Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended

Discussion in 'Legal' started by F4GIB, Jun 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    Urge US Senate to block HR 2640 (MH gun ban)

    A "voice vote" is how NRA covered up the tally on the 1986 Class 3 weapon freeze. NRA can always get a SINGLE legislator to demand a roll call vote IF they want to. When NRA doesn't, you know the shaft is in.

    Here is another good analysis.

    HR 2640 must be STOPPED in the US Senate! It only takes 41 votes to block a bill.

    ###

    Why NRA is nuts to expand background checks
    By Corey Graff
    Executive Director
    Wisconsin Gun Owners
    June 13, 2007
    <http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/June%2013%202007_Why%20NRA%20is%20nuts%20to%20expand%20background%20checks.cfm>

    "I'm very sorry we can't sell you this handgun," the gun dealer tells
    you as he snatches what was to be your new hunting revolver from your
    hand. "FBI denied your background check. Said something about you being
    'mentally defective.' Sorry."

    As you leave the gun shop you're confused, infuriated and empty-handed.
    You've never committed a crime in your life. You're a hunter education
    safety instructor, a father, a life-long sportsmen, a military veteran
    and are active in your church. Yet somehow a bureaucrat who knows
    nothing about you claims you're a mental case. Finally you remember:
    almost two decades ago, your family doctor sent you to see a
    "specialist" who prescribed anti-depressants for a temporary bout of
    depression you were dealing with after your father passed away. In
    hindsight, the pills didn't help much and it all seemed so innocent at
    the time.

    But that was then and this is now -- when law-abiding gun owners get
    entangled in the nets of the NRA's new-and-improved federal gun control
    scheme: NICS.

    Recently Wisconsin Republican State Senator Alberta Darling (River
    Hills) announced she will sponsor a post-Virginia-Tech gun control bill
    in the state legislature. Her bill will dump mental health data at the
    state level into the federal National Instant Check System (NICS)
    database. Darling claims these records will be used to disqualify those
    "adjudicated mentally defective" from buying guns.

    Darling's bill is a response to federal legislation introduced by Rep.
    Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) -- formerly HR 297 which has now morphed into HR
    2640, the "National Instant Check System (NICS) Enhancement Act" --
    which would expand the scope of point-of-sale background checks to
    survey the new influx of mental health records provided by states. The
    Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued letters to state attorney
    generals requesting they voluntarily supply court-held health record
    data to the feds. So far only 23 states comply with those outlandish
    demands.

    This all came about when it was discovered that Virginia-Tech shooter
    Cho Seung-Hui had been known to have had received psychological
    treatment in his past and later legally purchased a handgun through NICS
    -- a gun he used to kill 33 people. Representatives from both sides of
    the aisle in congress "began negotiations" with NRA leadership to ram a
    gun control bill into law to "close the loophole."

    NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox claimed, "We've been on record for decades
    for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's
    not only good policy, it's good politics," he said.

    Not so fast, Mr. Cox. An honest examination of this multifaceted issue
    reveals that an expansion of NICS buys into a dangerous false premise
    for all gun owners concerned about their liberty and is not sound policy
    or good politics for the Second Amendment community or anyone else.
    Here's why gun owners must not only oppose expanding the NICS background
    check system, they must fight to repeal it.

    NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSING MENTAL ILLNESS

    Since 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) has utilized the
    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as its
    standard for defining, diagnosing and treating mental health disorders.
    Since its first printing, the manual has undergone five revisions, the
    most recent being the DSM-IV, which was finalized in 1994. Currently a
    fifth version is being prepared and is due out by 2012.

    Each new version contradicts the previous version; new authors with new
    perspectives and agendas write each new release. The standard keeps
    changing, shifting, sometimes radically so -- the result is that mental
    illness is never clearly or objectively defined. It is a moving target
    shaped by political and social pressures.

    "Following controversy and protests from gay activists at APA annual
    conferences from 1970 to 1973, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in
    1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After
    talks led by the psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who had been involved in
    the DSM-II development committee, a vote by the APA trustees in 1973,
    confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, replaced the diagnosis
    with a milder category of "sexual orientation disturbance."[1]

    In today's politically correct climate, the most recent version of the
    DSM-IV contains "no reference to homosexuality."[2]

    Which DSM was correct or were both wrong? One can easily see the danger
    this contradiction raises if these diagnoses were synced up with a gun
    owner database that acts as an automated judge, jury and executioner for
    the gun buyer. Such variance also calls into question the credibility of
    those who define mental illness. Psychiatrists can't even agree amongst
    themselves over a relatively short period of time on how to precisely
    define mental illness on any given issue. Thirty years ago no one heard
    the term "attention deficit disorder" or "post-traumatic stress
    disorder" -- today diagnoses for these new mental illnesses are commonplace.

    If NICS is expanded, expect entire groups of Wisconsinites to be denied
    their right to purchase a firearm. Legislation like this paints with a
    broad brush and will disarm many good people who should be able to buy
    handguns. One such group is veterans.

    "[NICS Expansion] could have a significant impact on American
    servicemen," wrote Gun Owners of America recently, "especially those
    returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric
    care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress
    disorder have been deemed as mentally 'incompetent' and are prohibited
    from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances
    certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration
    turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the
    NICS background check system."[3]

    In addition to political pressures shaping the subjective nature of the
    mental health field, biases influence the outcome of psychiatrists'
    opinions, too. "Furthermore the potential of conflict of interest has
    also been raised. Roughly 50% of the authors [of DSM] who previously
    defined psychiatric disorders have had or have financial relationships
    with drug companies." [4]

    While good science conducted objectively can yield good psychological
    evaluation and diagnosis, bad science fuels bad psychology rampantly and
    happens when the entire basis of diagnosis ebbs and flows with the
    political flavor of the day. The danger for misapplication here cuts
    across the spectrum.

    On one side of the spectrum: someone could be diagnosed today as
    "mentally defective" who would later be undiagnosed tomorrow based on
    which way the political or societal winds blow. In terms of the
    psychiatric standards themselves, which DSM was right? Before the
    politically correct movement gained steamed or after -- and which DSM
    will the NICS system rely upon -- the one that may disarm you, or the
    other that may not?

    NICS TRUMPS DUE PROCESS

    On the other end of the spectrum, there are cases where someone is
    guiltless and becomes guilty. For example, there are gun owners sitting
    in prison right now who are well familiar with the 1996 Lautenberg Act
    -- a federal gun control monster that essentially said that anyone who
    had been charged with misdemeanor domestic violence -- this could
    include an unsubstantiated allegation that you raised your voice to a
    family member who called 911 on you -- would result in your being
    disarmed for life.

    Like Lautenberg, the expansion of the NICS system involving mental
    health determinations for gun purchase disqualifications relies upon the
    mere assertion by a psychologist who must rely upon standards that do
    not remain constant when they adjudicate you "mentally defective." Once
    that diagnosis is made, you will not be able to buy a gun.

    This top-down approach establishes a federal system that automatically
    red flags based on a shocking amount of highly subjective data (as we
    have seen). The result is that you are instantly presumed guilty by the
    system without there having been any determination being made in a court
    of law to prove that -- a gross injustice and mockery of American
    jurisprudence.

    Certainly there are disturbed individuals that can be objectively
    determined to be incapable of possessing or buying guns; but that should
    be determined on a case by case basis, objectively, and by affording the
    individual their right to due process in a court of law.

    This is why we say that NICS itself is based on a dangerous false
    premise that paints with a broad brush, acts in a cold, robotic fashion
    that stomps due process. For this reason alone, NICS should be repealed,
    not expanded.

