Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Threat to vets' 2nd Amendment rights on hold
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | October 6, 2007 | Not attributed

Posted on 10/06/2007 4:15:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor

An anchor has been attached to a proposal in the U.S. Senate that will slow down progress on the plan that could be used to permanently remove a person's right to own a gun in the United States, according to an organization opposing the measure.

Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, told WND that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has attached a "hold" to the plan, H.R. 2640, dubbed the "Veterans Disarmament Act," which means that while the bill remains alive, its advance will be delayed considerably.

Pratt's group earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also are being joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and now the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

Jump

..."But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunowners; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: Gilbo_3

I had my one bad eye corrected for distance but the medicines are effecting my other eye. My vision in both eyes is much worse than when I went it at the moment. It’s supposed to take a week before I can see normally. My schedule is centered around five different eye drops. Thank you for asking.


61 posted on 10/07/2007 6:29:22 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

The new building is good business sense. They rented out the additional space and it has already paid for itself.

I was curious about their budget so I wrote them a letter. I received an information packet explaining where their money goes. I doubt they do that for nonmembers.

Forbes listed the NRA as one of the top lobbying groups.


62 posted on 10/07/2007 6:39:13 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

http://www.joson.com/alleyways/politics/toplobbyinggroups1.html

The NRA is number one. Where’s the GOA? Behind a RR association?


63 posted on 10/07/2007 6:43:45 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR
So, you think I should be required to prove that I meet the Feds rules.

There are no Fed rules a person can fall under that do not currently exist. If you are adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others, you don't qualify. It is that easy.

If you disagree with the adjudication, you have a means to appeal.

64 posted on 10/07/2007 9:03:53 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Here's a full text; I found the introduction particularly interesting: (4) Nearly 21,000,000 criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions of criminal records are missing critical data, such as arrest dispositions, due to data backlogs. That's a lot of new records that will be added to this system --- and I strongly believe that people who have not been affected before by a NICS check will be if indeed 21,000,000 new records are added to the NICS database. Even if only 0.1% of those are erroneous, that would still be 21,000 erroneous records added to the system.


THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help

                Contents Display   

H.R.2640

NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007'.

    (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

      Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

      Sec. 2. Findings.

      Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

      Sec. 101. Enhancement of requirement that Federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

      Sec. 102. Requirements to obtain waiver.

      Sec. 103. Implementation assistance to States.

      Sec. 104. Penalties for noncompliance.

      Sec. 105. Relief from disabilities program required as condition for participation in grant programs.

TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT RECORDS

      Sec. 201. Continuing evaluations.

TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURT SYSTEMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS

      Sec. 301. Disposition records automation and transmittal improvement grants.

TITLE IV--GAO AUDIT

      Sec. 401. GAO audit.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:

      (1) Approximately 916,000 individuals were prohibited from purchasing a firearm for failing a background check between November 30, 1998, (the date the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) began operating) and December 31, 2004.

      (2) From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2004, nearly 49,000,000 Brady background checks were processed through NICS.

      (3) Although most Brady background checks are processed through NICS in seconds, many background checks are delayed if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not have automated access to complete information from the States concerning persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.

      (4) Nearly 21,000,000 criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions of criminal records are missing critical data, such as arrest dispositions, due to data backlogs.

      (5) The primary cause of delay in NICS background checks is the lack of--

        (A) updates and available State criminal disposition records; and

        (B) automated access to information concerning persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm because of mental illness, restraining orders, or misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence.

      (6) Automated access to this information can be improved by--

        (A) computerizing information relating to criminal history, criminal dispositions, mental illness, restraining orders, and misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence; or

        (B) making such information available to NICS in a usable format.

      (7) Helping States to automate these records will reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers.

