GOA Alert: URGENT!


PDA






Lambo
September 25, 2007, 12:13 PM
URGENT ALERT!!!

Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate -- Immediate action required

Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, September 25, 2007


You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.

But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:
* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD

Not to mention the fact that your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.

Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.

This agreement could come about in the next few hours or the next couple of days!

This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the
ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up
the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!

But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to
prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE
single senator can block it.

ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge
them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent
agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous
consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn
McCarthy's anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns
if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;
or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA
program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his
entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the
family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the
first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous
consent agreement to discharge the bill.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA Alert: URGENT!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
September 25, 2007, 12:26 PM
So here we go again....

GOA says its the end of days, NRA supports the bill in its current form.

I suspect neither group is correct but sheesh, could they be in any more disagreement?

NRAs statement:

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,” by a voice vote. 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).

While the media continues to characterize this bill as a “gun-control” measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and “spinning” the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.


CCRKBA can't decide....

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said the
bill “may not go far enough to protect the rights of American gun owners while
apparently making it easier to prevent mentally ill persons from legally buying
guns at retail outlets.”
CCRKBA said the Department of Veterans Affairs should be required to remove
the names of some 83,000 veterans that it entered into the system seven years ago,
for what the media have identified as ‘alleged mental health reasons.’ “Soldiers
should not have to petition or pay for that,” said CCRKBA Public Affairs Director
JOHN SNYDER.


And Gottlieb/SAF seem to be silent on the issue other than writing about what the OTHER groups think of it.....


Lovely

JohnBT
September 25, 2007, 01:25 PM
"and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote."

When? Today? Not according to govtrack.us www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640

"Last Action: Jun 14, 2007: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

JohnBT
September 25, 2007, 01:37 PM
This is from 9/21 - last Friday - in the Wall Street Journal.

"Party leaders are dismayed, and a top Democrat predicts: "That bill is going nowhere.""

John

_________________________________

Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill
Despite Support, Background-Check Measure
Staggers in Senate Amid Infighting
By DAVID ROGERS
September 21, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- After 32 people were shot to death at Virginia Tech in April, the new Democratic House moved quickly to close an administrative gap that allowed the killer to buy two guns despite a history of mental troubles.

It was a rare political alliance between the National Rifle Association and its foes on the left, who together seized the moment to try to make federal background checks on gun purchasers more effective. But with students back on campus the Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to act, and the bill is in jeopardy.

"I'm getting anxious," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. "I get concerned that the longer we are away from Virginia Tech, folks are going to ignore the problem."

For Democrats in Congress, this has been a frustrating year, with numerous presidential veto threats and Republican delaying tactics in a closely divided Senate. A minimum-wage increase took five months to enact; with a new fiscal year starting Oct. 1, spending bills are incomplete and a stalemate continues over policy in Iraq.

But the saga of the gun-records bill is something different: a self-inflicted wound for the new majority.

After the House bill passed in June, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) personally appealed to Democratic senators to pass it without amendments. "I wanted it to be taken up right away," she said. "If it's clean, it's over."

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a turf-conscious Vermonter, insisted that the bill go through his panel and in the process reignited an old fight with his Democratic colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.

For House Democrats, the delays were all the more frustrating because the bill's basic framework was already familiar from past Congresses: a mix of carrots and sticks to encourage states to share their mental-health and felony records with federal authorities.

In the Virginia Tech case, the shooter was able to buy firearms in part because relevant court records weren't forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background System, the data center that helps conduct background checks.

The NRA lent its support to the bill, and to protect its flank against rivals on the right, it also won new language that for the first time allows someone banned from possessing a gun to appeal at the state level to have those rights restored. Some gun-safety advocates criticized this concession, but the bigger problem turned out to be infighting among Democratic senators.

Mr. Leahy, who dislikes federal mandates, complained that his small state would be hard-pressed to meet the House deadlines for sharing information, and therefore risked being penalized.

But it wasn't until August that he advanced his package, which ran almost 50 pages more than the House bill and added provisions that split the law-enforcement community.

Both measures promise new federal money to update records while states face future aid cuts if they don't comply. Mr. Leahy's version has a richer "carrot" and gentler "stick," narrowing the records that must be shared and giving states twice as long before mandatory penalties can be imposed.

But the chairman then also reopened a fight with Mr. Kennedy by including amendments to an existing law that allows retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

Enacted in 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act continues to meet resistance from states and cities, such as New York, as an intrusion on local control.

Mr. Leahy's proposed changes would make it easier for retired officers to get around these obstacles and also lower the years of service needed to qualify to carry concealed weapons from 15 to 10.

Pressing for the changes is the 325,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, a politically influential group that claims close ties to Mr. Leahy and his top staff. The FOP says it is only asking for "tweaks" to the current law. Mr. Leahy's office argues that as a former prosecutor he has a natural alliance with the police organization and has long been active on law-enforcement legislation.

Critics of the safety Act in the law-enforcement community point to the fact that Mr. Leahy's involvement in the issue grew after a brouhaha with the New York Post over whether the Democrat was obstructing the awarding of medals of valor to police and firemen killed on Sept. 11. Sen. Leahy angrily denied the charges, and after the FOP came to his aid, he took a higher profile role in support of the bill.


Today, sheriff and police-chief lobbies oppose reopening the issue. "We warned the senators that it was something we had a lot of heartburn with," says Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

In crowded cities, the prospect of out-of-state retired officers, unknown to the local force and not subject to the same training, is a worry. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly is a critic, for example, and Mr. Kennedy vowed a fight on the Senate floor. "It's outrageous. This makes no sense," Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.

Mr. Leahy's relations with Mr. Kennedy, a former Judiciary chairman, have long been strained. Friction has risen in recent years because of the Massachusetts liberal's lead role on immigration legislation, a topic within the judiciary committee's purview. Mr. Leahy's office says it is "baseless" to suggest he was retaliating by adding safety-act provisions to the gun bill.

Party leaders are dismayed, and a top Democrat predicts: "That bill is going nowhere."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) will be reluctant to devote floor time to a messy fight.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), an early proponent of the House bill, has begun planning for a back-up strategy: If Sen. Leahy's package stalls, Mr. Schumer said -- and the chairman's office agrees -- that the chairman has promised the gun records bill will move as a standalone piece of legislation.

Mr. Leahy says he is the wronged party. If House Democrats had consulted with him more in advance, "the bill could be on the president's desk right now," Mr. Leahy says.

"I think we have made the bill much better and provided far more reasons for the states to comply," he says. "I don't see how we have it delayed it at all. We're ready to go."

Write to David Rogers at david.rogers@wsj.com

camacho
September 25, 2007, 06:31 PM
For those who get on the GOA bandwagon of the sky is falling, please read the summary of this bill below. This whole thing about the ailing grandfather (from the GOA "alert") is a pure twisting of facts and to the best of my knowledge nothing in this bill has anything to do with that. You have to be adjudicated in order to be disqualified. Period, end of story!

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
6/13/2007--Passed House without amendment.
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 -
Title I - Transmittal of Records
Section 101 -
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms; (2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly; and (3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such action to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date. Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide the Attorney General, not less than quarterly, information for determining whether a person is disqualified under the federal criminal code from possessing or receiving a firearm for use in NICS background checks.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
Section 102 -
Grants states a two-year waiver of the matching fund requirement (10%) for criminal justice identification grants if such states provide at least 90% of the information required to be transmitted to the NICS under this Act. Requires states to provide reasonable estimates of the number of records transmitted to the NICS for purposes of granting such waiver.
Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons: (1) t disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm; (2) convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and (3) adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to mental institutions. Requires states to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) establish regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information in the NICS; and (2) report annually to the Judiciary Committees of Congress on the progress of states in automating criminal records databases and making such data available to the Attorney General.
Section 103 -
Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations. Allows up to 5% of grant funding for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems. Specifies allowable uses of grant funds. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from charging user fees for NICS background checks.
Section 104 -
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an annual report on the progress of states in automating databases of information for transmittal to the NICS. Authorizes appropriations.
Provides for discretionary and mandatory penalties for states that fail to provide information required by this Act. Allows a waiver of such penalties for states that provide substantial evidence of reasonable efforts to comply with requirements for providing information.
Section 105 -
Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.
Title II - Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant Records
Requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to: (1) study and evaluate the operations of the NICS; and (2) report to Congress annually on state estimates of records transmitted to the NICS and on best practices of states for handling information to be transmitted to the NICS.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title III - Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records
Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments for use by state and tribal court systems to improve the automation and transmittal of criminal history dispositions and records and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title IV - GAO Audit
Requires the Comptroller General to audit expenditures for criminal records improvement under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to determine if such expenditures were made in accordance with such Act and to report to Congress on the findings of such audit.

Roccobro
September 25, 2007, 07:24 PM
Sounds like a good bill being subjected to "poison pill" additions by the opposition.

Justin

Robert Hairless
September 25, 2007, 07:42 PM
Camacho, okay, so the facts don't support the Gun Owners of America. And, okay, so the bill probably helps some gun owners.

But where is your sense of drama, man? Get into the swing of things. It's an "URGENT ALERT!!!" A mere "Alert" from GOA is a snoozer, an "Urgent Alert" is a mild yawn, and a GOA "URGENT ALERT" is a transistor radio at the end of its battery life playing Taps.

It's when the GOA "URGENT ALERT" has begun to deserve at least one exclamation point that we're talking seriousness something like the annoyance a fairly stable person feels at seeing a finger smudge on a restaurant water glass. A GOA "URGENT ALERT!!" is getting to the point of being fairly hot stuff: Larry Pratt hasn't debated Paul Helmke on television for a few days or something equally significant.

The unalloyed triple banger with full caps and dress boldface, though, is important. It means that GOA is going after the real enemy--the NRA--with both guns ablazing and the horse asnorting fahr and breamstones. Here's where the shootout gets warm and the cameras start rolling. This is an "URGENT ALERT!!!"

Me, I wait for the sound of at least five exclamation points from GOA before I even rouse myself enough to turn down the volume a little. It's probably going to take twenty-five or thirty exclamation points now before I get even mildly annoyed.

Have you ever noticed that the commercials on television are broadcast at a higher volume than the programs that interrupt them? The rule is that if it's really loud and really hysterical it's going to be a sales pitch that is really stupid and untrue.

Rats. I meant to write "STUPID AND UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Sometimes it's hard to get into the spirit of these things. Dumb, in other words, and dumber.

The Brady Law doesn't prevent crime. In a sane world it would not exist. But it's here and it's not going away in the near future so it makes sense to fix problems in it. The Congress will tinker one way or another. Better to have the NRA involved to try to help get some rationality at work instead of standing on the outside yelling stuff with exclamation points.

Noxx
September 25, 2007, 08:14 PM
Can we just not post GOA stuff until / if they get their act together? That would be great, mmmkay?

Samuraigg
September 25, 2007, 08:55 PM
Getting so sick of people posting this GOA "the sky is falling" crap. They must be pulling facts out of their behinds because they sure as hell aren't reading the bill.

camacho
September 25, 2007, 09:15 PM
Robert Hairless: You are absolutely right about my sense of drama; beginning immediately I am starting diligently to work on it :)

Noxx: I am with you on that. I am never an advocate of excluding any group let alone a gun-rights group, but I really wonder about those guys. They are just liars!

W.E.G.
September 25, 2007, 09:52 PM
If some people spent half as much time communicating with their own representatives in whatever manner they deem appropriate, accurate and logical, as they spend analyzing and criticizing those who are engaging in real activism, those people might actually achieve some good for gun owners.

JohnBT
September 26, 2007, 05:06 PM
And what makes you think we aren't?

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron

(And FWIW, holder of one $50 ticket to the New Market FD gun raffle this Saturday. Guns, cash & atv's every 5 minutes from 11 to 5. And a Chevy 4x4, I'm getting excited.)

pdowg881
September 26, 2007, 05:23 PM
If it truly does bar people who were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood that's rediculous. Anybody who acts like a normal kid and likes to run around is diagnosed with ADHD these days.

Blackfork
September 26, 2007, 05:26 PM
This doesn't sound like a needed bill and might be dangerous. If Schumer likes it and is trying to get it passed without recorded votes, that's enough to get your attention, or should be.

I'm calling my Senators.

Dave Workman
September 27, 2007, 03:56 PM
TexasRifleman wrote:
And Gottlieb/SAF seem to be silent on the issue other than writing about what the OTHER groups think of it.....

The reason SAF has not taken a position is because SAF, as a non-profit educational and legal foundation, cannot legally take positions such as what you are looking for. SAF can report what others are doing because that's merely educating the public.

SAF also cannot endorse political candidates.

CCRKBA's position is now being repeated by others who are unhappy that funding is not present to pay for all of these investigations and appeals. I believe you will find Gottlieb's name in that press release.

Robert Hairless
September 27, 2007, 05:06 PM
If some people spent half as much time communicating with their own representatives in whatever manner they deem appropriate, accurate and logical, as they spend analyzing and criticizing those who are engaging in real activism, those people might actually achieve some good for gun owners.

That depends on who you mean by "some people" and what you mean by "real activism." I suppose that it's real activism to distort and ignore truth as long as it's done frequently, often, and stridently, but anyone who believes that it's achieving any good for gun owners is deluded and self deluded. That kind of real activism is certainly real and it is activism but it is always harmful because it is counterproductive. It lends support to the belief that gun owners are untrustworthy and whacko and don't read good, and it alienates people who can read and think rationally about what they read. In the case of this bill, for example, it simply does not say what GOA says it says. This GOA alert is one of many examples of real activism that hurts.

Unless you either are truly omniscient or Gun Owners of America, you can't possibly be justified in making a blanket condemnation of the kind you made of people you know only from messages they post in response to other people's messages. Your point seems to be that people who criticize others' real activism should spend at least half that amount of time contacting their representatives. Nonsense. If you're contacting your representatives to say that rational gun owners support the claptrap in the GOA "URGENT ALERT!!!!" at the head of this thread, I beg you not to do it. As for those of us who resent what GOA is doing with such distortion, what gives you the belief that we aren't doing quite a lot with our legislators and in other ways too--possibly much more than you?

JLStorm
September 27, 2007, 05:49 PM
It is bad enough that the democrats, republicans, and antigunners treat me as though I am an idiot and use scare tactics to twist the truth. The fact that the GOA and JPFO do it much more often makes my blood boil, which is why I no longer support them. The NRA may not be as grassroot, but at least they dont sound like the boy who cried wolf every time I read a letter, they also seem to realize that I am an educated member of society and treat me as such. The GOA has some good ideas that the NRA doesnt, but they sure have a lot to learn about conveying them.

Joshua C
September 27, 2007, 08:28 PM
Does, or does not the bill prohibit people diagnosed with ADHD as a child, I.E.ME! from owing a firearm?

Car Knocker
September 27, 2007, 08:53 PM
No, it does not.

Joshua C
September 27, 2007, 09:02 PM
right...... well, at least I know how to classify GOA....

CaesarI
September 27, 2007, 09:06 PM
I like you're cutting directly to the point.

The answer is unfortunately not very direct, to the point, easy to comprehend, or entertaining to hear.

I am not a lawyer, but a lawyer can't really say for sure either, so that doesn't much matter does it? My *interpretation* of this bill causes me to answer your simple question with "probably not, but it's possible it could be interpreted that way, more likely if your ADHD was put down on paper somewhere."

The problem is that in the present sorry state of the law, particularly law as it applies to your right to keep and bear arms, some no-goodnick attorney could try and make a case interpreting the law in a manner hostile to you.

Quoting Cicero, who was quoting a proverb himself, summum ius summa iniuria "more law, more injustice". The formula makes sense, since the more lines of law someone has to read through to determine just what is and what is not legal, the more apt one is to come to an incorrect conclusion. The more laws, the more difficult intimidating it becomes for someone else to attempt to determine what is and isn't legal on their own. Further the more likely there will be rotten loopholes of one sort or another. The present state of legal muck that constitutes the US Code is akin to an undocumented 120MB text editor written in COBOL. I won't even attempt to discuss "legal precedent".