    Even if NICS could stop a minority of cases that were misdiagnosed, we
    would still have a larger issue in which our opponents would be pushing
    forward an agenda that strips away from that minority its due process.
    The solution is to let the State decide on a case by case basis from the
    ground up in a court of law, contingent upon a charge at the local
    level. This is good politics, good policy -- consistent with American
    liberty and yet still deals with the issue of preventing people with
    genuinely severe mental instabilities from buying guns (buying them
    illegally remains another matter).

    This stands in stark contrast to Mr. Cox's federal NICS gun control
    scheme -- a system that imposes itself upon State jurisdiction and
    enforces broad standards that infringe due process across the board.How
    many rights tantamount to proper jurisprudence are we willing to give up
    to continue to feed the belly of this federal leviathan, which will only
    further subvert due process for thousands, perhaps millions of gun owners?

    NICS IMPROPERLY SUBVERTS JURISDICTIONS

    One maxim of good political strategy is that we never allow the enemy to
    define the terrain of political battle. So let's back up: Are we gun
    owners asking the wrong question in the first place? Why are state
    representatives handing over our health record information here at home
    in Wisconsin to distant Washington, D.C., bureaucracies -- agencies that
    are coming in to steal not only your individual gun rights but the right
    of your State to protect you?

    It seems our state representatives are caving in to the federal bully --
    betraying their oath of office openly -- oaths sworn to uphold our State
    Constitution, which enumerates our right to keep and bear arms. The
    federal government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution and Bill
    of Rights and hence are limited by it.

    “This bill violates…Mack v USA (95-1503) which states that ‘State
    legislatures are not subject to federal direction,’” said Sheriff
    Richard Mack, who won that landmark case after he refused to allow the
    feds to compel him against his oath to conduct unconstitutional
    background checks.

    “The real irony here,” said Mack, “is that the NRA actually supported
    and helped fund this suit and now clearly supports Schumer and McCarthy
    as they violate the ruling the NRA helped pay to obtain in the first
    place. HR 2640 directs the states to take action and such laws run afoul
    of the separation of powers as set forth in the Tenth Amendment. I quote
    again from Mack v USA, ‘But the Constitution protects us from our own
    best intentions.’ I pray for the day when Congress and the NRA will
    abide by the law of the land as established by our Founders! How do you
    know the NRA is wrong on this law? When you notice that its primary
    supporters are Schumer and McCarthy.”

    Remember, that Supreme Court ruling on NICS remains in force. According
    to Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, it
    essentially said, "Congress cannot commandeer the resources of a state
    to do its anti-gun bidding. This decision breathes new life into the
    10th Amendment and our Republican form of government. The court ruled
    that the states cannot be compelled to perform background checks on gun
    purchasers," he wrote. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) concurs.

    Knowing that the states cannot be forced to operate the unconstitutional
    NICS scheme, the federal agencies that are pushing NICS and its
    expansion are using a carrot-and-stick approach to threaten states that
    they will withhold federal funding and other federal handouts. Our
    state representatives should do their jobs by standing up to the feds,
    instead of groveling at their feet.

    GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO NICS

    Perhaps Chris Cox and NRA leadership need their heads checked, as they
    are walking in lockstep with notorious anti-gun Democrats in congress on
    this issue. Their PR machine is revving up to sell NICS and its
    continued expansion to NRA members packaged as a reasonable way to stop
    the insane from buying handguns. [Remember NICS was Wayne LaPierre's idea. It was supposed to block the Brady Bill - which, of course, it didn't. Wayne has too much "political capital" invested in NICS to be able to impartially evaulate it.]

    But Cox is divisively out of accord with most gun owners and most other
    national and state gun rights organizations in our nation -- and in our
    view willfully neglecting the wishes of NRA members who want to
    preserve, rather than destroy, the Second Amendment. In our opinion, NRA
    leadership's support of NICS is almost certainly out of touch with the
    views of NRA members who, upon hearing the truth about this issue, will
    see NICS as the proverbial "Emperor with no clothes" that it is --
    compelling them to oppose it vehemently.

    "Calling NICS a background check is simply a deception: the Brady system
    is an elaborate scheme to register gun owners," said Dudley Brown,
    Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR)
    "And it's the foothold the gun-grabbers need to enact even further
    restrictions on our Second Amendment rights."Asking permission for a
    right -- which is what the Brady Registration Check does -- turns it
    into a government-administered privilege. How any 'gun rights group'
    could support it, or its expansion, is beyond me," Brown said.[5]

    In addition to national gun groups like NAGR and GOA opposing the NICS
    mental health expansion, Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) is unified
    with other state no compromise gun rights groups in our opposition. "The
    NRA will open a can of worms about what mental health is and who gets to
    decide who is mentally ill," said Ken Rineer, President of Gun Owners of
    Arizona. "In today's 'politically correct' society, do you really want a
    single judge deciding your mental competence to own a firearm? What is
    mental illness? Is it someone who is depressed and on meds? Our courts
    are not friendly to those who wish to own firearms and I would not want
    my right to own one left to a single person wearing a black robe!"

    New Hampshire gun owners killed a similar piece of legislation to the
    one Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling intends to foist upon us
    Badger State gun owners. "The bill in question was a blanket gun ban for
    anyone who had gone to a shrink for any reason," wrote Alan Rice,
    Treasurer of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition. "The definition and
    diagnosis of mental illness is so subjective."

    CONCLUSION

    Expanding the National Instant Check System is wrong for gun owners and
    dangerous for everyone else. We're the ones who are insane if we think
    the subjective field of diagnostic psychiatrics can be trusted to
    accurately define or diagnose mental illness in the first place.
    Once
    that dangerous premise is established, linking these spurious diagnoses
    with a federalized database scheme that trumps due process will only
    lead to more injustice for gun owners while criminals continue to
    subvert the system. Indeed, if we expand NICS to subsume all our private
    medical records into a state and national gun owner database, we gun
    owners aren't just nuts -- we've completely lost our minds.

    Corey Graff is the Executive Director of Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO)
    (wisconsingunowners.org), a registered Wisconsin lobbyist,
    nationally-published author, outdoor writer, photographer and Active
    Member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA).

    OBJECTIONS TO NICS OPPOSITION REFUTED

    OBJECTION: Even though criminals and mentally-defective individuals will
    avoid NICS to get their guns, since we have the system in place
    shouldn't we try to improve it? Shouldn't we try to stop the mentally
    ill from buying guns?

    RESPONSE: You just answered your own question, tacitly admitting that a
    diagnosis of mental illness will not necessarily prevent that individual
    from getting around the NICS system, thus conceding the worthlessness of
    NICS in the first place. How could a mentally-ill person buying a gun
    outside of a background check system use that gun to commit a crime if
    they are surrounded at all times by competent citizens with guns who
    know how to defend themselves? An armed society is a polite society. Gun
    control doesn't prevent crime, it facilitates it. The question you
    should be asking is, why have we disarmed our competent citizens to
    begin with?

    OBJECTION: Without the National Instant Check System, criminals could
    legally buy guns. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that
    since its inception in 1994, NICS has stopped "more than 600,000
    criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from
    FFLs."[6]

    RESPONSE: "The most comprehensive study of the Brady Act finds the law
    has not cut handgun killings.In fact, the law's main result is increased
    violence against women... 'We weren't able to see any effect on the
    homicide rate,' study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday. 'In
    retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent
    crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do
    not get their guns in legal ways,' said the Duke University researcher."[7]

    OBJECTION: NRA supports NICS and its expansion. If you're opposed to
    this 'reasonable' measure, does that mean you want someone diagnosed
    with severe schizophrenic disorder to be able to buy a handgun?

    RESPONSE: We don't want schizophrenics to buy handguns, and that's not
    the issue. We want a localized court of law to make that determination
    on a case by case basis through objective analysis and diagnosis -- to
    ensure the person's due process is upheld. NRA leadership appears to
    have lost their marbles -- standing shoulder to shoulder with anti-gun
    Democrats to expand an unconstitutional gun control law they themselves
    know by their own arguments can and will be subverted by those
    "adjudicated mentally defective" who are intent on committing a crime.

    ###
     
  2. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    My $0.02

    As if this bill would have stopped the dude at VT. He still would have been angry, aggressive, sucidial and dangerous. He could have just as easy driven his car into some function at the University... YOU CAN'T STOP CRIME. YOU, Government, Linda Brady, John Wayne CANNOT STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING.

    Learn the lessons that an event teaches.... Quit acting as if we have the control to stop things. If you REALLY WANT TO STOP BAD CRAP FROM HAPPENING, BUILD A FREAKING TIME MACHINE.

    That being said, I will write my senator. I doubt that will help, the sheeple have Baaaahhd. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Noxx

    Noxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    SoCal
    Please read the full text of this legislation, this doesn't amount to much better than the scaremongering we see from the other side.
     
  4. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    Agreed. But that's what GOA does best. The WI group's statement is so ridiculous and wrong.
     
  5. Chad

    Chad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    263
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Something I read earlier today applies...

    You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
    -President Lyndon Johnson
     
  6. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    New email from GOA

    Monday, June 18, 2007

    The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
    House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
    control law in over a decade."

    It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
    the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
    buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
    who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
    shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
    lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

    This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
    Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
    "No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

    But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
    list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
    that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
    with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

    Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
    Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
    come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
    background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
    passes [to impose additional gun control]."

    Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

    The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
    problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
    legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
    addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
    interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
    go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

    So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
    most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
    this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
    military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

    In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
    military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
    (PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
    were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
    them from buying or owning guns.

    For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
    illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
    future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
    her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
    of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

    Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
    -- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
    their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

    The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
    explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
    ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
    microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
    others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
    this.)

    How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
    from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
    to himself or others?

    And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
    looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
    then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
    clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
    which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
    are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
    repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
    name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
    be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

    So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
    charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
    "generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
    their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
    honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
    procedure created in 1986!

    But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
    debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
    have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
    even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
    bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
    yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

    Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
    unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
    SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
    "diagnosis."
    Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
    cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
    finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
    shouldn't)?

    Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
    bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
    military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
    their rights restored!

    Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
    more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
    First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
    sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
    later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

    Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
    banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
    drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
    will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
    "adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
    referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
    of insanity.

    Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
    that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
    authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
    how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
    especially when it comes to banning guns?

    After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
    passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
    traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
    from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
    (See footnotes below.)

    So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
    a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
    and so
    are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
    Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
    could also apply to these kids.

    Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
    Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
    thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
    child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
    key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
    determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

    You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
    Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
    since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
    that has become the new standard for banning guns.

    But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
    fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
    are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
    permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
    guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

    So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
    (dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
    risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
    "substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

    Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
    playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
    a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
    been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
    LIFETIME gun ban.

    This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
    reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
    Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
    with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
    list" (S. 1237).

    While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
    terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
    owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
    or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
    headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
    right now.

    NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
    sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
    properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
    federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
    where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
    clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
    enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
    look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
    Section 3 of the bill.

    Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
    BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
    law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
    it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
    as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
    AUTHORITY"
    (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
    others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
    May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
    have to
    be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
    "any danger" at all.
    How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
    doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

    FOOTNOTES:

    (1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
    people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

    (2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
    or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
    children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

    (3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
    PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
    or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).
     
  7. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    The Sky Is Falling!
    The Sky is Falling!


    Film at Eleven. :rolleyes:
     
  8. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    The following appears to be written in plain English rather than "legalese", the reading of which is sometimes problematic. H.R. 2640 can be read at thomas.loc.gov. Interested parties might also read S.1237, also at thomas.loc.gov, which appears worse. Judge for yourselves, but do not forget to contact your U.S. Senators.

    McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
    -- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in
    years

    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

    ACTION:

    1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
    which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
    Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
    but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
    Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
    have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!

    2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written
    letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
    alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
    remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
    crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
    law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
    Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding
    victims defenseless.


    Monday, June 18, 2007

    The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
    House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
    control law in over a decade."

    It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
    the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
    buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
    who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
    shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
    lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

    This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
    Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
    "No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

    But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
    list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
    that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
    with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

    Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
    Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
    come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
    background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
    passes [to impose additional gun control]."

    Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

    The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
    problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
    legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
    addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
    interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
    go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

    So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
    most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
    this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
    military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

    In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
    military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
    (PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
    were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
    them from buying or owning guns.

    For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
    illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
    future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
    her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
    of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

    Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
    -- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
    their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

    The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
    explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
    ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
    microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
    others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
    this.)

    How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
    from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
    to himself or others?

    And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
    looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
    then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
    clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
    which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
    are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
    repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
    name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
    be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

    So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
    charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
    "generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
    their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
    honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
    procedure created in 1986!

    But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
    debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
    have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
    even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
    bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
    yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

    Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
    unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
    SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
    "diagnosis."
    Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
    cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
    finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
    shouldn't)?

    Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
    bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
    military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
    their rights restored!

    Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
    more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
    First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
    sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
    later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

    Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
    banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
    drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
    will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
    "adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
    referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
    of insanity.

    Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
    that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
    authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
    how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
    especially when it comes to banning guns?

    After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
    passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
    traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
    from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
    (See footnotes below.)

    So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
    a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
    and so
    are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
    Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
    could also apply to these kids.

    Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
    Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
    thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
    child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
    key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
    determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

    You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
    Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
    since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
    that has become the new standard for banning guns.

    But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
    fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
    are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
    permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
    guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

    So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
    (dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
    risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
    "substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

    Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
    playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
    a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
    been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
    LIFETIME gun ban.

    This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
    reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
    Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
    with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
    list" (S. 1237).

    While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
    terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
    owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
    or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
    headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
    right now.

    NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
    sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
    properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
    federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
    where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
    clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
    enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
    look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
    Section 3 of the bill.

    Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
    BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
    law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
    it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
    as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
    AUTHORITY"
    (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
    others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
    May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
    have to
    be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
    "any danger" at all.
    How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
    doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

    FOOTNOTES:

    (1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
    people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

    (2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
    or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
    children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
    http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

    (3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
    PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
    or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

    CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
    Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
    the pre-written e-mail message below.

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

    Dear Senator:

    As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
    so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
    through the House last week.

    This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
    first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
    ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on
    the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).

    You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
    website of Gun Owners of America at
    http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.

    Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
    handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and
    object
    to any Unanimous Consent agreement.

    Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
    from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
    shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
    has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
    recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
    in England!

    If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
    consider this:

    "The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
    following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
    forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
    the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
    permanently removed from that system."

    Sincerely,
     
  9. .45&TKD

    .45&TKD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,077
    My AZ Senators already called and written to. Thanks.
     
  10. Chad

    Chad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    263
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Done and done!

    Weren't folks saying a while back that the democrats weren't going to do anything about gun control because they were afraid of it?

    Seems like they got over their fear.
     
  11. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,030
    Location:
    North Carolina
    For me, the surprising revelation about HR 2640 is how many people prefer to be fed an opinion rather than going to the source and developing their own.
     
  12. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    The GOP is not listening to us on Illegal Immigration.......will they listen to us on this??
    losing faith
     
  13. tecrsq

    tecrsq Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    North Georgia
    I got the same email from G.O.A. then promptly and tactfully rewrote the letter to my Politicians.

    Emails sent and I also forwarded it to all in my contacts list.
     
  14. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    Here's the key for those of you who love this bill.

    Voice votes in the Congress are always taken to provide "cover" from voter retaliation. In this case, cover for those who follow the NRA line.
     
  15. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    FUD.

    § 101(c)(1)(c) does not say that at all:
    This requires more than some "microscopic" risk.
    More FUD.

    § 105 explicitly does away the § 925(c) requirements for relief of disability for this particular disability and gives that power to the States. Bypasses Schumer altogether.

    Further, § 105 authorizes the States to use a board, commission, the Courts... Whatever the States decide to use. It won't necessarily cost anything. That would be entirely up to the individual States.

    And that's just 2 areas that the GOA is sooo wrong. I could go on and on. But what's the use? Some of you have simply bought into the GOA's paranoia and are spreading FUD.
     
  16. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    No "adjudication" required. Just someone's untested opinion.

    :cuss:
     
  17. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida
    Nothing new from the GOA. The same old the "sky is falling" and the "NRA is really an anti-gun organization" rhetoric:barf: They must be really hurting for members.
     
  18. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Please understand that GOA's legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill,"

    How many? Two or three it appears.

    John
     
  19. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Each new version contradicts the previous version"

    Nonsense. Changes have been made to the DSM over the years, but each new version does not contradict the previous one.


    "Voice votes in the Congress are always taken to provide "cover" from voter retaliation."

    Do you actually believe what you've written? Try googling voice votes. You'll find articles like this one on hospice care. Exactly who was afraid of voter retaliation on the issue of hospice care?

    "CONGRESS VOTES HIGHER PAYMENTS FOR HOSPICE CARE - New York Times. The measure was passed by voice vote of the Senate without debate. Last year Congress approved legislation to provide Medicare reimbursement for hospice ..."

    John
     
  20. .45&TKD

    .45&TKD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,077
    If NRA (with its larger membership) was as uncompromising as GOA we would be better off. This last house bill would never have gotten through without the NRA's help.
     
  21. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    No, if the NRA acted like GOA we would all be living under H.R.10/22 type legislation. The NRA has a relatively small membership( Only four million) yet they wield enormous political clout. The reason? They are willing to compromise when necessary. After the VT shootings, there were going to be gun control bills passed, it was just a measure of severity. The NRA worked hard and agreed on a comprise. If the NRA had taken GOA's no compromise approach, we would be looking at another ban on all high cap magazines.
     
  22. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    Double post. Some computer error, sorry.
     
  23. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I'm Pickin' Nail Shards Out From Between My Teeth!

    This is either the gun industry scaring us into buying massive numbers of arms before the hammer drops, or Congress looking to become that oligarchy they've always wanted to be. In either case, it's working and I'm buying arms. It's no longer a whim thing or a use of discretionary cash. It's now in the budget. If taxes go up, I'll downsize so that the arms budget won't suffer.

    The shame of it all is that I probably won't live long enough through confiscation to get to use them all. The wife and kids might, though!

    Woody


    "Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood
     
  24. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,030
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Really?

    6/12/2007 - H.R. 2637 (Child Labor Protection Act of 2007) - voice vote.
    6/12/2007 - H.R. 2358 (Native American $1 Coin Program) - voice vote.
    6/12/2007 - S. passed H.R. 57 (repealing sections of 5/26/1936 Act re: Virgin Islands) - unanimous consent.
    6/13/2007 - S. Res. 234 (National Huntington's Disease Awareness Day) - unanimous consent.
     
  25. .45&TKD

    .45&TKD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,077
    The democrats all thought that gun control was a loser going into an election cycle. That's why no one wanted to be on record for voting for this. If the NRA had not negotiated, there would not have been any gun control bill because of VT. Even the polls were on our side.

    The pro-gun owners that believed the above quote got suckered. Unfortunately, every time you get suckered, we all lose.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page