Posted on 07/19/2007 5:14:06 PM PDT by looscnnn
McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE
Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in jeopardy once again!
You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640) without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it on the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.
An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.
But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!
So it's not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislative process, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR 2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after an offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg Community College in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in that state.
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was arrested, but not charged with anything.
The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say. But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR 2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy bill. Right?
Well, think again.
DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?
The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders (such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a tyrannical American government?
Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting a detailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make a statement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'd blow him away!"
Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts think you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to others?
Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2) codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code says it only takes a "lawful authority" to "adjudicate" someone as a mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear this "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)
Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years, but they've been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not statutory law).
But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF THE LAND -- even though those regs were never submitted to a legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can fall into this category of "other lawful authority" that can deem someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.
But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A school counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city councilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their own right. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?
Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of what the words "lawful authority" in 27 CFR 478.11 mean -- once they have been "statutized" by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?
If the "lawful authority" thinks you pose a danger to yourself or others (or can't manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could be gone.
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 -- using the Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?
As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.
HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politician nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing psychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over. Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See 27 CFR 478.11. (2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hanging their hat on language which purports to help disqualified people to get their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on its website that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun owners of the dangers in HR 2640. Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of the bill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made by proponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of being disqualified for buying a gun, and more.
Bang!
From their July 19th alert http://www.gunowners.org/a071907.htm
UPDATE: In our previous alert, we told you about Horatio Miller of Pennsylvania, who lost his gun rights after being involuntarily committed for essentially making an off handed comment (saying that it could be worse than VA Tech if someone broke into his car). He was not charged with a crime, but the local district attorney had him involuntarily committed anyway.
Subsequent news articles indicate that Miller, among other things, may have made inappropriate remarks to his neighbors in the past, as the police had previously been called to his home to investigate. But what’s significant is that he was never charged with any crimes (prior to his being involuntarily committed). No charges were ever leveled and his concealed carry permit was never revoked. Nevertheless, if it turns out that Miller is an obnoxious individual (and not a suitable example), one should still understand that this man initially got zapped without due process. That is the key point here. The truth of the information about his other behavior — if it’s true — and an assessment of him being a danger, should have been determined in a court of law. Our gun rights should not hang on the whims of an anti-gun district attorney!
The Miller case illustrates the danger presented by the McCarthy legislation. HR 2640 would, for the first time, statutorily make a battle-scarred veteran (suffering from Post Traumatic Stress) or a troubled school kid (who was considered a problem on the playground but later grew up just like everyone else) a “prohibited person” based solely on a diagnosis by a shrink. Again, lose your guns — forever — without due process in court. (See more specifics on this legislation by going to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm and check out “What Others are Saying about HR 2640.”)
ACTION: Senator Sam Brownback is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. He is also a candidate for President. This is a perfect opportunity for a Senator like Brownback, who wants to solicit gun owners’ support from around the country, to stand up for the Second Amendment. Ask him to not only oppose this bill, but to solicit others on the committee to join him as well. You can use the letter below to help direct your comments to Senator Brownback.
That's ugly. I think the citizen in question has a ripe lawsuit-to-be. What a major abuse of power.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will finally settle this issue once and for all by finding in our favor! Then these anti gunners can kiss off.
Since I live in Penn I better not say what I’m thinking because I’ll be off to to the gulug. But I can imagine a a future in which there is justice for what has become all too commonplace... This kind of over the top frivilous prosecution seems to happen a lot here.
Doctor wants me to get counseling for whatever happened in my past. No way I’m letting that happen to take away my right to own a gun.
What was it Mark Twain siad?
“No man is safe when Congress is in session?”
Or was it “No freedom is safe when Congress is in session?”
Both fit
I’m not going to go and drop my NRA life membership or anything, but if I didn’t have one I certainly wouldn’t join up now.
Yes, 2640 is a bad bill, and I am disappointed that the NRA supports it.
Moreover, if something horrific ever happened to you, even if you were perfectly innocent...you’re expected to have post-traumatic stress disorder and assorted psychological damage. And if you don’t, that’s mighty peculiar too!
Either way, the experts will conclude you shouldn’t be owning guns after something like THAT.
And Penn was on my families list to move to if we bail Mi. Guess we better keep looking.
save
There is an interesting parallel between MI and PA; my best friend lives there and I have visited a bit. Both states are mostly rural, but have a lot of stupid laws passed because of the liberal cities. But it is more than that, I feel very much at home in rural MI, the people there are a lot like us rednecks here. I wouldn’t move here, it is really changing quickly in the last ten years. We already have “hate laws” that turn misdemeanor crimes into felonies if hate against protected groups is an element of the “crime” (including the usual suspects, but also fat people!! “What are you in for LambSlave” “I called Bill a lard a$$, now I’m a felon”), increasing taxes, and more gun laws/restrictions/bacground checkes, and overzealous prosecution of a gazillion codes and ordinances. Wyoming seems nice when I’m out there :-)
I wish it were that simple. But even if SCOTUS finds firearms ownership to be an individual right, it will still be under assault since, by precedent, the government can regulate rights "in the public interest."
Free speech is a right, but there are limitations (inciting a riot -- unless you are inciting a racially-based riot -- is prohibitied). Freedom to worship as you choose is a right, but there are limitations (human sacrifice is definitely a no-no).
So even if the 2nd is upheld as an individual right by SCOTUS, the anti-gunners will continue to work at infringing in any way they can, such as exhaustive product liability requirements, technilogically unfeasible requirements such as cartridge "micro-stamping." The list continues ad nauseum.
All from them.
It is an expansion of the Brady law, which at one time on this site was called gun control. Now we have people on this site that state that 2640 is not gun control. It may not be a new gun control law, but it does expand a gun control law. So that should make this gun control by virtue of what it does.
Then we have people for it because it allows people to clean their names off the list if it there incorrectly, etc. They currently have the means to do it, but if you want to make it easier do it without expanding a BS law.
We are Upper as in Peninsula rural rednecks. Will scratch off Penn and look West or a little South. Had a good friend in Cody years (decades) ago but he has apparently moved on - perhaps the Brown in KR&B of recent fame.
Sorry to hear you’re losing your beautiful state to liberalism.
And thanks for the heads up.
SC is a place to consider (I was kinda forced down here from MI back in 2002), miss the snow @ Christmas time), TX also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.