Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns Has Passed

ExSoldier · September 23rd, 2007, 04:35 PM

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."

ronwill · September 23rd, 2007, 04:49 PM

This is definitely something to write your reps about. Here's some more info

:

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

dwolsten · September 23rd, 2007, 05:43 PM

Wow, that's some thanks for risking your life to serve your country.

P95Carry · September 23rd, 2007, 06:05 PM

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'.

ExSoldier · September 23rd, 2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P95Carry

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.

pgrass101 · September 23rd, 2007, 08:44 PM

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.

P95Carry · September 23rd, 2007, 09:07 PM

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.

rabywk · September 24th, 2007, 09:16 AM

Nothing surprises me anymore with these guys.

Lochinver · September 26th, 2007, 09:25 PM

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.

DaveT · September 27th, 2007, 12:55 AM

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 ?

September 23rd, 2007, 04:35 PM	#1
ExSoldier VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Coral Gables, FL Posts: 4,236	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 Infantry Captain; 20 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

September 23rd, 2007, 06:05 PM	#4
P95Carry Assistant Administrator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: South West PA Posts: 25,400	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!." If a BG dies as the result of pointing a gun at me, then he has merely succumbed to an occupational hazard of being a thug

September 23rd, 2007, 08:44 PM	#6
pgrass101 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,516	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. __________________ Noli nothis permittere te terere I am waiting on my personal bailout!!!

September 23rd, 2007, 09:07 PM	#7
P95Carry Assistant Administrator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: South West PA Posts: 25,400	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!." If a BG dies as the result of pointing a gun at me, then he has merely succumbed to an occupational hazard of being a thug

September 24th, 2007, 09:16 AM	#8
rabywk Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: St. Louis Metro Area Posts: 676	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???

September 23rd, 2007, 04:49 PM	#2
ronwill Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 777	This is definitely something to write your reps about. Here's some more info : http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

September 23rd, 2007, 05:43 PM	#3
dwolsten Ex Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chandler, AZ Posts: 266	Wow, that's some thanks for risking your life to serve your country.

September 26th, 2007, 09:25 PM	#9
Lochinver Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Aurora, CO Posts: 167	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?"

September 27th, 2007, 12:55 AM	#10
DaveT Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: North Texas Posts: 408	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 ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode