As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes Of Relief For Gun

Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to make the same mistakes in the future.

Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy guns.

For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years past.)

Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners (and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament Bill now.

Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to all kinds of abuses.

The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses. After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question answers itself.

Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?

Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament Bill) to fix the problem!!!

So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:

* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder;
* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance);
* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny guns to as many people as possible.

A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a significant number of Americans from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.

Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).

Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which is illegal.

And then there's the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of 1996.

Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v. United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling, and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's gun rights.

Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs)....

Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful authority." Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court "ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.

This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a potential danger to themselves or others.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored -- even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy piece entitled, Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640.

In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was always an expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans Disarmament Act will be the same.

Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security. The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.

If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath waiting for the promised relief.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

Otherwise, I'd have seen an explaination of how an instant background check violates anyone's rights.

If there were some way of conducting an "instant background check" such that:

There was no feasible way that it could be used to block the purchase of firearms by people whose RKBA had not been revoked under due process of law, and
There was no feasible way that it could be used to inform the government of who exactly had exercised their RKBA

then I don't think people here would particularly mind it. All current systems, however, flunk both those requirements; since governments have demonstrated an overt willingness to abuse the illegitimate powers they gain thereby, I see no reason to trust them.

A more reasonable "background check" would be as follows:

People who are forbidden from acquiring weapons are marked for the duration of such disability with some sort of anklet, bracelet, or other such device which will signal authorities if it is removed.
Authorities regularly broadcast photos and any other available information about fugitives, including felons who have removed their bracelets.
If someone tries to purchase a firearm and that person isn't wearing an anklet/bracelet and isn't listed as a fugitive, the purchase goes ahead.

Of course, since the government doesn't gain the illegitimate powers they get from the current system, I don't think it'd go for such a scheme.

"Really? Prior to the invention of fingerprinting, there was no reliable way to tell whether a particular person had ever been convicted of a crime,"

Ridiculous. Folks were always known by name and facial recognition. Do you think wives check fingerprints to make sure it's their husband in bed with them? I saw wanted posters from old England. They were written and the person was referred to by name and description.

"The notion that old English common law would have required background checks for people to acquire weaponry when such checks would not be even remotely technologically feasible until over a century later is rather preposterous."

I was talking about attainder, not background checks. Attainder means that a felon forfeits their rights forever. That's the concept that provides for and justifies prohibiting their possession of guns, and in some states, their right to vote.

The system was scheduled to be down for 3 days at around the start of hunting season. I don't see that as a real denial of right, but an inconvenience. The existence of the system itself does not deny any right.

A right delayed is a right denied. If the denial of all firearm sales for three days does not constitute an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms, what exactly would?

"WRT most of your drivel, others have debunked you. "

Yeah, whatever. Where's the explaination of how a background check violates anyone's rights?

"PROVE IT. Otherwise, your spiel is just so much eyewash."

That's right, now provide the explanation, or your claim applies to everything you say.

"That you continue to rationalize this sort of thing makes you one dangerous and deluded dude (or dudette) and thus not qualified to own a firearm."

Yeah, whatever. Where's the meat?

If I had ten "wanted" posters, it would not be difficult for me to ascertain whether any of them look like the newcomer who's a job in exchange for room and board. Such facial recognition is only workable, however, when the number of faces to check against is reasonably small. Checking to see if the newcomer was among the thousands of felons who had been convicted over the years would be so impractical as to be essentially impossible.

How would that have been enforced, realistically? Branding convicted felons would have been a possible means, but I'm unaware of that having been a common practice. Do you think the government continually distributed portraits of everyone who had been convicted of a felony in the last forty years?

You are talking about a bill of attainder? Something specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution? Here’s some info on attainders: http://tinyurl.com/49yar

Note that they may not ever be passed, just as with ex-post-facto laws...

Dude (or dudette), you are so busted!!!

"A right delayed is a right denied. "

Only in the modern theory of instant gratification.

"If the denial of all firearm sales for three days does not constitute an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms, what exactly would?"

Did you read my last post to you? Note the contrast between the NO aciton and Rendell's PA action. There's a world of difference. There's also a world of difference when the right infringed more. or less completely, as in DC, CA, MA, NY, NJ, IL, ect...

"You are talking about a bill of attainder? Something specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution?"

No. A bill of attainder is completely different. A bill of attainder is an act of a legislative body that denies, or infringes on the rights of one, or more specific persons, that are singled out from the citizenry. It's a violation of the concept of equality under the law.

"Dude (or dudette), you are so busted!!!"

Hardly.

"How would that have been enforced, realistically?"

I explained that. Realistically, it was only monied folks, or those with former power they were concerned about. Those few weren't hard to handle to keep from regaining their former status. Attainder isn't about guns, it's a concept that concerns rights. It means felons forfeit their inherent, inaleinable rights, which are recognized after conviction, according to the court, or in a fashion that violates the concept of equality under the law, by the legislature(s).

