Veterans Disarmament Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
http://newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm

VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS


By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.

Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.

But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred *for life * from owning guns.



Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.

Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.



If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act -- misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act -- will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished."
 
But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

Well if what this article says is true then yes its disgusting, but I'm not sure if the proposed legislation is as bad as this article portrays it.

Frankly you are going to have a hard time arguing that anyone judged "mentally defective" should be able to own firearms.

The real question is why in the world something like PSTD would make someone be judged "mentally defective".

The writer of this article would have you believe that a diagnosis of PTSD does that, but I can't find that to be true in reading around.
I see no language here that mentions PTSD specifically. If a shrink diagnoses a patient as a mental defective, dangerous to himself or others, then how you gonna fairly make a loophole that says "well this person is a danger to themselves in my medical opinion but since they are a Veteran it's OK". The real fight here is to keep PTSD from being a cause for adjudication of "defective".

Not saying it's not the case but this article seems to have lots of inflammatory stuff but cites no sources of fact.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

Looked all over their website too, can't find a single mention of this anywhere.
 
Last edited:
If it is true, it makes a certain sense.

After all, who is more likely to end up home with a profound distaste for whatever the current administration is after they get pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan with the job undone?

I imagine the idea of well trained and motivated former military personnel who feel betrayed and excoriated and who have already been classified as murderers and thugs by the media and their own superiors would scare the **** out of most politicians.

If history has taught us anything, it's that rousing the ire of the sheepdogs often ends up poorly for the sheep. This seems to be an attempt to nip that sort of situation in the bud.
 
Well the idiot that wrote that article isn't interested in the truth at all. For example he makes comments about expunging records from NICS, and claims that Schumer (alone presumably the way it's written :rolleyes: ) barred funds from being used to do that. However, the reality is legislation was enacted by Congress that barred ATF from processing applications for relief from firearms disabilities, which is NOT merely a NICS issue.


If this idiot can't get the basic facts related to relief from firearms disabilitiy straight, why should I believe anything else the blowhard has to say?

Why does this is fool write such inflammatory BS? I suspect it has something to do with the link in the middle of the article that is activated by clicking on the image at that says, "Please Support News With Views, Click Here To Donate."

:barf:
 
Read full text of bill. It doesn't say that. Not remotely.

Good thing too, for those of us who had an um, tumultuous adolescence.
 
What I'm worried about is not only the taking away of gun rights. I have oen friend who didn't go to the doc when he got back from OIF because he was worried about this. So how many vets now are going to skip out on needed help so that they don't lose their rights?
 
The only firearms-related law we need is the Second Amendment.

No question, but we're stuck with a rather large number of them already and I don't see a campaign to remove them all having much success.

Anytime one comes along that appears to relieve any of the outrageous BS at all it's tempting to look into.

From all appearances this one looks like it has some small benefits.
 
The initial bill has been revised in the house enough that it no longer says anything remotely close to that. Look it up http://thomas.loc.gov, and be sure to check the final draft, which should be the top link of the three.

In particular, the following definitions and exclusions are the meat of the issue:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code.

And...

(c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health-

(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.
And....

(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, AND COMMITMENTS-

(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.

(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A), the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.


Now...the relief from disabilities was likely being seen in the article as what it currently is. It exists, but is not funded. I'm sure there's a lawsuit somewhere for that. No funding, or inadequate funding of a program that causes it to fail in it's job is the same as not having a program at all.

You can read for yourself the meat of the bill. The rest is simply funding and penalties for failure of states to comply.

I highlighted in red the portion that I find the most usefull to this discussion. By that wording, anyone who has been released from supervison for their condition is not to have their info transmitted. This would include Vets that have previously seen a shrink or otherwise been treated for PTSD, and have been released from treatment. Those who are still seeing a doctor or counselor for this condition are put into the system. The presumption is that the info should be removed once the treatment is complete, but I don't see a written provision on that, which is concerning. You could legally work to have it removed under the relief clause, but that shouldn't be the required format for that.

The biggest problem I see here is that it's forcing the states to comply, requiring a lot of money, and it still would not stop anyone from committing a crime with a gun. That and the lack of info or requirements of the government for relief..... I can see this going through and then some wording change later that screws everyone.
 
As an active duty member of the Marine Corps, I have to say that this will backfire in the face of America. Instead of seeking the help that my brothers and sisters in arms may need or deserve to cope with PTSD, some of them will just keep it all inside not wanting to give up their 2A rights. Now imagine that for a moment. Thousands of men and women with a treatable condition just going about pretending everything is normal. When you keep something like that inside, you're asking for problems; hypertension leading to heart attacks, suicides, homeless vets who can't keep down a job...the list goes on.
 
And how many will enlist willingly in an army that would all but ensure 2nd ammendment rights being stripped from them if these enlistees see action?
 
Groan. We've been through all this before. Pratt's characterization is alarmist, misleading, hyperbole, and dishonest.

K
 
Kinda like after the French and Indian war the British had the problem of a bunch of Americans who were well trained, armed, and didn't like the government. If I was a government I would be scared too.
 
Look folks, this bill is HR 2640 which is now in the Senate....anyone remember the Commotion about the NICS Improvement Bill a few weeks back? This is the bill.....

GOA did the same "Sky is falling" announcement recently.

Personally I OPPOSE the bill because in Principal I oppose ANY expansion/legitimization of Gun Laws so......you decide....
 
We covered this when GOA pulled their chicken little shtick over the same bill.

Opposing gun legislation is one thing, but read the text of the proposed law before taking hyperbole like this at anything approaching face value.
 
No more GOA press releases without some review via such as Thomaslocator, etc. No more inflammatory rhetoric, either.

Discussion of any bill, and discussion, not ranting? Fine and dandy.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top