      (8) On March 12, 2002, the senseless shooting, which took the lives of a priest and a parishioner at the Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, brought attention to the need to improve information-sharing that would enable Federal and State law enforcement agencies to conduct a complete background check on a potential firearm purchaser. The man who committed this double murder had a prior disqualifying mental health commitment and a restraining order against him, but passed a Brady background check because NICS did not have the necessary information to determine that he was ineligible to purchase a firearm under Federal or State law.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

      (1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).

      (2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms 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.

      (3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code.

TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (a) In General- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

      (1) by striking `Notwithstanding' and inserting the following:

        `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding';

      (2) by striking `On request' and inserting the following:

        `(B) REQUEST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL- On request';

      (3) by striking `furnish such information' and inserting `furnish electronic versions of the information described under subparagraph (A)'; and

      (4) by adding at the end the following:

        `(C) QUARTERLY SUBMISSION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- If a department or agency under subparagraph (A) has any record of any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, the head of such department or agency shall, not less frequently than quarterly, provide the pertinent information contained in such record to the Attorney General.

        `(D) INFORMATION UPDATES- The agency, on being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available under subparagraph (A) does not apply, or no longer applies, shall--

          `(i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any database that the agency maintains and makes available to the Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining to that database; or

          `(ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is kept up to date.

        `(E) ANNUAL REPORT- The Attorney General shall submit an annual report to Congress that describes the compliance of each department or agency with the provisions of this paragraph.'.

    (b) Provision and Maintenance of NICS Records-

      (1) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make available to the Attorney General--

        (A) records, updated not less than quarterly, which are relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, for use in background checks performed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and

        (B) information regarding all the persons described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph who have changed their status to a category not identified under section 922(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code, for removal, when applicable, from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

      (2) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE- The Attorney General shall--

        (A) ensure that any information submitted to, or maintained by, the Attorney General under this section is kept accurate and confidential, as required by the laws, regulations, policies, or procedures governing the applicable record system;

        (B) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and

        (C) work with States to encourage the development of computer systems, which would permit electronic notification to the Attorney General when--

          (i) a court order has been issued, lifted, or otherwise removed by order of the court; or

          (ii) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health-

      (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

        (A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

        (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

        (C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

      (2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, AND COMMITMENTS-

        (A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

        (B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A), the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

    (d) Information Excluded From NICS Records-

      (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nor may the Attorney General make available to such system), the name or any other relevant identifying information of any person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

      (2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of paragraph (1) before such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN WAIVER.

    (a) In General- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a State shall be eligible to receive a waiver of the 10 percent matching requirement for National Criminal History Improvement Grants under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601) if the State provides at least 90 percent of the information described in subsection (c). The length of such a waiver shall not exceed 2 years.

    (b) State Estimates-

      (1) INITIAL STATE ESTIMATE-

        (A) IN GENERAL- To assist the Attorney General in making a determination under subsection (a) of this section, and under section 104, concerning the compliance of the States in providing information to the Attorney General for the purpose of receiving a waiver under subsection (a) of this section, or facing a loss of funds under section 104, by a date not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, each State shall provide the Attorney General with a reasonable estimate, as calculated by a method determined by the Attorney General, of the number of the records described in subparagraph (C) applicable to such State that concern persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

        (B) FAILURE TO PROVIDE INITIAL ESTIMATE- A State that fails to provide an estimate described in subparagraph (A) by the date required under such subparagraph shall be ineligible to receive any funds under section 103, until such date as it provides such estimate to the Attorney General.

        (C) RECORD DEFINED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), a record is the following:

          (i) A record that identifies a person arrested for a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and for which a record of final disposition is available electronically or otherwise.

          (ii) A record that identifies a person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued that is valid under the laws of the State involved, as of the date of the estimate.

          (iii) A record that identifies a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance (as such terms `unlawful user' and `addicted' are respectively defined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(3) 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.

          (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.

          (v) A record that is electronically available and that identifies a person who, as of the date of such estimate, is subject to a court order described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code.

          (vi) A record that is electronically available and that identifies a person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code.