"A right delayed is a right denied. "

Only in the modern theory of instant gratification.

That exact language may not have been used until the Civil Rights era (don't know if it was or not), but the concept is hardly new. But I'm curious--suppose Pennsylvania had taken down the system for a week. Would that have infringed anybody's RKBA? What if it was for a month? A year? A decade? A century? If there is some time interval between three days and a century that makes a delay become an infringement, exactly how long is it and on what basis do you make that determination?

Did you read my last post to you? Note the contrast between the NO aciton and Rendell's PA action. There's a world of difference.

The NO action was clearly an infringement of rights. I fail to see how that in any way, shape, or form implies that the Pennsylvania action was not.

"So you are saying that one is tainted forever by conviction of a crime?"

Yes. It's also obviously true in more than the concept of attainder embraces.

"That would also be covered under the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause... "

Ridiculous.

LOL!

I explained that. Realistically, it was only monied folks, or those with former power they were concerned about.

So you're saying that most felons didn't lose their rights--it was only those who were particularly at risk of gaining power? I could believe that, but fail to see how it helps your case.

"I fail to see how that in any way, shape, or form implies that the Pennsylvania action was not."

Explain how the PA action infringed on the right to keep and bear arms in any significant way.

"If there is some time interval between three days and a century that makes a delay become an infringement, exactly how long is it and on what basis do you make that determination?"\

A rational point of distinction can be made by examining the purpose of the interruption, the timing, and the by considering what a reasonable period of time to accomplish the tech correction is. IMO, Rendell was simply rattling the cages of the perpetual whiners. Could be that the PA system sucked so bad, the admins did an emergency fix, before it failed at a busier time during the season. In either case, the stated intent and the budgeted time says repair and inconvenience, not rights violation.

I like EdReforms comments in #47 I belong or contribute to GOA, JPFO, and SAF, I just have had long term problems with NRA, and I have really tried. I do belong to a local NRA affiliated club, sort of have to in order to shop or buy through CMP. I do believe they all serve a purpose in the fight to retain that which the founders worked so hard to give us.

When I first read this article, I mused that a much simpler and effective solution, would be to hang the two authors for their arrogant stupidity, making them an example of what should happen to every single individual proposing to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America, and the safety of it’s citizens.

Thanks for the ‘polite’ complement, hope this answer doesn’t put me in the “over the top” category. I don’t suffer idiocy very well, and Mrs McCarthy ought to know full well what anyone with a weapon would have been able to do for her husband and son while they were being gunned down along with many others on the evening train.

"So you're saying that most felons didn't lose their rights--it was only those who were particularly at risk of gaining power?"

Regaining power. I never studied the application much, just noted some examples.

"I could believe that, but fail to see how it helps your case."

Attainder justifies all felons, or some felons by class, loss of gun rights by the legislature at an time post conviction, even decades after their conviction. It does not in any way justify Lautenberg, which is a legal abomination.

This law is specific and limited.

Really?

All law, subject to review, revision, change, interpretation, to be uses as a weapon, against the citizens, once on the books, like figures or statistic, can so easily be manipulated for what ever purpose those in power desire. Like the decision to limit machine gun purchase to guns of an earlier era. So that citizens do not have access to the same weapon technology as the government or it’s officers, in their many uniforms.

Explain how the PA action infringed on the right to keep and bear arms in any significant way.

If sales had been banned for a year, would that have been an infringement? If not, by what means would you determine whether or not a temporary sales ban constitutes an "infringement"? It is you, not I, who insists that such a distinction must exist.

"All law, subject to review, revision, change, interpretation, to be uses as a weapon, against the citizens, once on the books, like figures or statistic, can so easily be manipulated for what ever purpose those in power desire...

That's a rather inaccurate and definitely perverted picture of US law and the Constitution itself, which is the foundational law. Your comments can only apply to authoritarian political persuations, which are ultimately based on the sentiments of the people.

Remember that most of those gun owners are terrified of the 2300 BATFE jack booted thugs and their questionable and violent tactics.

On the other hand, Len Savage of Historic Arms, LLC. is one of the true heroes. He’s smacked the BATFE and their constantly reversing positions silly in the last couple of years and the heat on them is only going to go up.

Stop the BATFE, and you’ll see a drastic change in gun owner participation in politics. Sadly, the NRA has been instrumental in stopping several attempts at getting Congress to look into the BATFE and their actions. If they can accomplish this, they could accomplish a lot of good. Why aren’t they?

I don’t mean to antagonize you, I am asking a serious question. I’ve been told many things by NRA board members, some of which is very contradictory and concerning. I’d really like some answers from them and they refuse to give them.

Mike

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.