Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns Has Passed

This is a discussion on Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns Has Passed within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; GOA ^ | Sept, 2007 | Larry Pratt Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns Has Passed

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Thumbs down Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns Has Passed

    GOA ^ | Sept, 2007 | Larry Pratt

    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."

    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    This is definitely something to write your reps about. Here's some more info :

    http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Wow, that's some thanks for risking your life to serve your country.

  5. #4
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    A truly frightening proposition - and way too broad too to be other than totally draconian.

    So guys fight for their country - risking life and limb, only to possibly be denied any sensible means of self defence if remotely opined to have suffered PTSD.

    It is scandalous - and other less printable adjectives.

    Only and I mean ONLY - if a guy is singularly diagnosed (not just unexpert 'opinion') by 2 independent medics as having severe PTSD to the point where their judgement could be severely impaired ........ then, just maybe - they should remain gun free until re-appraised and written off as mended. Even then the gun preclusion should not in any way be automatically 'for ever'.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink Ummmmm NO

    Quote Originally Posted by P95Carry View Post
    A truly frightening proposition - and way too broad too to be other than totally draconian.

    So guys fight for their country - risking life and limb, only to possibly be denied any sensible means of self defence if remotely opined to have suffered PTSD.

    It is scandalous - and other less printable adjectives.

    Only and I mean ONLY - if a guy is singularly diagnosed (not just unexpert 'opinion') by 2 independent medics as having severe PTSD to the point where their judgement could be severely impaired ........ then, just maybe - they should remain gun free until re-appraised and written off as mended. Even then the gun preclusion should not in any way be automatically 'for ever'.

    Chris, the rate of violence for folks with PTSD is the same as it is for the rest of the populace. This is just a first step in the antigunners agenda. The next will be ALL veterans based on the level of training to kill and the general mindset to kill that is instilled into all troops and THAT will be based on the ineffable "WHAT IF" scenario. What if one or more of them go whacko when we take everybody elses gun away? They're already TRAINED to kill....

    The standard was and MUST remain...."UPON ADJUDICATION" which takes it out of the psychiatrists hands....all of whom are antigun from birth. Every dog gets one bite. Can we do any less for the men and women who've already risked and in some cases GIVEN...life and limb?

    Don't be deceived by this little gambit. A lot of folks will support this by pointing to the EXPUNGMENT process by which one may have their "rights" restored. Rights, once lost, are never returned absent the spilling of blood. Moreover this process of expungment is already on the books but guess who is in charge? Chuckie Schumer and gosh wouldn't you know? There never seems to be the funding in place to advance that "critical" process this year....maybe...next year.

    You ever heard what parents who wish to avoid a public scene say to a child who wants something? Anything? They say...."Next time." Then it is the "next time" and then they say??? What??? "NEXT TIME." Don't fall for it, buddy.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  7. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    Let me understand this correctly.....

    You risk life and limb and suffer both mental and physical distress defending the Consitution of the United States and the people which said Consitution protects.

    And you are rewarded buy losing your rights which are granted under the Consitution you suffered your mental distress defending.

    That's it, right? That's some catch that Catch 22.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  8. #7
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    I hear ya Jim - no mistake.

    To quote an old English expression - it's like so many things that are anti in nature .. "Thin end of the Wedge". Incrementalism once more.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array rabywk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    St. Louis Metro Area
    Posts
    675
    Nothing surprises me anymore with these guys.
    NRA Rifle Coach
    NRA Pistol Instructor
    NRA Personal Protection In the Home Instructor

    --- Some of the friendliest people I have ever talked to are gun owners and shooters and according to the gun activists we are the mass murders and felons of the nation???

  10. #9
    Member Array Lochinver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    178
    What irks me the most is that the NRA is supporting this right now. I AM letting my membership lapse in October and I'm joining the GOA.

    It is the last straw for me with the NRA.

    I do not believe that they have my best interests at heart and I will no longer support them.
    "I no longer list firearms I own as a signature. Why give them another list to use when they come to get them?"

  11. #10
    Member Array DaveT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    480
    I am keenly interested in this, and have been following it through several venues. This is the first I have heard that the NRA is backing this. Could anyone point me in a direction to read up a little more on the NRA view of this ?

  12. #11
    Member Array Lochinver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    178
    "H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA’s decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). "

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=3112
    "I no longer list firearms I own as a signature. Why give them another list to use when they come to get them?"

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    So you have to actually be adjudicated by a court to be mentally unstable, or you merely have to have been diagnosed at some point with PTSD?

    While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms.

    Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.

    Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a “prohibited” list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
    Sounds like the opposite of what was claimed in the OP. According to the NRA website there must be a judicial finding that the subject is a danger to themselves or others, not a mere medical diagnosis of PTSD, as was implied in the OP in bold type and caps. Such persons are already prohibited from owning firearms.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  14. #13
    Member Array DaveT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    480
    NRA 'clears the air' on this issue:

    http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=246

  15. #14
    88m
    88m is offline
    Member Array 88m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    146
    I need more info on this before i make up my mind. NRA makes it look like a good thing on the other hand as it was posted here and other places it looks very bad indeed.

    For right now I trust the NRA but that's not to say it's a blind trust and like I said before I need more info.
    “The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.” Jeff Cooper

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,959
    So would it be like a conspiracy theory to link this with the bill to cut some veterans benefits?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Katrina - New Orleans Disarmament Indictments
    By DaRedneck in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 27th, 2010, 10:43 PM
  2. Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands
    By Reborn in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 01:38 PM
  3. Montana-made guns bill, passed 80-20 (Merged)
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2009, 04:34 AM
  4. WWll Vets and all Veterans Thank You !!!!
    By Golden Dragon in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 30th, 2008, 10:04 PM
  5. Owning/Carrying different guns?
    By C9H13NO3 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 10:32 PM

Search tags for this page

2009 vet disarment act
,

army 88m signature

,

army 88mike

,
bill to prevent imparired veterans from owning firearms
,

can vets with ptsd own firearm in nc

,
is ptsd enough to prohibit purchase of a firearm in pa
,
law banning mentally impaired veterans banned from owning guns
,

legislation barring ptsd from owning guns

,

owning firearms with ptsd in wv

,

ptsd and owning guns

,

veterans prohibited from owning guns

,
will having ptad stop you from owning handgun 2012
Click on a term to search for related topics.