Threat to vets' 2nd Amendment rights on hold

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | October 6, 2007 | Not attributed

[editor-surveyor]

An anchor has been attached to a proposal in the U.S. Senate that will slow down progress on the plan that could be used to permanently remove a person's right to own a gun in the United States, according to an organization opposing the measure.

Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, told WND that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has attached a "hold" to the plan, H.R. 2640, dubbed the "Veterans Disarmament Act," which means that while the bill remains alive, its advance will be delayed considerably.

Pratt's group earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also are being joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and now the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

Jump

..."But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."

[Shooter 2.5]

Try again. Post the bill.

[Ron H.]

Which is another reason why I'm stocking up on black guns and ammo.

And not stored in any one place.

[BCR #226]

Ever tried calling the NRA’s legislative counsel? Don’t sing it’s praises unless you’ve been down the road with them. I helped a very close friend when the NRA told him to take a hike.

Tell ya what, want me to acknowledge the NRA as a great entity? Get them to do the one thing that GOA has accomplished time and time again. Get the NRA to do it just once. Get them to not compromise on a good gun bill. Get them to stand strong just once.

Mike

[2nd amendment mama]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - The NRA is the Jesse Jackson of the gun rights movement. They have to keep the “peons down on the plantation” in order for them to sit in their plush ivory tower in Fairfax and pay themselves huge salaries.

[processing please hold]

Thanks.

[Gilbo_3]

There isn’t anything in this bill that would have stopped veterans from losing their Rights.

Freudian slip ???

Seriously and honestly though, does anyone think that whatever the damn bill says matters to the sleezes in DC ???they cant even acknowlege the plain wording of the 2A.

the years of lawyering needed to battle any gun laws are a waste of time & money.

compromise is infringement...chuckie is winning by a thousand cuts...

[Shooter 2.5]

The NRA legislative Legal counsel was able to get a guy’s guns back when he was traveling through New York with his guns. The NRA is involved with sixty cases right now. What does the GOA do? Nothing.

The NRA is suing New Orleans with the Second Amendment Foundation. What did the GOA do? Nothing.

Manufacture’s Protection Act? The NRA helped pass the bill. What did the GOA do? Nothing.

CCW Laws? The NRA again. What did the GOA do? They were kicked out of the Michigan negotiations because they said CCW laws are unconconstitutional. Did that help get the bill passed? Nope. Again, the GOA did nothing.

Does the dem party blame the GOA for the lack of gun control? Nope. They blame the NRA.

The GOA is a family owned t-shirt and novelties company.

[Shooter 2.5]

Freudian slip ???

Eye surgery yesterday.

[editor-surveyor]

That is the bill moron.

You are nothing but a loud mouth liar.

Everything that you have claimed here is categorically false, as usual.

[editor-surveyor]

The NRA has never accomplished anything for gun rights.

All they ever do is divert badly needed money from gun rights to fancy buildings and glitzy trips for tyrants.

GOA and JFPO are the only reliable effective orgs around.

Try brain surgery tomorrow.

[ottersnot]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Not the least those who give all for that freedom.

[BykrBayb]

How many times do you need it posted? Here it is from the Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2640_ih.xml . Here it is again, from the Government Printing Office Web Site. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2640eh.txt.pdf .

[Gilbo_3]

Hope it was routine [easy]surgery and all is healing well...

[SERE_DOC]

A thought, With the way things are going in America and although not really a conspiracy buff, what would be the real reason, perhaps to disarm some of the only trained people who can stand up to whom ever.

[R. Scott]

His organization also has published an open letter to members of the National Rifle Association, which has not been opposing the legislation on the grounds there are provisions that would allow an improperly classified person to "regain" his or her Second Amendment rights.

My NRA membership expired several years ago. I have not renewed it. The organization has been working more on gaining political allies than on standing up for We, the People. This is a prime example. Now the NRA believes our Constitutional rights are doled out by the government on an "as needed" basis.
What happened to our rights being God given, and our Constitution being a limitation on our government, not the citizens?

[R. Scott]

How can someone state a no compromise position if they have never done anything?

You might want to browse their website.
http://www.gunowners.org/
As to what they do with their money, I was an NRA member for years. I never saw a complete accounting. I think they may have spent some of it on a headquarters and museum and give some to political campaigns. The NVA takes in a lot of money. I'm still receiving around a letter a month asking for more donations for special alerts.

[Erik Latranyi]

The NRA has never accomplished anything for gun rights.

This is from GOA (in the article):

"In fact, over the last 30 years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories…" the group said.

So, is the NRA backing bad bills in conjunction with GOA? ...and the GOA is proud of it!

So, either you are all liars (GOA people and NRA people) or your childish little group is more important to you than the overall objective.

The stupidity of GOA and NRA members becoming divided exceeds all bounds.

Let's put some sanity back into this debate.

The bill, as written, is not all that bad. It gets the states to implement computerization of criminal records, something neither group opposes.

I do not see where a person's rights can be taken away by a psychologist. It actually says under TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS, (c), 1, (C) that a record cannot be included in the NICS if "...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."

The bill also provides for legal challenge to any adjudication.

So, please explain the objection without hysteria.

[seemoAR]

So, you think I should be required to prove that I meet the Feds rules. Who is going to pay for the legal challenge if I were found to be a risk?. Would a criminal obey the law?. That is just plain Stoopid.

[Shooter 2.5]

Projection - attributing one’s own unacknowledged feelings to others; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and “injustice collecting”. (remember that projection is a primitive form of paranoia, so it is common in today’s world)

[Shooter 2.5]

I gave the guy the chance to post the information whereas a veteran might be in danger of losing his or her Gun Rights. Since the poster refused to post the section, I am convinced there is nothing in this bill that would remove anyone’s Rights unless they were a danger to themselves or others.

I did read the bill. There’s nothing in there that threatens a sane person’s Rights. It does however restore certain people’s Rights:

(2) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE- The Attorney General shall—

(A) ensure that any information submitted to, or maintained by, the Attorney General under this section is kept accurate and confidential, as required by the laws, regulations, policies, or procedures governing the applicable record system;

(B) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and

(C) work with States to encourage the development of computer systems, which would permit electronic notification to the Attorney General when—

(i) a court order has been issued, lifted, or otherwise removed by order of the court; or

(ii) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

(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.