      (2) SCOPE- The Attorney General, in determining the compliance of a State under this section or section 104 of this Act for the purpose of granting a waiver or imposing a loss of Federal funds, shall assess the total percentage of records provided by the State concerning any event occurring within the prior 30 years, which would disqualify a person from possessing a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

      (3) CLARIFICATION- Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event.

    (c) Eligibility of State Records for Submission to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System-

      (1) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY-

        (A) IN GENERAL- From information collected by a State, the State shall make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or applicable State law.

        (B) NICS UPDATES- The State, on being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available under subparagraph (A) does not apply, or no longer applies, shall, as soon as practicable--

          (i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any database that the Federal or State government maintains and makes available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, consistent with the rules pertaining to that database; or

          (ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer applies so that the record system in which the record is maintained is kept up to date.

        (C) CERTIFICATION- To remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a), a State shall certify to the Attorney General, not less than once during each 2-year period, that at least 90 percent of all information described in subparagraph (A) has been made electronically available to the Attorney General in accordance with subparagraph (A).

        (D) INCLUSION OF ALL RECORDS- For purposes of this paragraph, a State shall identify and include all of the records described under subparagraph (A) without regard to the age of the record.

      (2) APPLICATION TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, records relevant to a determination of whether a person has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. With respect to records relating to such crimes, the State shall provide information specifically describing the offense and the specific section or subsection of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted and the relationship of the defendant to the victim in each case.

      (3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

    (d) Privacy Protections- For any information provided to the Attorney General for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, relating to persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, the Attorney General shall work with States and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish regulations and protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided to the system.
    THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
    Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
    
    Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
    Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                    Contents Display   

I went over to the GOA website, and from this article, here are some salient bits of analysis:

1. MISSTATEMENT: "... these bills [H.R. 2640 and any counterparts] would only enforce current prohibitions [on gun ownership]...."

THE TRUTH: BATFE has long tried to nudge the law to the point where a simple psychiatric diagnosis would put your name on the FBI's "list' and impose a lifetime gun ban on you. But this bill goes even farther in that direction than BATFE could have hoped.

First, a little history: 18 U.S.C. 922(d) & (g) make you a prohibited person if you are "adjudicated as a mental defective...." But the question of what "adjudicated" means and who has to do the "adjudication" is a battle which has been raging for decades.

When I was working in the Senate (1975-93), the view was that this provision barred gun sales to people who had been judged not guilty by reason of insanity -- or at least had come before a court, in a context where due process was afforded them. But, there has been an effort to extend this not just to the actions of courts, magistrates, etc., but also to any diagnosis by a federal-(or state)-sanctioned psychologist or psychiatrist.

Hence, if a person were --

a. A vet found by a VA doctor to be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder [PTS],

b. A kid put on Ritalin under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in part because of the increased danger of playground fights;

c. A senior with Alzheimer's receiving home health care under the Medicare program --

then, under the new interpretation being pushed by anti-gun advocates, that person would be subject to a lifetime gun ban IF the term "adjudication" included a diagnosis, as opposed to just a court order.

The efforts of BATFE to expand its jurisdiction are most fully contained in C.F.R. 478.11, where BATFE regulations provide that adjudication can be made by any "lawful authority." The same regulations also expand the ambit of "mental defective" to include a person who is "a danger to himself or to others; or [who] [l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs...."

Furthermore, in a letter dated May 9, 2007, BATFE writes that "danger" means any danger, not simply "imminent" or "substantial" danger...." [Emphasis added]

Hence, BATFE takes the position that something short of adjudication by a court -- and that alone -- is enough to make an individual a "prohibited person."

In line with this interpretation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in the final year of the Clinton administration, sent the names of 83,000 veterans to the Instantcheck system, based generally on findings of post-traumatic stress disorder. However, that action caused so much controversy that, to my knowledge, few if any, additional names have been sent, notwithstanding reports that as many as one-quarter to one-third of Iraq veterans suffer from this problem.

