not have red flagged him due to such a medical condition is not a prohibiting factor. I did not include Malvo due to his age, but Williams/Mohammed was never deemed to have a mental illness (from what I can find) prior to the attacks to prohibit him from purchasing.
Mitchell Johnson & Andrew Golden of the Jonesboro school massacre. Charles “Tex” Watson of the Tate murders.
Finding a gun is just as easy as finding drugs, they are quite often available from the same dealer.
OMG...this is UNreal.
Particularly upset are the members of DSGL.org, which is an organization of MD's. The initials stand for Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws.
National Rifle Association - "Based on your record in the House of Representatives, as well as your responses to our federal candidate questionnaire, you have earned an 'A' rating from the NRA-PVF. On November 7th we urge our members, gun owners and sportsmen in Pennsylvania to re-elect you for another term in Congress." NRA endorses John Murtha
Yeah, the NRA is ceretainly looking out for our rights....like Hell!
Yes you stated that. I wasn't taking a contradictory position, just expanding bit.
if so even at today’s laws would not have red flagged him due to such a medical condition is not a prohibiting factor.
Not the tumor, but some of his behavior. Some of the statements he made to pshrinks would raise flags today -- not enough to bar gun purchases, but enough to require further investigation. There is some evidence of domestic violence, but at the time that wasn't something many women reported, so it's not clear whether it was frequent or severe enough that it would have led to charges or a restraining order, either of which would make it to NCIS.
I did not include Malvo due to his age, but Williams/Mohammed was never deemed to have a mental illness (from what I can find) prior to the attacks to prohibit him from purchasing.
Mohammed was not allowed to possess firearms. His second (ex-) wife had a restraining order against him. The Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings was apparently stolen from a gun shop in Tacoma, Washington, but there's been some speculation that it was sold out the back door.
The gun shop, Bull's Eye Shooter's Supply, had so many weapons "disappear" that BATFE yanked the owner's FFL in 2003. He transferred tje business to a friend, and the store is still operating.
Bull's Eye was sued for negligence, and settled a lawsuit from the victims' families for $2M. Bushmaster, the manufacturer, was named in the suit for negligently shipping weapons to someone so sloppy. They kicked in another half-mil to the settlement.
The Brady bunch provided the legal braintrust, and the claim against the manufacturer seems thin to me, so there's more than a whiff of lawsuit-lottery here. But even at that, it sure looks a lot like negligence to me. How the H-E-double-hockey-sticks does a teenager "shoplift" a .223 semi rifle (which is what Malvo said in court) without getting caught and without the theft being reported?
Mitchell Johnson & Andrew Golden of the Jonesboro school massacre.` `
Ages 13 and 11 at the time of their crimes. As with the others, they were ineligible, as minors, to own or buy guns. They stole their weapons from one kid's grandfather.
Charles “Tex” Watson of the Tate murders.
I don't see any reason he would have been barred from owning or buying firearms. The only red flag I can see, and it's a bit of a stretch, is if you could make a legal case that he was making arms available to Manson, who as a convicted felon can't carry.
So you've got a decision tree that starts with a simple question -- should or should not legal gun sales to certain persons be prohibited? If yes, which persons are those? How are they to be detected? How much expense, restriction and intrusion and intrusion do we balance against how much protection? It's basically the same sort of decision tree that applies to any area of public policy in a constitutional democracy.
I don't see this bill as a sharp line. It's not A on one side and Z on the other. It's pretty much bracketed between L and Q, IMHO.
Finding a gun is just as easy as finding drugs, they are quite often available from the same dealer.
With a couple of discreet calls, I could probably score some weed this afternoon. Maybe acid or X. Coke or smack? It would probably involve going through multiple people -- and as I'm a middle-aged white nerd, they'd probably peg me for a narc. (I have some friends who still smoke up occasionally. I can't sit in judgement of them when I have a scotch in one hand and a cig in the other.)
I wouldn't even begin to ask where to get an illicit gun. ANyone who nows me would be alarmed (not because they're scared of gduns, but because they know I have legal ones), and anyone I don't know woul, again, probably think I'm a cop.
Yes it should be restricted...to those that are in jail/prison or on probation/parole. If they are trusted enough to be around people they should be trusted to have their rights (all) restored.
I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. It does not bother me that a convicted felon has to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to once again vote, serve as an officer in a publicly-traded company, or buy a gun.
Will you stop repeating this? It’s been posted a couple of times before, but it simply isn’t true. It’s just a fund-raising tactic by GOA. They make their money by lying about the NRA, and unfortunately, they have a few ill-informed followers here on FR.
Another communist tactic: disarm the dissidents so they cannot take the power away from the people who run the government...
The Left long ago swallowed and internalized the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and they repeated them so openly and so often that the MSM and many people picked on on the Marxist-Leninist lies. Now it is ingrained in some as their personal philosophy: be against guns and keep the masses unarmed and afraid through government power. This bill is a terrible insult to patriotic men and women who did their duty and now could be deprived of their rights by idiot politicians and their bureaucrats. This bill is clearly unconctitutional, and Clinton did abuse his presidential powers years ago by what he did. Do we need Clinton II?...No way !!
bttt
See that is where the problem is, you are not talking about rights. The Constitution does not say anything about a right to serve as an officer in a company or even of any right to vote. Yes, I said that the Constitution does not list a right to vote. It does detail ways that you cannot be denied the right, but it never explicitly ensures the right to vote. So you are comparing apples to oranges and you are supporting the infringment of a right.
Also, in many states a felon does not have to jump through any hoops in order to have their ability to vote restored. It is, usually, automatically done when they get off parole/probation.
I just came across this http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/09/definition_of_c.php which talks about http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_09_23_archive.html#4312719903963181745
“beyond the principle that if a committment is for observation, without subsequent finding that the person is indeed insane, he’s probably in the clear....In four states, voluntary committment, or diagnosis without committment, can be a bar. In California, just being given a 72 hour committment for observation is a bar, although it ends after five years. Four states have no bar based on psychiatric findings at all.”
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.