Let's take a refresher course on the disarmament-and-let's-dismantle-and-destroy-the-Constitution modus operendi. It is the baseline with which to judge things like this. Start with,
who introduced and sponsored the bill, HR 2640.
Read the infamous MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center) Report. Sure, it was "withdrawn". And so what; it is the thought that counts. It was ordered in to existance by
someone who is still today un-named, commissioned and composed, approved, and then distributed. It didn't fall out of the sky. It was not an "accident". It was not supposed to be for public consumption, but got leaked. Read it.
So let's return to HR 2640, and go to the soothers at military.com for some comfort.
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.
Right, there is no act entitled "Veterans Disarmament Act". And we know that making references to the ridiculous is always a good way to throw people off the scent of a real stink somewhere in the current dot gov. Pending legislation is not needed, of course;
HR 2640 is already there. Nice diversionary tangent.
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)
More like; the NRA has a history of
not opposing "common sense gun laws". "Common sense", which can be
anything used to convince enough people that it
is really "common sense" - and therefore "no sane person should oppose it".
The NRA as opposed to those other "small gun owner groups" who understand what the term "
right" refers to in the United States Constitution, and the words "
shall not be infringed" mean in the english language. And who further have no inhibitions about some other subjects the NRA are unwilling to address. But that is all another subject for another thread.
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.
Ah yes; "common sense". Why not instead, let's use our historical base, perceptional skills and intellect to analyse what is being
constructed and
what the longterm intent is when we read a Bill like 2640.
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.
It was carefully constructed alright. If it were the intent to specifically protect persons with PTSD it would have specifically stated in plain english that "Persons diagnosed with [PTSD] shall never be construed as mentally defective or otherwise a danger to themselves or any other person, nor this otherwise used to prohibit such persons from owning, possessing, using or carrying any firearm for any reason" Or words to that effect. Period. But it does not. Why not?
So;
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.
SEE:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321,00.html
What is
avoided here, is that the switch from classification of PTSD from being a "disability" to
something else, would not require a legislative act. It would be as simple as a
redefining of a medical condition. That is it. The U.S. Congress has no authority to challenge any recognized medical institution or authority on such matters. Period.
This is a legal set up.
Wait for the first wave of "incidents" involving vets with PTSD that become national media focal stories.
Remember who introduced this bill, sponsored it, and pushed for it. They are not your friends. Whether or not anyone wants to include the NRA is up to them. But this is a legal set up all the same.
-----------------------------------
Je Suis Prest