The criticism offered here that the GOA throws out entirely too many alerts, all of which are "urgent" is probably warranted. Perhaps there is a good reason for it, and perhaps there is not. Nonetheless in this situation I am apt to agree with the GOA, and not the NRA on this issue, as I find it unlikely that *more* laws are going to in any way shape or form improve our situation.

Real progress happens when bad laws are repealed outright, not when we add new bandaids to a corpse full of maggots. The death of the AWB was a rare taste of victory. This bill may not quite be arsenic, but it certainly isn't going to improve things.

Just my silly opinion.

-Morgan

Robert Hairless
September 27, 2007, 09:44 PM
CaesarI, this bill is entitled the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007." As the title indicates, it is not an additional law. It amends an existing law. So the bill does not add more laws. It revises a law currently on the books. The fate of this bill would neither increase nor reduce the number of laws.

Who would disagree with you that "Real progress happens when bad laws are repealed outright, not when we add new bandaids to a corpse full of maggots." Now let's roll. If gun owners were to unite behind your idea of demanding the immediate repeal of NICS, I bet that they could achieve the deathblow to private gun ownership in the United States.

Many--perhaps most--gun owners would be horrified at the thought of supporting the sale of guns to people who have been judged in a court of law to be a danger to themselves or to other people. A large number of gun owners are likely to think it's also not a good idea to give gangs the legal right to stop off at their local gunshops to arm themselves on the way to a shootout. At least some gun owners won't favor giving Al Qaeda cells the okay to order firearms by mail or from the web.

Those are the gun owners. People who do not own guns and don't want to own them and are uncomfortable around them will take a millisecond to think about the idea that gun owners not only don't want any checks on gun buyers but also believe that adjudicated crazies, criminals, and terrorists should be able to get them because they have Second Amendment rights too. There should be no need to explain how the dedicated anti gun people will react.

I am not arguing here in support of this bill but I am trying to point out, as patiently as I know how, that it might be a reasonably good idea to read the bill and think about it in context of reality today instead of arguing against what the bill doesn't say or do, or about a world that doesn't exist.

If you're going to argue for repeal of NICS, please at least set your sights higher and argue for something really good such as energy tax credits for shooting firearms during the winter as a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

camacho
September 27, 2007, 11:02 PM
"probably not, but it's possible it could be interpreted that way, more likely if your ADHD was put down on paper somewhere."


Can you point us to the specific section of H.R.2640 which according to your interpretation might be construed as "it could be interpreted that way"? I am really curios!

Also, as RobertHairless pointed out this, no new provision are added with H.R. 2640.

LAR-15
September 27, 2007, 11:40 PM
Word is Tom Coburn has blocked this bill for now.

BAT1
September 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
This info is timely, and should be forwarded to all Veteran groups. I mentioned this yesterday to a veteran who had not heard about it and was pretty dismayed. Thanks to all the veterans who have served, you more than anybody should have right to have a gun! The govt should not force kids on drugs because they look out the window, and they should not make solders into tour after tour which brings this condition on.

Robert Hairless
September 28, 2007, 11:40 AM
If what you told that Veteran yesterday is what Gun Owners of America told you, no wonder he is disturbed. You certainly can disturb even more veterans by spreading that GOA misinformation and distortion.

But why would veterans or anyone else object to a bill that:

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Why tell veterans (or anyone else) that they should be alarmed by a bill that amends the system so as to help them by prohibiting obsolete or inaccurate information from being used against them. How does a veteran (or anyone else) benefit from lobbying for the right to have wrong information retained? Just because GOA says otherwise doesn't make it so.

Read the bill.

A youngster who has been treated for ADHD by his physician at her parents' request has not been adjudicated or received mandatory (i.e., court ordered) treatment and would be unaffected by this bill. A veteran (or anyone else) who had been adjudicated and did receive mandatory (i.e. court ordered) treatment would be removed from NICS and the information destroyed. How could there possibly be any benefit to any veteran in having obsolete information remain in NICS?

Is it possible that the people objecting to this bill don't know what the word "adjudicated" means?

RoadkingLarry
September 28, 2007, 12:23 PM
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=484a4496-802a-23ad-43e7-77043a9f39a2&Issue_id=

Majority Democrats in the Senate were poised as early as this past Monday to bring the bill to a vote until Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected.

Coburn says he has concerns that billions of dollars of new spending in the bill is not paid for by cuts in other programs. And he says the bill does not pay for appeals by veterans or other Americans who feel they have been wrongly barred from buying a gun.
"As Congress prepares to raise the debt limit once again, it is not too much to ask politicians to do the job they were elected to do and make choices," Coburn said Wednesday. "Veterans, or any other American, should not lose their Second Amendment rights if they have been unfairly tagged as having mental health concerns."

If for no other reason Schumer and McCarthy being in favor of it ought to set off a fellows warning sirens, not to mention the voice vote passage in the house of HR2640. GOA may well be a little over the top but this whole thing does not pass the smell test.

Robert Hairless
September 28, 2007, 01:39 PM
Larry, it's reasonable for Coburn to object that "the bill does not pay for appeals by veterans or other Americans who feel they have been wrongly barred from buying a gun." But that's nothing like what Gun Owners of America is saying.

GOA is proving itself untrustworthy and unreliable through its tactics. Gun owners who adopt them look really bad too, even to other people who enjoy Hank Williams.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 28, 2007, 01:47 PM
I cannot support this bill. In spite of all that seems good about it, it does nothing but bolster and further entrench unconstitutional law - namely, the Brady BS.

Congress knows that those who cannot be trusted with arms(so adjudicated) belong in prison, executed, or institutionalized. The immature - the young - are under the guardianship of their parents. The whole body of unconstitutional law; state, local, and of the Union; that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms needs to be trashed. Do that and there will be no need to pass law that "does good", for there will be no law doing bad in the first place.

Can't get any more simple than that.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

LAR-15
September 28, 2007, 02:12 PM
Coburn has blocked Schumer's attempt to ram it through.

orionengnr
September 28, 2007, 05:59 PM
This issue was on Glenn Beck's radio how this morning. He had Wayne LaPierre on, who stated that the bill had been "hi-jacked" and modified to the extent that the result was worthy of passage.

As Robert said, read the bill. Crying Wolf gains us no credibility...

LAR-15
September 29, 2007, 08:35 AM
Don't forget that Ted Kennedy opposes this bill because Pat Leahy attached expanded LE concealed carry.

NeveraVictimAgain
September 29, 2007, 01:50 PM
My fear is that this will be expanded to include anyone who is being treated for a mental illness, not just those who have been declared incompetent by a judge.
The majority of Americans will suffer a significant depressive episode sometime in our lifetime.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 29, 2007, 07:09 PM
By the way, the current status for veterans is often that a diagnosis of PTSD by the VA may get your name on the NICS Denial list - even though there has been no adjudication that you are a danger to yourself or others. This has been the case since the Clinton Administration and is one of the elements this bill is attempting to correct.

Jorg Nysgerrig
September 29, 2007, 08:50 PM
But, Bartholomew, that almost sounds like GOA is against giving these veterans a chance to have their rights restored. :confused:

Robert Hairless
September 30, 2007, 12:19 AM
Jorg, I don't think that Gun Owners of America is against giving these veterans a chance to have their rights restored. From what I can see, Gun Owners of America just isn't concerned with the interests of those veterans or other gun owners either way. It's obvious, I think, that Gun Owners of America is more concerned with fighting against the NRA than it is with fighting for the interests of those veterans or any other gun owner.

Read the bill. It does not say what Gun Owners of America says and does not do what Gun Owners of America says it does.

Read the bill. Then read previous "urgent alerts" from Gun Owners of America. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day but for Gun Owners of America the NRA is never right. What the NRA supports, Gun Owners of America inevitably attacks with an "urgent alert."

Read the bill. What I and others here have posted are the relevant portions that contradict what Gun Owners of America claim. But don't think you have to trust any of us. Read the entire bill and come to your own conclusions. I'm confident that it won't be the conclusions you are told to make by Gun Owners of America.