So, we have this very broad definition ("diagnosis" = "adjudication") which we have been battling over for more than a decade. And we have BATFE regulations which BATFE has been loathe to enforce, and which don't go quite so far as to say explicitly that a diagnosis is the same as court order, but could be interpreted to do so.

This bill would definitively resolve that debate on the side of anti-gun interpretation even broader than BATFE's, and would make it clear that a psychiatrist's diagnosis would be tantamount to a court order!

It would do this first in section 3(2), which provides BATFE's regulations concerning mental health issues now have the force of statutory law -- and cannot be changed, except by statute.

In addition, section 101(c) (1) (C) is a Trojan Horse which makes this even clearer -- and goes even further. It provides that a person can be made a prohibited person, based "solely on a medical finding of disability" if that finding is (presumably, explicitly or implicitly) based on a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others or is unable to manage his own affairs.

Hence, a VA-, IDEA-, or Medicare-related diagnosis of a veteran, kid or senior, based on a psychiatrist's finding of even microscopic amount of danger (or inability to manage one's own affairs) is enough to put the vet, kid, or senior on the FBI's "list."

Remember:

* According to the May 9 letter, the "danger" can be microscopic in magnitude.

* In addition, cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, ADD, or Alzheimer's inherently involve at least some amount of "danger" or incapacity.

[ ... ]

4. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal 'adjudications' that consist only of medical diagnosis without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent."

THE TRUTH: First of all, up until now there has been no statutory basis for making a person a prohibited person on the basis of a diagnosis. So McCarthy isn't doing gun owners any favor by establishing this principle -- and then "generously" carving a small loophole in it.

Second, in the case of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, kids with attention deficit disorder, or seniors with Alzheimer's, de minimis levels of "danger" or incompetence are almost always an underlying issue (and, hence, an implicit finding). And the statement conveniently fails to mention the standard in the BATFE's May 9 letter, starting that "any" danger, no matter how de minimis, is sufficient.

Third, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare or the state National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids, and seniors prohibited persons -- even without meeting the de minimis "danger" standard in 101(c) (1) (C), which is applicable only to federal diagnosis, not state diagnosis.

5. MISLEADING STATEMENET: “H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications... to provide a process for 'relief from disabilities'...."

THE TRUTH: As we have seen, McClure-Volkmer created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons like Iraq veterans. Given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since 1992 (without significant opposition), what is it to prevent him from doing the same thing with respect to the new (redundant) procedures? This is like stealing our money and then using it to bargain with us. And, incidentally, why should we reward Schumer for his bad faith in blocking relief from disabilities under McClure-Volkmer by passing his bill in exchange for a restoration-of-rights "chit" which is more limited than the law currently on the books -- and which he has consistently blocked?

6. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed."

THE TRUTH: As a practical matter, this is just not true. States vary widely on the ability to expunge felonies and "Lautenberg misdemeanors," even for crimes which are very old, relatively minor, or regulatory in nature.

7. MISLEADING STATEMENT: "H.R. 2640 would prohibit reporting of mental health adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.... H.R. 2640 would also make clear that if a federal adjudication or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a person from possessing or receiving firearms...."

THE TRUTH: This is not exactly true.

First, it's not entirely clear how a diagnosis gets "removed" -- or what incentive any psychologist would have for issuing a written finding that there is not "any danger" whatsoever that a battle-scarred veteran or an ADD kid will never get into even a minor scrape as a result of the condition. Even if that were possible, the process of proving that to a government agency and getting the agency to tell the FBI to take a name off its "list" is certainly something 83,000 veterans currently wrongly classified as prohibited persons are not going to be able to do.

Second, there is language in the bill which could arguably restore the rights of the most dangerous -- but not those who were simply "diagnosed" with PTS, ADD, Alzheimer's, etc. Hence, while someone who was actually intended to be covered by 922(d) & ) (g) and is dangerous and locked up might actually be able to get his rights back by proving that he had been "released and discharged" under 101(c) (1) (C) (A), someone who is just subject to a diagnosis -- and hence can't be "released or discharged" from an institution which never restrained him -- cannot benefit from this provision.

