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

Gun Owners of America ^ | Sept. 5, 2007

[processing please hold]

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.

TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS

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.

GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD

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.

The new language on the 4473 form asks:

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."

MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF

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).

[tpaine]

spunkets makes up Constitutional law:

A felon's loss of rights is permanent, and that concept was retained from old English common law.

Like most of your legalistic pronouncements on this thread, the above is total BS.

As previously cited [#116]:

"--- Let's take as an example what is possibly the most bedrock "common sense" gun control restriction on the books: the prohibition against the ownership or possession of firearms by convicted felons.

By "convicted felons" we mean those who have been convicted of a felony, but are no longer serving time or on probation, and have been released back into society.

There seems to be no comprehensive historical or legal investigation of this exception. The restriction seems not to have existed at the time the right to keep and bear arms was memorialized in the 1689 English or 1789 American Bill of Rights. The great commentator on the English common law, Sir William Blackstone, makes no reference to such an exception. ---"

I was talking about attainder, --
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.

More legalistic BS. -- You can't name one State that uses the concept of "attainer" to prohibit the possession of guns or the right to vote, -- can you?

Perhaps you were trained in Scottish law?

[spunkets]

"If sales had been banned for a year, would that have been an infringement?

Obviously.

... by what means would you determine whether or not a temporary sales ban constitutes an "infringement"?"

I explained that in #134. Here it is again: "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." It's that simple. Note that none of this background check stuff was feasible w/o violating the 2nd Amend previously. It was the advent of HS dbases that made this system possible. So the rough references for how fast is good enough, and how slow amounts to a violation of rights exist. The check is called an instant check, because it occurs in a time that's on the order of loading a page on FR. If the dbase, search engine, or server go down, the industry std for the time to get it back up applies to whether, or not the govm'ts playing games, or it's a tech glitch.

[spunkets]

"You can't name one State that uses the concept of "attainer" to prohibit the possession of guns or the right to vote, -- can you?"

WI.

[tpaine]

Cite your claim.

[spunkets]

"By "convicted felons" we mean those who have been convicted of a felony, but are no longer serving time or on probation, and have been released back into society."

Certain finacial crimes classed as felonies are exempt under fed law.

"There seems to be no comprehensive historical or legal investigation of this exception. "

that you found. Try harder.

"The great commentator on the English common law, Sir William Blackstone, makes no reference to such an exception."

So?

[supercat]

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.

I should have specifically answered above in my previous post, but I hit 'post' too soon. Suppose the government had decided to perform the update in such a fashion as to require a week of downtime? A month of downtime? A year of downtime? With a little of work, any desired amount of downtime could have been justified, especially if things were to "unexpectedly" go wrong.

The system took days to upgrade because those in power wanted to ban all gun sales for a few days and probably wouldn't have minded if they were shut down even longer. I see no reason a minimal-downtime upgrade wouldn't have been fairly easy:

1. Create a blank database in the new format.
2. Write database-update routines that will update both the old and new databases, but can be switched to update the new one only. The update routine for the new database should mark records deleted, rather than physically deleting them. It should also log all transactions.
3. Test thoroughly to confirm that they work.
4. Start using that new database-update routine in place of the old ones.
5. Write database-query routines that will perform any necessary queries on the old and new database simultaneously.
6. Test thoroughly to confirm that they work.
7. Start using the new query routines in place of the old ones.
8. Stop updates to the old database (this step may be before or after the next; each approach has pros and cons)
9. Start copying the old database to the new one, giving priority to any data in the new one (including the fact that if a record exists in the old database but a corresponding "deleted" record exists in the new one, the record should not be copied).
10. Compare the data in the databases to confirm that any differences are a result of logged transactions that occurred after the old one was no longer being updated.
11. Stop using the old database for queries; just use the new one.

Performing all those steps may take longer than four days, but the only downtime required would be whatever was necessary to switch from one program to another. No time at all in a well-designed system; a few minutes at most in a halfway-decently-designed system.

The approach of "shut down everything, do a big update, and hope things come up a few days later" may seem easier, but disasters are far more likely than with the careful incremental approach. Using the incremental approach, if something goes wrong, there's always an easy fallback point. With the massive-shutdown approach, if things don't work, getting things back up may be a problem.

[dcwusmc]

Attainder is not and has never been part of the American tradition. And until GCA ‘68, released convicts who had served their sentences DID have their rights restored. Especially their RKBA. Even in the old west, when someone left the territorial prison, he was handed his pistol and cartridge belt on departure. You are so deluded it’s amazing... and your contortions in denying truth are so cute to watch!!!

[spunkets]

"With a little of work, any desired amount of downtime could have been justified, especially if things were to "unexpectedly" go wrong."

No, a week of downtime proves serious ineptitude and shows a complete lack of the skills required to maintain such a system.

"Performing all those steps may take longer than four days, but the only downtime required would be whatever was necessary to switch from one program to another. No time at all in a well-designed system; a few minutes at most in a halfway-decently-designed system."