Read the bill and trust your own eyes instead of what conspiracy theorists tell you. Remember what Trevelyan said, especially "Anger is a momentary madness, so control your passion or it will control you."

Jorg Nysgerrig
September 30, 2007, 12:42 AM
Robert, I'm afraid my cynicism for GOA's kneejerk reactions must not have come through properly. I was trying to capture GOA's gift for misdirection, misinterperation, misinformation, mischaracterization, and plain old oversimplification by restating their opposition of the bill in the same manner that they tend to use. I was taking a swipe at GOA and their (over-)reactionary tactics.

If the NRA opposed this bill, it would seem likely that GOA would latch on to the clause Batholomew mentioned and declare that the NRA doesn't support veterans.

While most groups rely on some level of FUD to garner support, it just seems that spreading FUD about everyone else is the biggest hammer in GOA's toolbox and the one they seem to reach for more often than needed.

Robert Hairless
September 30, 2007, 01:41 AM
Ah, you have read the bill and Gun Owners of America too. :) I should have realized that from your other posts, Jorg. Sorry. My face is red.

It's always a surprise to me when people believe the nonsense spread by that organization. Time after time it issues those "Urgent Alerts!" that serve no one's interests except its own. But it leads and, much to my astonishment, others clamor to follow. Disgraceful.

Zedicus
September 30, 2007, 03:50 PM
United we Stand, Devided we Fall

Childish Bickering will do nothing to help us.

GOA may or May not be correct, but that doesn't change our being wrong for behaving in this manner. (we are not taking the High Road here)
why not simply e-mail them to ask for Clarification on the obviously poorly written alert?

IE: Where are they drawing such conclusions from etc.

We need to stick together if we want any chance of surviving.

Publicly Shooting the Messenger as we have been will not do us any good.
(they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain)

also, Publicly Running down GOA or JPFO just makes the entire lot of us look like a bunch of 6 year olds.

JohnBT
September 30, 2007, 04:11 PM
Because they don't answer and they keep putting out these bogus/fabricated/histrionic alerts.

"(they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain)"

I don't think so. And if they are, stretching the truth to the point of fantasy is not going to get the message out. It only makes them look foolish. It makes the entire gun rights community look foolish.

John

Zedicus
September 30, 2007, 04:21 PM
If they don't answer e-mails, call them.

Autolycus
September 30, 2007, 04:28 PM
Originally printed by GOA: But the chairman then also reopened a fight with Mr. Kennedy by including amendments to an existing law that allows retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

Enacted in 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act continues to meet resistance from states and cities, such as New York, as an intrusion on local control.

Mr. Leahy's proposed changes would make it easier for retired officers to get around these obstacles and also lower the years of service needed to qualify to carry concealed weapons from 15 to 10.

No they are trying to impede states rights by doing this. The states should have the final say in who can and cannot carry a firearm right?

Autolycus
September 30, 2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by pdowg881: If it truly does bar people who were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood that's rediculous. Anybody who acts like a normal kid and likes to run around is diagnosed with ADHD these days.

Do you have any sources to back this up? How about a good explanation of what ADD and ADHD are?

Jorg Nysgerrig
September 30, 2007, 06:35 PM
they may actually be on to something that the alert does not explain
If they are on to something that isn't in the alert, why did the choose to leave that information out and include what they did?

Publicly Running down GOA or JPFO just makes the entire lot of us look like a bunch of 6 year olds.

No, it makes us look like a bunch of informed gun owners who won't tolerate inane calls to action from a group that seems more interested in issuing shocking press releases than doing anything more effective. You call for us all to stand together, why don't you take that challenge to GOA and see if they'll stand with the NRA?

While I'm all for solidarity among gun owners, that does not mean we should allow certain reactionary groups to spread FUD among us simply in the name of not rocking the boat.

Just because a group is a pro-gun doesn't give them the right to run around screaming the sky is falling with impunity.

Robert Hairless
September 30, 2007, 09:55 PM
[Double post]

ServiceSoon
September 30, 2007, 10:06 PM
I think GOA understands that gun legislature is a slipper slope and they understand that vague laws can be used at the discretion of the enforcer. This law might not spell out what restrictions can or can’t be placed on people with ADHD, but it doesn't have to if the wrong person is running the country. I don’t think the Burden of Proof should be on the person seeking to exercise their RKBA.

Is this a reasonable regulation? Reasonable is a word that can change with the wind. Hilary’s definition of reasonable ultimately means that only governmental officials have the right to bear arms. Read this (http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html) for a real world comparative demonstration of where reasonable gun policies end up.

Robert Hairless
September 30, 2007, 10:10 PM
Zedicus, it's most certainly not the high road for you to suggest that "GOA may or May not be correct" when Gun Owners of America is clearly incorrect and is just as clearly telling deliberate untruths that hurt gun owners.

You might as well say it "may or may not be true that two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." It happened. So did that GOA alert published here and elsewhere. And neither event is good.

Read the bill. The bill directly contradicts what Gun Owners of America has said in that "Urgent Alert!"

If you have read the bill and can still say Gun Owners of America "may or may not be correct" in what it says about it, you've travelled too far beyond the high road into a world of fantasy and delusion.

Asking Gun Owners of America to explain its distortions of one bill after another is not my responsibility. Perhaps it is your responsibility to do so because you have some reason to defend the indefensible. I don't have that responsibility. I read English and think critically about what I read. GOA can't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I heartily agree that "Childish Bickering will do nothing to help us." So stop your childish bickering, read the bill, and compare what the bill says with what GOA says it says.

If you find anything in the bill that supports the GOA claims about it, contribute your knowledge instead of telling people that its "childish bickering" to point out that GOA is misleading gun owners and creating a great deal of damage by doing so.

You say that the GOA alert is "obviously poorly written." That's an excuse? You might as well say that the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were "obviously poorly piloted." Take away the "obviously poorly written" parts of that GOA alert and nothing remains to justify an "alert."

Do you know of any bill of benefit to gun owners that Gun Owners of America has successfully supported into law? I don't. What GOA does is nothing positive, only what you describe as "childish bickering." The sky, according to GOA, is always falling and the fault is always the NRA's. In contrast the Second Amendment Foundation--a far more responsible organization--puts itself on the line to take positive steps for gun owners. The NRA and SAF together have made great contributions in matters such as challenging the gun confiscations in New Orleans by actually joining together to take legal action against the city and its administration. GOA, however, issued its "Urgent Alerts!" and nothing more.

Who needs a group that purports to represent gun owners but sounds about as smart as but not nearly so well informed as Carolyn McCarthy. She doesn't know what a barrel shroud is but wants them banned; GOA doesn't know what this bill does but wants it defeated.

Abraham Lincoln evidently was correct: it is possible to fool some of the people all the time.

Zedicus, the way to stop looking like a six year old is to start behaving like a rational adult. No one else can do it for you, although some of us are trying hard to help. And none of us ask you for money.

Robert Hairless
September 30, 2007, 10:22 PM
ServiceSoon, perhaps you don't realize that this bill is an amendment to an existing law. Your "slippery slope" argument can't possibly be relevant to this situation because there's no new law being proposed, only changes to a law that already exists and rules every gun owner in America.

It's simply irrational to argue that this bill is a new law that takes us down a "slippery slope" when the bill so obviously attempts to reverse the slope in the existing law.

The best way to recognize it is to read the bill.

Look, guy, if we're trying to pull the wool over your eyes we would have to be pretty stupid to keep telling you to read the bill. We wouldn't want you to read the bill if we were trying to mislead you. That's what GOA is doing: telling you what to think and what to do instead of asking you to read the bill.

Please read the bill.

This discussion is incredible. People actually have the opportunity to see what the bill says and what GOA says about it but can't or won't think for themselves and see the discrepancies.

carebear
October 3, 2007, 09:05 PM
This law might not spell out what restrictions can or can’t be placed on people with ADHD, but it doesn't have to if the wrong person is running the country.