Third, again, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare, or the State National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids and seniors prohibited person -- but these victims would not be able to restore their rights under sections 101(c) (1) (A), even if a thousand psychologists testified that they were wholly "normal."

I think the characterization of 101(c)1(C) as a trojan is entirely accurate:

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

If even one medical finding of "danger to himself" or "lack of capacity" is made --- no matter how fallacious --- then 101(c)1(C) does kick in with no need to involve a court order --- you are not automatically given the right to defend yourself from arbitrary declarations that can and will put your name in the NICS system.

65 posted on 10/07/2007 9:09:01 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The stupidity of GOA and NRA members becoming divided exceeds all bounds.

Let's put some sanity back into this debate.

IMO, this bickering is a tactical victory for lil' chuckie et al.

Also IMO, another tactical battle is waged EVERY TIME we advance another firearms law, ie infringement. the mere debate of a new law is an advocation of the gov having power to infringe free men.

If a person is 'safe' to walk the streets [free], then that individual has rights to self defence. when that person is fairly judged to be mentally or socially incompetent to handle the responsibilities that his rights demand, THEN we [as the gov] can act to restrict freedom...

Also, we all know how lawyers yearn to write laws that insure 'job security', for themselves, judges, legislators etc to perpetually have to redefine the word 'is'.

This neverending manipulation of the english language by our socialist masters continues to force FREE men to waste valuable time & treasure to re-fight the same obvious battles, up hill no less, to 'restore' that which the masters had no 'right' to infringe.

my .02...

66 posted on 10/07/2007 11:06:08 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (A few Rams must look after the sheep 'til the Good Shepherd returns...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Nice no answer you have there. Try honestly answering my question. Who would I have to pay to get my God given Rights back?.


67 posted on 10/07/2007 11:15:16 AM PDT by seemoAR (Absolute power corrupts absolutely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander; editor-surveyor; Shooter 2.5
It simply amazes me how much verbage is used in writing a law, and then how anyone would state that they understand the meaning. Not you specifically, but everyone in general.

To illustrate, I was involved with a Madden NFL league a few years ago, we had a dozen guys playing 'franchise' mode.

I wrote a procedure for offseason trading/drafting of players which I thought was fair and quite easily understood.

I ended up having to explain this system to a dozen adults, multiple times, and found the majority felt that I misled or outright screwed them over.

The wording in the 2A is short & sweet, and its still not resolved by our supreme rulers. and the further we get from the framers time in history, the further the original intent will erode, even though we have plenty of saved documentation, point blank statements, describing their intent. see my previous post, all this bickering is an exercise in Constitutional masturbation, as there will be no end to the arguments on both sides. IMO, that is really the goal of the anti gunners, to divide and erode our solidarity to oppose their socialist agenda.

Does anyone really believe that the goverment will abide by this document, any more than they abide by the plainly worded 2A ?

Does anyone expect not to be jacked up by that same goverment for as much as a typo in records ?

My .02...

68 posted on 10/07/2007 11:41:20 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (A few Rams must look after the sheep 'til the Good Shepherd returns...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

Not just a reaction to your own ignorant arrogance then?


69 posted on 10/07/2007 1:21:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

I’m not great supporter of the GOA either.
So the NRA is a top lobby. Is this based on how much money they take in or on how effective they are? Looking at the list I see several very effective groups below the NRA.


70 posted on 10/07/2007 1:22:07 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"The bill, as written, is not all that bad. It gets the states to implement computerization of criminal records"

The second ammendment says nothing about any exceptions, and the criminals that matter should be in jail. If they're not, they're unlikely to care about another law anyway. We cannot allow the creation of myriad criminal statutes have the potential to disarm people; we need all the gun owners that we can get.

"something neither group opposes."

And that is the saddest part of all. The second ammendment makes plain that all private guns are outside the purview of government.

71 posted on 10/07/2007 1:34:14 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR
Who would I have to pay to get my God given Rights back?