I don't think all those steps are necessary and it takes at least more than a day to do what they said. 3 days is not unreasonable.

[supercat]

"There seems to be no comprehensive historical or legal investigation of this exception. "

that you found. Try harder.

Are you specifically aware of such investigations? If so, pointing tpaine toward them would be more helpful than merely telling him to "try harder", would it not? And if you're not specifically aware of them, on what basis do you so assert their existence?

Certainly there are times when evidence may prove the existence of something without providing much information about it. If you have that sort of evidence, perhaps you should share it; tpaine might be more willing to expend real effort searching for such investigations if he had some reason to believe that they actually existed.

[spunkets]

"Attainder is not and has never been part of the American tradition."

Wrong. see hte various prohibitions placed on felons, like the right to vote and licencing restrictions.

"And until GCA ‘68, released convicts who had served their sentences DID have their rights restored."

No. They were simply not effected by legislative action. In this case, their gun right.

"You are so deluded it’s amazing... and your contortions in denying truth are so cute to watch!!!"

Whatever chief.

[tpaine]

Our Rights Are Absolute, But Not For [Felons] Public Safety
Address:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910641

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you answer the above? -- I doubt you will even try.

AS cited at #116:

"--- By "convicted felons" we mean those who have been convicted of a felony, but are no longer serving time or on probation, and have been released back into society. --"

Certain finacial crimes classed as felonies are exempt under fed law.

Big deal. -- You can't refute the facts in the article cited, and you intent to play games?

"--- There seems to be no comprehensive historical or legal investigation of this exception. ---"

that you found. Try harder.

The article has more; -- you can't refute them, so you're gonna play games. How pitiful.

"--- The great commentator on the English common law, Sir William Blackstone, makes no reference to such an exception. ---"

So?

So how silly do you want to look?

[supercat]

No, a week of downtime proves serious ineptitude and shows a complete lack of the skills required to maintain such a system.

How do you figure that a week would represent ineptness but three days does not? How big a database are we talking about here? And how many queries per hour? Even if the information had to be transfered from one system to another using floppy disks I don't understand what should take three days.

I don't think all those steps are necessary and it takes at least more than a day to do what they said. 3 days is not unreasonable.

The steps I indicated could easily take more than three eight-hour days (especially if one only had one or two people working on it), but the time would be a non-factor since the system would remain operational. The changeover could be done in fewer steps, but the steps would have been more complicated and harder to describe/understand. Besides, some of those steps would take at most a minute or two to perform.

The only reason I can see for having to take the system down for several days would be that the people were upgrading the "live" database directly rather than working on a copy. And if they were doing that, I would question their competence.

[dcwusmc]

Since that’s your contention, how about providing proof? Like cites of the applicable laws, for example, and when they were enacted, you know, just to keep yourself honest. Because I think you are lying out your @ss for some reason... so, since you made the claim, back it up.

[spunkets]

"Big deal. -- You can't refute the facts in the article cited, and you intent to play games?"

I already did. The concept of attainder applies. That's a concept that Jeff Snyder is ignorant of and you chose to ignore.

[dcwusmc]

Provide citations for your contention. PROVE it. Where are the cites of applicable laws??? Could it be that there are none because you are pulling all this out of your butt? Where’s the PROOF?

[tpaine]

As cited at #116:

"--- By "convicted felons" we mean those who have been convicted of a felony, but are no longer serving time or on probation, and have been released back into society. --"

Certain finacial crimes classed as felonies are exempt under fed law.

Big deal. -- You can't refute the facts in the article cited, and you intent to play games?

I already did. The concept of attainder applies.

You can't cite where, - in Wisconsin law - or in any State, - the concept is applied.
-- More silly games.

That's a concept that Jeff Snyder is ignorant of and you chose to ignore.

Enlighten us all then.. Can you back up your 'concept'? I'll bet you won't.

[editor-surveyor]

"Is This True??"

Yes, it's absolutely true. This has been building for several years. Some states have bveen trying to get military medical records since about ten years ago, so that they can disqualify vets from gun ownership. Now the dummacrap congress is fixing to make it national.

[spunkets]

"How do you figure that a week would represent ineptness but three days does not? "

Experience.

"How big a database are we talking about here? And how many queries per hour?"

Doesn't matter, and I'm not going into tech side track here. I want to know how an instant background check is a infringement on anyone's rights.

[editor-surveyor]

"Look,... in terms of what they've actually accomplished the GOA can't hold a candle to the NRA."

Forget the candle; let's use a torch. The NRA has always been an elitist pro gun control bunch of tyrants. They're the ones that have a campaign to get enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws. I left the NRA in '96 and I'm not going back. The GOA is all we've got.

[spunkets]

"You can't cite where, - in Wisconsin law - or in any State, - the concept is applied."

I already did, in a post to you. WI prohibits felons from voting and prohibits felons from possessing guns.