Except that it DOES spell out the restrictions. :rolleyes:

It reiterates the terms under which a person's right may be restricted for mental health reasons. They must have been either adjudicated mentally deficient or involuntarily committed. Both of which, by legal definition, mean they have appeared before a judge with full due process. This is current law BTW, all it does is say that those rulings must be reported to NICS, ie the law as it has been since the 60's be enforced and reported properly.

Even if a future President came out with an executive order it would be in direct contradiction to the existing law due to the language used, not in any way legally based on it.

It also mandates that even if a person HAS been adjudicated in the past, they must be given the opportunity to appeal; to show that, even after all that due process, they are now better and should have their rights restored and that their new non-prohibited status must be reported to NICS as promptly as their prohibited was.

It also removes a bunch of veterans who should never been added to the prohibited list from it, restoring rights that should never have been taken from them.

Right now, that's more right and recourse than someone committed to prison for a totally non-violent felony offense has available.

Educate yourselves. Learn to read the law, learn what legal terms mean and how civil and criminal procedures occur and quit taking alarmist fantasies and patent lies as truth, from any source.

Anyone with a position, whether you agree or disagree with them, has a bias and a reason to shade the truth. Learn to look at the facts and make your own decision, don't let others control you.

mmike87
October 3, 2007, 09:41 PM
LOL ... I got my Brady Group alert the other day whining about how Coburn is blocking the bill. I laughed my ass off for quite a while.

Michael Thomson
October 4, 2007, 11:36 AM
Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh

Larry Scott | October 02, 2007
There is no such thing as the “Veterans Disarmament Act.” There is no pending legislation that would take firearms away from veterans. There is no pending legislation that would prevent a person with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), veteran or not, from purchasing a firearm or ammo.

But, there is a huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics being forwarded by a small gun owners group who view themselves to be in competition with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Let’s use some common sense instead of nonsense. If veterans were to lose the right to own firearms, you’d have a lot of unemployed cops. If those who have PTSD were to lose that right, there’d be even more unemployed cops and other first responders, as well. The arguments about a “Veterans Disarmament Act” are, quite simply, ridiculous and illogical.

The piece of legislation is question is H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 2640 was carefully-crafted by the NRA and Members of Congress to protect the rights of gun owners, especially those who may have mental health issues such as PTSD.

Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this legislation.

The NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database that contains the names of those not allowed to buy firearms and ammo. There are nine specific groups of persons who are included in the database.

Included is anyone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." "Any mental institution" would, obviously, include a VA hospital mental ward. And, the government's definition of a "mental defective" is: “A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.”

The confusion over H.R. 2640 and veterans, especially veterans with PTSD, began in 2000 when the VA gave the names of between 83,000 and 89,000 veterans to the NICS database. The names were of veterans who had been committed to VA psychiatric wards or who had been adjudicated as a “mental defective.” This was required of all government agencies.

Some thought that any veteran with a mental health issue ended up on the NICS list. That is an absurd assumption. If a veteran tries to quit smoking and goes to VA smoking cessation classes, they are in a mental health program because nicotine is considered an addictive substance. The same applies for those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. And, we know, these veterans did not end up in the NICS database.

Neither current law nor H.R. 2640 would put any person, including veterans, who have sought psychiatric treatment or voluntarily checked themselves into a psychiatric unit on the NICS list. This includes those with PTSD, those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and those who have voluntarily sought help and been admitted for observation, sometimes termed a “voluntary commitment.”

So, why all the noise about H.R. 2640? Some feel the small gun owners group is just looking for members. Others feel they have some kind of beef with the NRA. Whatever the reason, the misinformation and scare tactics should be considered for exactly what they are.

The NRA, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings that killed over 30 students, realized that current firearms legislation had some real problems. People who should be in the NICS database, like the Virginia Tech shooter, were left out. And, just as important, the NRA knew that some people who shouldn’t be in the database had been included and there was no way for them to get their names of the NICS list. Also, some believe there is wiggle-room in the current regulations that can allow government agencies to “interpret” them incorrectly. The NRA set out to solve those problems, and they did.

The NRA fully supports H.R. 2640. According to the NRA: “Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would ‘prohibit’ thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true…In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.”

H.R. 2640 would require states to provide quarterly information to the NICS database. This information would have to include those who no longer fall into one of the nine categories of “no buy” persons. There would be penalties for states that do not comply. And, the protections, especially for those with mental health issues, assure that a “medical finding of disability” would not put someone in the NICS database. That would include veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD. Here are the protections as stated in H.R. 2640:

(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.

Please note again that a person cannot be put on the NICS list solely for a "medical finding of disability,” and that would include PTSD.

Also, H.R. 2640 will provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should not be on it, something they cannot do at this time. That provision reads:

(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.

The bottom line for veterans concerned about H.R. 2640 is to just use some common sense. Read the legislation. You may not agree with it. But, if you’re a veteran or you have been diagnosed with PTSD, don’t worry, they aren’t coming for your firearms. The NRA put it correctly when they said, “H.R. 2640 is NOT gun control legislation.” It IS... legislation designed to end inequities in the current laws that have unfairly prevented many from purchasing firearms and ammo.

Phil Lee
October 4, 2007, 01:00 PM
It would be useful to explore the discussion (http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=dl&s=78919038&f=6320037800001&x_id=151321&x_subject=Gun%20Bill%20Not%20Anti-Veteran&x_dpp=Y&x_link=http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html) to the linked article "Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran" by Larry Scott on the veteran web site. There you'll find veteran opinion pointing to some real problems with HR 2640. Larry Scott's article doesn't receive a lot of respect from them.

For example, one veteran points to the problems of red-tape with a statement "Someone could die before getting off the list. Some medical needs troops are getting on some pretty long lists just to get the medical attention they need."

I think it indicates the potential of real problems with the "appeals" to get off the list.

Another commenter points to the fact that "lawful authority", not just judges in courts, can make the adjudication and that is a pretty vague term. He worries, as do I, what loose procedures will be allowed under the "lawful authority" statement.

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
I think it indicates the potential of real problems with the "appeals" to get off the list.

Currently there is no appeal process. If you are on the list, you are on the list. Period, end of story. Without a measure like this passing, they are going to die without getting off the list. At least this bill, with all the red-tape and waiting, gives them a chance.

Are you saying you prefer no process to a possibly bad process?

Phil Lee
October 4, 2007, 02:20 PM
I have some questions about HR2640 which I haven't seen answered, yet and despite several readings of the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640)

According to the bill, adjudication for "committed to a mental institution" may be a result of something other than a court order. Even if adjudication is by court order, it isn't clear what standards are required for the adjudication process and there aren't any standards that I see in the bill for non-court adjudication. So, where in the bill are provisions defining the standards for these adjudications, such as:
1) presumption of sanity (i.e., such as presumption of innocence in a criminal trial),
2) requiring a jury of our peers (if the defendant wishes) for any commitment hearing,
3) requiring any jury's finding to be unanimous,
4) requiring a finding of insanity along with dangerousness beyond reasonable doubt,
5) requiring the adjudication be presided over by a judge,
6) giving the "defendant" other legal rights such as making available a public defender for the indigent, right to a speedy hearing, automatic restoration of seize property if "acquitted".

Will a lifting of these orders and a release from commitment, supervision and treatment automatically result in a restoration of rights to arms, or must an appeal be made? Where are these answers to be obtained in the bill (I've read it several times now and can't find it)?

According to the Legal Community Against Violence web page (http://www.lcav.org/content/mental_health_reporting.pdf): ATF regulations (see 27 C.F.R. § 478.11) define "committed to a mental institution" to mean:
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a
mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental
defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons,
such as drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for
observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

This wording suggests that a person committed for non-mental reasons such as treatment for chemical dependency might also disqualify a person from their right to arms. Certainly, it is possible to commit a person in Missouri (http://www.co.stearns.mn.us/5423.htm) for chemical dependency if there is a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others.

If a person so committed undergoes a successful drug treatment program and is released from supervision and if he has no record of felony or violence, is his release from treatment to be forwarded automatically to NICS and his name removed from the denied list? Or, must such a person enter the appeal process?

Do you drink too much? It is possible for a "helpful" family member or a treating physician to intervene and commit you to treatment because you represent a danger to yourself or others in Missouri -- see their Department of Mental Health page (http://www.dmh.missouri.gov/ada/facts/danger.htm).

In NY Mayor Koch obtained a court ordered commitment of a homeless woman who was mentally ill. One symptom of that person's illness was verbal abuse which the courts held created a danger to herself since she might be attacked by others who were abused. This case is documented in the NY Times article "Court Backs Treatment of Woman Held Under Koch Homeless Plan (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DEFD91E3FF93AA25751C1A961948260)", by KIRK JOHNSON.

Is it sound public policy to deny arms to people because their mental illness might result in them being attacked by others or because they drink too much?

Now, I know the NRA might respond by saying these people are already disqualified under the law -- actually, I don't believe they are since the states play a role in determining that by defining what crimes are felonies and by determining what sentences are applied, they determine for criminal matters who is include on the NICS list. If the state refuses to cooperate with the federal government, it appears to me they are exercising their legal rights in making a determination about who appears on the NICS list. Right now, I suspect, many people committed for chemical dependencies or with mild mental illnesses which might result in being committed against their will are not on any disqualified list. So, I think the NRA is being somewhat disingenuous if it says there won't be newly disqualified people as a result of this bill.

But, those of you who have read the bill, please tell me where I can find the answers to my questions.

Phil Lee
October 4, 2007, 02:30 PM
Jorg asks:

Are you saying you prefer no process to a possibly bad process?

But the bill doesn't just implement a possibly bad appeals process. As written, the appeals process is an illusion. Tell me what is to prevent there being be no appeals process? or what is to prevent there being no appeals process for any practical purpose?

And the bill doesn't just give, it takes too. Tell me what justifies improving NICS? Will it truly add to public safety? Will it add to public safety more than spending the money on more cops on the street?

You can't even make the public safety case for the present version of NICS -- and I can give references to a study saying Brady has had no effect on violence. So, why should I support a measure to add names to government lists?

ilbob
October 4, 2007, 02:50 PM
Will it add to public safety more than spending the money on more cops on the street?

You are making an unwarranted assumption that more cops on the street = less crime. I have seen no evidence that is the case.

It is certainly true that when focus is placed on locking up violent criminals that crime goes down. That does not require additional cops. It only requires the will to prosecute and lockup violent offenders, rather than spending time and money on locking up non-violent offenders, or using the extra cops hired under the guise of crime control to write more traffic tickets.

One would think we could come up with some appropriate penalty for non-violent offenders that would serve as both a punishment and a deterrent to others that does not involve jail time.

Robert Hairless
October 4, 2007, 05:04 PM
You've probably figured out by now that Phil Lee is here to defend the Gun Owners of America's agenda.

Mr. Lee is the administrator of the "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" web site, which links directly to the GOA web site for analyses of pending federal legislation. You could save time and help green the World Wide Web by not wasting bandwidth if you go directly to the Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org/107anatb.htm) web site, or you can make a brief stop at Mr. Lee's site (http://www.mcrkba.org/) and click on the link marked "GOA Analysis of Fed Bills (http://www.gunowners.org/107anatb.htm)" to get to the same place the scenic way.

The way Mr. Lee and the "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" deal with people who "have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding" is to link them to the Anxiety Disorders Association of America web site (http://www.adaa.org/): "However, if you have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding, then you might find a better place to visit is here (http://www.adaa.org/)."

For Mr. Lee, "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," and Gun Owners of America anyone who disagrees with them is crazy, which I must admit is a rather nifty approach to conflict resolution and very close to what he claims is being done in this bill.

I doubt that many non gun owners will be persuaded to support gun owners in America with such tactics or such thinking but that's obviously not what they're intended to do. There's probably as much chance of changing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's mind as there is of changing Mr. Lee's mind, unless Gun Owners of America tells him to do it.

It seems that several of these so-called "grassroots organizations" have affiliated with Gun Owners of America and follow their line now. Sad.

outerlimit
October 4, 2007, 07:00 PM
What is wrong with GOA's agenda?


It's alot better than the NRA's, which is collecting donations and helping get anti-gun Bills passed.

Phil Lee
October 4, 2007, 07:20 PM
Mr. Hairless writes "You've probably figured out by now that Phil Lee is here to defend the Gun Owners of America's agenda" and cites a link on one of my pages to "GOA Analysis of Fed Bills". Typical of people who engage in such attacks, he failed to check his evidence. His link is to a 2002 GOA page. He didn't notice that I'm so tightly tied into GOA that I haven't updated that link in nearly 5 years. So, I don't have the link to GOA's analysis of current federal bills (http://www.gunowners.org/109anatb.htm).

I don't normally pay attention to federal legislation -- more typically I'm involved in the fight in Maryland. But, while we're talking about my web site (http://www.mcrkba.org/), I hope those who visit will pay attention to other links on that page including to the NRA -- seem Mr. Hairless is sufficiently clueless that he didn't understand my dealing with "those looking for advice on what to buy as a first gun for self-defense . . . ."

I'm sure the rest of you will be amused by my construction and see nothing sinister in it beyond a slam at grabbers.

While you are there, you might take a look around at my briefs (http://www.mcrkba.org/Briefs.html) page, of which I'm particularly proud. On that page, we've developed much hard information of use for our side including work used to defend RKBA in Maryland against an effort to ban AWs (pay particular attention to my work in documenting the deaths of LEOs (http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf) in Maryland and nationally).

Mr. Hairless states "For Mr. Lee, "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," and Gun Owners of America anyone who disagrees with them is crazy, which I must admit is a rather nifty approach to conflict resolution and very close to what he claims is being done in this bill", but I defy him to cite a link which has a statement such as that by me. He simply lies.

I've looked at the HR 2640 bill, and have some questions which I suspect he can't or doesn't want to answer. So, instead of answering, he employs a character assassination approach which I've seen more often from the grabbers.

While you are about examining my RKBA activities, you should note that I'm a moderator of Maryland Alert (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maryland_Alert/) too. For those of you who want to see what I mostly do, you are welcome to join -- however, if you try, you'll see that you are required to be a member of a national group and the NRA is one of the acceptable ones. So is SAF, Second Amendment Sisters, GOA and others. But, we don't allow character assassination on Maryland Alert -- I think you'd say it isn't "the high road".

Phil Lee
October 4, 2007, 07:35 PM
ilbob says You are making an unwarranted assumption that more cops on the street = less crime. I have seen no evidence that is the case.

No I didn't. I suggest you read my comment more closely. I ask whether cops on the street or the provisions of the bill would affect public safety more? I would guess the effectiveness of NICS improvement would be about zero to reducing violence. If you are right, both cops and NICS are a waste of money?

If you believe otherwise about NICS, give us some evidence.

jamz
October 4, 2007, 08:06 PM
Well, I'm certainly ready with some popcorn!

F5-F5-F5

TexasRifleman
October 4, 2007, 08:10 PM
"However, if you have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding, then you might find a better place to visit is here."


They should change that and send them here:


http://www.a-human-right.com/

JohnKSa
October 4, 2007, 08:13 PM
It's obvious, I think, that Gun Owners of America is more concerned with fighting against the NRA...They HAVE to. Their existence is predicated on a well-defined difference between them and the NRA.

If they don't come across as opposed to the NRA on signficant issues there's no reason for them to exist or for people to become members.

olhippie
October 4, 2007, 08:43 PM
....For me this proposed law is not all that complicated. It is nothing more than handing over EXPANDED authority to our federal gov't to decide who may , and who may not exercise thier "Inalienable" 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. When gov't chooses between more power to the people or more power and authority to gov't over the people, it NEARLY ALWAYS chooses the latter! Gov't also always tries to sell it's plans for freedoms reductions in the cloak of some promised greater security. One only needs to carefully study our past history to see that today, after having bought into so many of these gov't 'soap sales', we're not safer, on the contrary we're less safe,and less free as well.
.....The truth is these gun control schemes just don't work, history's stats prove it. Criminals will not obey laws,they'll get thier guns anyway. The poor law abiding subject just becomes more the pawn and victim of criminals, AND big brother tyrannical gov't..

....ENFORCE existing law,and go no further with the destruction of our 2nd amendment. Look at England and Australia, and to a lesser extent Canada. In the case of the first two mentioned countries, the abolition of free possession of forearms has INCREASED the incidence of crimes of violence WITH FIREARMS! Canada's restrictive gun laws haven't been effective either, save in thier effect of costing the tax payers billions more loonies ($)without adding to thier security in a statistically measurable way. It all adds up to a hoax so far as better security goes, but a reality of greater loss of freedom!

orionengnr
October 4, 2007, 10:17 PM
Read the proposed legislation.

Not the press releases.

Please.

camacho
October 4, 2007, 10:30 PM
It is nothing more than handing over EXPANDED authority to our federal gov't to decide who may , and who may not exercise thier "Inalienable" 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

It does not expand authority, the only thing it does is improve sharing of information that prevents people who are already barred (under current law) from possessing firearms. Read the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

If any of you who are crying bloody murder about this bill are against certain regulation(s) in the current law, then just say it. However, presenting this bill as something that it isn't, means you either have not read and understood this bill, or you have some ulterior motives. In the case of GOA, it is definitely the latter.

Robert Hairless
October 4, 2007, 11:44 PM
Actually, Phil Lee, you're correct that I didn't spend much time on your web site. My own opinion is that it's not very good and isn't of interest to people who want to pursue positive steps forward for gun owners. Like Gun Owners of America it destroys instead of creates. Instead of trying to persuade people who don't own guns that people who do own them are okay, and that those non gun owners might benefit from learning about firearms and the people who own them, you send them off to a mental health site. Your contempt is obvious.

So I'm not surprised that your link the Gun Owners of America page hasn't been updated since 2002 but I am surprised that you see your failings as something I've done wrong. It's not my fault that you're spreading and defending the destructive nonsense emanating from Gun Owners of America, and I'm even more surprised that you say I've assassinated your character by saying so. Perhaps if your character were stronger it would not be so easily assassinated.

All I did was click on the link in your signature block on messages you posted here. That took me from The High Road to the home page of your web site. At your home page I clicked on your link to the Gun Owners of America "analyses" and was taken to the page I identified here. Since you think it's unfair that my comment revealed that you're five years behind on updating that link, I'll amend my comment to withdraw the suggestion that people take the scenic route through your site. I'm easy.

You're a little behind in other ways too, or maybe you're less interested in veterans than in attacking a bill that will help them, because you've ignored the notice published by Larry Scott on VA Watchdog.org on October 3, 2007 (http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfOCT07/nf100307-7.htm):

I have yet to hear from a single veteran who ended up on the NICS list in error. I have heard from a veteran who has a diagnosis of PTSD and was voluntarily committed for observation. He purchased a handgun with no trouble.

In the full article on that independent site concerned with protecting veterans rights, Mr. Scott published the text of a Veterans Administration document that explains how some veterans got on the NICS list, details their rights, and explains how those on the list wrongly could get off it (http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfOCT07/nf100307-7.htm).

If you really are concerned about veterans, why not use your time directing them to that useful document on VA Watchdog (http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfOCT07/nf100307-7.htm) instead of attacking the NRA and the bill that gives veterans even greater protection: H.R. 2069.

It's much more satisfying to help people who served our country than to prey on their fears, although such a constructive activity probably isn't as much fun as attacking me for joining those who object to what you're doing. So I don't expect you to stop doing it. :)

Robert Hairless
October 5, 2007, 03:33 AM
Just in case anyone is interested, here's a sequel to the story of that homeless woman Ed Koch and the City of New York tried to commit involuntarily for treatment as a danger to herself and others. Her name was Joyce Brown. On March 31, 1988, Time Magazine reported that she won the right not to be treated, was released in January, appeared on the Phil Donahue show and lectured at Harvard on homelessness, and was back on the streets by mid March begging and shouting obscenities at passersby.

She was represented against Koch and the City by the New York Civil Liberties Union who won her freedom to return to the streets. That was years before the Brady Law and NICS, of course, so she probably also would have had the right to possess a gun while she lived over a hot air grate on Second Avenue--if she lived somewhere other than New York City, of course, where most citizens including the homeless aren't able to own one legally. I understand that she admitted to using cocaine and heroin, and that she was arrested for assault a few years before. It might be interesting to wonder who would want Joyce Brown (aka Billie Boggs and Anne Smith) armed and free on their city streets, but speculation about the unknown and perhaps unknowable is unprofitable even while it is an interesting diversion.

After her release from a mental hospital in January, Joyce Brown seemed to have a new start in life. As one of the first homeless people picked up in Mayor Ed Koch's program to take people suspected of being mentally ill off the street, Brown won a controversial test case when a judge ruled that she could not be forced to submit to treatment. The former "Billie Boggs," as she called herself, appeared on Donahue and lectured to Harvard Law School students on the plight of the homeless. She found housing in a somewhat seedy hotel in Times Square.

Last week, however, there were signs that Brown's newfound status had not cured her deeper problems. She was spotted back on the street, begging for money and shouting obscenities at passersby. The next day Brown claimed that she had needed cash for cigarettes and food. "I'm not insane," she insisted. It remains to be seen whether Brown has sacrificed her well-being by standing up for her rights.

Phil Lee
October 5, 2007, 09:29 AM
Mr. Hairless continues with ad hominem attack and avoidance of the questions (at least most of them) that I raised.

Actually, my concern is less with veterans than due process of law which is completely inadequate to protect the "innocent" in the mental health arena. But his pointing to the Scott article update showing the complex procedure for veterans to appeal being placed for whatever reason on the NICS list and denied their right to arms is interesting. Does that process exist today? If it does, tell me again why we need to address veterans in HR2640 in order to have their rights restored? If it doesn't exist, it is just one more illustration of how the government giveth and taketh away -- but the appeal process established in HR2640 will be different won't it?

Mr. Hairless sees no alarm that courts would agree to mental health commitment of a woman as a danger to herself (just the finding needed to deny right to arms) on the basis that her behavior created a risk of attack from others -- that happened. The other issues Mr. Hairless raised were not raised in the commitment hearing. Mr. Hairless appears to believe that the issue is essentially whether this woman is "good people", since he reports she had been previously arrested for assault (and not convicted) or may have used drugs (but not convicted) or whether my opinion is she should have arms or even whether having no address in NYC qualified her to have arms. These are not relevant at all to the legal issue in the commitment hearing or the legal issue of concern today. The legal issue is whether this case points to a problem in the law that puts us at risk of losing rights and being imprisoned contrary to the Constitution.

It seems that Mr. Hairless thinks that the government can tell who is "good people" and is perfectly happy that the government can make those decisions about people based on their drinking behavior (as illustrated by Missouri) or obnoxiousness (as the courts of NY have held) or that Scott knows of no errors made by the VA (really that is too absurd).

Mr. Hairless seems to be quite happy that due process was not adequate in the past for mental health cases, is not adequate today and that HR2640 provides no useful standard for the future to protect the rights of the people. It is illustrative of his attitude that he quotes Time Magazine(?) as saying:
It remains to be seen whether Brown has sacrificed her well-being by standing up for her rights.

Some people make sacrifices of their well-being by standing up for our rights. It is a trade-off that Time won't ever understand and neither does Mr. Hairless. Some of us admire the willingness to make those sacrifices.

I'll have to live with Mr. Hairless' opinion of my web site -- differences of opinion make for horse races and other contests. Perhaps, Mr. Hairless might point to his accomplishments in building web sites or other pro-RKBA activities so that we can share in the magnificence of his contributions. I would be happy to learn from his example.

I hesitate to point to Mr. Hairless' opinion since it isn't relevant to the questions I raised, but it would be interesting if he would give specific answers (and actually do some work on the issue of HR2640) instead of trying to explain objections to the bill in terms of choosing up sides. We're not playing a child's game of a team sport such as football and I haven't been chosen by a side for a game. Especially, I'm not on the GOA team and against the NRA team.

I have serious questions which some would rather not answer -- it appears. Anyone caring about the issue and reading this interchange can certainly judge for them self whether Mr. Hairless is interested in the issue or interested in just winning.

swifteagle
October 5, 2007, 08:52 PM
I am a current NRA & GOA member. When I got the first GOA alert I was very concerned which led me to do lots of research since I knew the information was the opposite of what I had heard from the NRA. After much research I've concluded that their claims related to the bill are false - its like they just made stuff up that isn't even in the bill. I don't know why they are making false claims. It could be that they are hoping to cause current NRA members to not renew with the NRA & join GOA instead. Perhaps that may work for some NRA members. I think however that GOA may have overlooked people like myself that support multiple gun rights organizations for the greater good. I've decided not to renew my GOA membership once it expires, and there may be other folks like me who will do the same. I've even removed GOA from my signature list of memberships because the recent alert frenzy has made it embarrassing to even admit to being a GOA member. Will the net result of this attack against the NRA be positive or negative for GOA? I don't know, but I think it was a bad tactic that hurts all gun owners overall which is why I'm opposed to it. If they want to be opposed to a bill that is fine, just give out correct information in the alerts & don't include attacks on other good gun rights organizations.

Gun owners need to work together for the greater cause. We can either all hang together, or we will hang separately. I bet that the not nearly a million mom marchers, the violence policy folks, & the Brady folks rejoice when gun rights groups attack each other. Lets not give them any reason to rejoice.

Robert Hairless
October 6, 2007, 06:29 AM
Phil, you do have a lot of questions--a whole lot of questions. But they're not real questions and you don't want real answers. You're asking rhetorical questions calculated to make your point and to further your agenda. What you're doing is transparent, Phil, which probably explains why most people are ignoring your tedious list of rhetorical questions and the points you're trying to score with them. The points fall flat.

Oddly enough Mr. Hairless remembered Joyce Brown from the time of her case. But you didn't have to be there to know that the case of Joyce Brown or Billie Boggs or Anne Smith--any of the names she used--was adjudicated in the courts and she won.

So all that stuff you've said about courts agreeing "to mental health commitment of a woman as a danger to herself (just the finding needed to deny right to arms) on the basis that her behavior created a risk of attack from others -- that happened" is a distortion.

Her case was adjudicated and, as I said, "Brown won a controversial test case when a judge ruled that she could not be forced to submit to treatment." She won and she was back on the streets. You pick and choose what supports the argument behind your "questions" and ignore the rest, like a little kid picking mushrooms out of a salad. Your methods are transparent, Phil.

Comments about what I "appear to believe" are amusing coming from a man who now casts his argument as indignation about "character assassination " and "ad hominem attacks." That's what you've been doing since I pointed out your defense of the Gun Owners of America line, and that's what you do in statements like this:

Mr. Hairless seems to be quite happy that due process was not adequate in the past for mental health cases, is not adequate today and that HR2640 provides no useful standard for the future to protect the rights of the people.

In fact Mr. Hairless has pointed out several times that Joyce Brown did receive due process, that it was adequate, and that its adequacy is demonstrated by the fact that she prevailed ... she won ... she beat it ... she was turned loose ... she was vindicated ... What form of the English language do you understand, Phil? Or is it less a matter of not understanding plain English than not caring about anything that doesn't confirm your assertions. Who knows. Who cares.

Your arguments are circular. You don't need anyone to "answer" your "questions." Your questions are your answers. You're in an extended monologue cast as a dialogue. Enjoy your indignation. :)

Swifteagle, newer to this forum than even you, speaks wisely. He read the bill, read what Gun Owners of America said about it, and came to his own conclusions. That's the action that I and many others here have been advocating.

JohnBT
October 6, 2007, 08:16 AM
"Right now, I suspect, many people committed for chemical dependencies or with mild mental illnesses which might result in being committed against their will are not on any disqualified list."

I've worked with individuals with disabilities - physical, mental, emotional, drug, alcohol. etc. - for more than 33 years in Virginia and I've never seen anyone who was involuntarily committed for a chemical dependency or mild mental illness. I'm not just relying on what I've heard either, I get to see the medical, psychiatric, court, welfare, community service board, school, etc. records.

I have seen convicted felons sent to halfway houses where some sort of drug/alcohol therapy is a part of the program, but like I said, they were already felons.

I'll ask around the office Tuesday. Maybe one of the oldtimers has heard of it happening.

John

P.S. - Note that I said involuntarily committed. Lots of people get sent for the 72-hour evaluation (green warrant), but are never committed.

RealGun
October 6, 2007, 09:32 AM
These provisions may seem innocuous to read them, but let's wait and see what gets tacked on and passed with this McCarthy/Schumer thing. The best gun control measure is no gun control measure. Note that when you pass a measure to improve or clarify, you validate the original law.

Bringing the Trojan Horse inside the gates seemed like a good idea at the time. Look back and find how many laws are being used differently than they were represented when passed or how they actually read. RICO is just one example.

I am with those who feel like they need a shower when asked to support a McCarthy or Schumer initiative. The ONLY initiative I would truly feel good about is some repeal.

Phil Lee
October 6, 2007, 09:35 AM
When Mr. Hairless says of the NY case instigated by Mayor Koch she [Joyce Brown] won ... she beat it ... she was turned loose ... she was vindicated ... What form of the English language do you understand he is either not telling the truth, or more likely, not paying attention (he seems to do that a lot). Joyce Brown was adjudicated and lost her case in Court and the basis of that loss is what was important. She was committed for 80+ days on the basis that she was a risk to herself and the court cited her verbal abuse of others created a danger she'd be attacked.

I gave the link to the NY Times article. Check it out to see if Mr. Hairless has it right or I do. Subsequently, Ms. Brown refused to take medication and she was released by city doctors (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE5D6153DF933A25750C0A96E948260) (ref. NY Times article "Joyce Brown Panhandles Again", March 10, 1988) after they were barred by the courts (http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v49/i17/17a01201.htm) from forcing medication on her. Doctors released her not the courts.

Released or not, she still has the "adjudication" against her. And the point is whether we want to encourage action against gun owners caught in similar circumstances?

I wouldn't accuse Mr. Hairless of being unable to read English, but he does seem very careless of facts. I wonder why?

In NY it is possible for a mildly disturbed person to be committed involuntarily to mental treatment with a finding of dangerousness to self but not, as we all might think, because that person is believed likely to physically do harm. I expect that is true in other states. There appears to be a danger to gun owners from "adjudications" that proceed on such vague and nebulous grounds even if they are in courts -- and the Joyce Brown seems a good one to illustrate the case since she never threatened people with physical harm nor did medical professionals assert that Ms. Brown was likely to physically attack someone. The Courts of NY committed her to treatment with a holding that she created a danger to herself because others might attack her. So, what does HR2640 do to fix that danger? Don't tell me that it gives a right of appeal -- tell me what national standards does it impose on hearings to protect rights.

The image many maintain is that a person accused of mental illness and undergoing a commitment process lacks the necessary moral capacity to maintain his/her “right to liberty” and that is frequently wrong. The case of Joyce Brown demonstrated no lack of moral understanding on her part -- no one established that Ms. Brown lacked the ability to distinguish right from wrong. What this case demonstrates is an all too often situation in which people accused of being mentally ill are often deprived of their rights unjustly and based on incapacities not related to the right in question.

The basic question for me is whether our legal commitment processes (so call "adjudications") do a good enough job to protect the rights of those accused. We're talking about civil commitment processes, not criminal, and the civil standards do not protect rights as well as criminal processes.

BTW, in Maryland the first step in a commitment process doesn't even involve courts. For most, it isn't until the adjudication is appealed that the accused gets to see a real judge. Is that an acceptable standard for denying the right to arms?

Mr. Hairless asserts that my questions answer themselves. It is an admission that Mr. Hairless has no answer. It is just as well, he is so careless with his facts that his answers aren't to be believed.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 6, 2007, 04:10 PM
Duplicate.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=307220

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA Alert: URGENT!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!