If you are adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or to others, you lose the right to purchase a firearm. You can appeal that adjudication by hiring a lawyer or a liberal one would be appointed for your case.

Are you saying that you believe the criminally insane have a right to purchase a firearm?

72 posted on 10/08/2007 4:20:24 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
...we need all the gun owners that we can get.

Even if they are criminally insane?!

Look, I agree that we need to lock criminals away and take the mentally ill off the streets. The reality is that is not going to happen due to the cost and practicality.

Therefore, keeping illegal aliens, criminals and the mentally dangerous from purchasing firearms is prudent.

73 posted on 10/08/2007 4:25:42 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
So, as I asked before, how much money would it take to have God Given Rights restored?. You must be a lawyer and are running a little short of cash. :0)

Are you saying criminally insane people can’t purchase a firearm now?. I was under the impression that criminals aren’t allowed to get them. The only people gun control laws will inconvenience will be the honest, law abiding citizens of this once sovereign nation. It will be very popular with the criminals,communist and/or liberals.

74 posted on 10/08/2007 4:57:57 AM PDT by seemoAR (Absolute power corrupts absolutely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
They pulled the same crap here (Virginia) in a statewide election, but the pro-gun guy won anyway, because our local gun-rights group (the VCDL) got out the vote for him.
75 posted on 10/08/2007 5:07:07 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Shooter 2.5

Shooter and I did a few rounds on this yesterday. We agree to disagree.


76 posted on 10/08/2007 5:11:24 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; editor-surveyor

To: SJackson
Actually my point was that the system failed. Every day we see posts of stories here where the Government failed in some manner in what would appear to be a simple thing. We here grouse all day about how the Government does it’s job and then we are willing to turn over gun rights just because the NRA says it is OK? Not this cowboy.
As a side note in many states you can be committed by relatives on very little evidence. In many it only takes a cop and a judge to send you in for “psych hold”. The system is completely broken.

I have a very good employee who served in the Army for 15 years. A family member was killed in the first Gulf War, on the way to the funeral his wife, son and both his parents were killed in an accident - more than any human should have to take. He checked himself into the psych ward at the VA and stayed for two weeks to get his head on straight. He now has a psych record. One of the most level headed guys I have ever known and I trust him with fortune and my life. He could have his gun rights denied and then have to go to court to fix it - how is that fair?

I have told my Congress critter and my “good” Senator that this is unacceptable on numerous occasions.

19 posted on 10/07/2007 9:50:02 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (SF- the $hitty by the Bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


77 posted on 10/08/2007 5:21:28 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"Even if they are criminally insane?!"

Are we engaging in hyperbole?

Most of the people affected by this are not insane at all; mostly temporary stress overload; it's usually over when they get their physical health back on line. We can't afford to harm the security of this country, and the rights of hundreds of thousands of individuals, for a very few kooks. Arm the public in all places, and the kook problem goes away.

78 posted on 10/08/2007 8:25:34 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR
I was under the impression that criminals aren’t allowed to get them.

That's right. This bill just forces the states to computerize their records so the NICS works as designed and does not delay a transaction.

The only people gun control laws will inconvenience will be the honest, law abiding citizens of this once sovereign nation.

So you think that the NICS is wrong and unconstitutional?

79 posted on 10/08/2007 9:08:49 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Most of the people affected by this are not insane at all; mostly temporary stress overload; it's usually over when they get their physical health back on line.

That's right and most of the people are currently barred from buying a firearm because their clearance was not re-instated.

This bill allows vets diagnosed as OK to regain their firearm rights. It is merely a matter of sending a copy of their discharge letter from the VA Hospital to the state.

This bill does not impinge on any more people than currently fall under the law. It forces the states to computerize their records so the NICS work correctly and honest citizens can have no delay in purchasing a firearm. It also allows for those classified with mental disorders to restore their rights, something that was not easily accomplished before this bill.

80 posted on 10/08/2007 9:13:37 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson