Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran

Military.com ^ | 10/2/07 | Larry Scott

[Joe Brower]

Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
Larry Scott | October 02, 2007

There is no such thing as the “Veterans Disarmament Act.” There is no pending legislation that would take firearms away from veterans. There is no pending legislation that would prevent a person with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), veteran or not, from purchasing a firearm or ammo.

But, there is a huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics being forwarded by a small gun owners group who view themselves to be in competition with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Let’s use some common sense instead of nonsense. If veterans were to lose the right to own firearms, you’d have a lot of unemployed cops. If those who have PTSD were to lose that right, there’d be even more unemployed cops and other first responders, as well. The arguments about a “Veterans Disarmament Act” are, quite simply, ridiculous and illogical.

The piece of legislation is question is H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 2640 was carefully-crafted by the NRA and Members of Congress to protect the rights of gun owners, especially those who may have mental health issues such as PTSD.

Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this legislation.

The NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database that contains the names of those not allowed to buy firearms and ammo. There are nine specific groups of persons who are included in the database.

Included is anyone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." "Any mental institution" would, obviously, include a VA hospital mental ward. And, the government's definition of a "mental defective" is: “A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.”

The confusion over H.R. 2640 and veterans, especially veterans with PTSD, began in 2000 when the VA gave the names of between 83,000 and 89,000 veterans to the NICS database. The names were of veterans who had been committed to VA psychiatric wards or who had been adjudicated as a “mental defective.” This was required of all government agencies.

Some thought that any veteran with a mental health issue ended up on the NICS list. That is an absurd assumption. If a veteran tries to quit smoking and goes to VA smoking cessation classes, they are in a mental health program because nicotine is considered an addictive substance. The same applies for those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. And, we know, these veterans did not end up in the NICS database.

Neither current law nor H.R. 2640 would put any person, including veterans, who have sought psychiatric treatment or voluntarily checked themselves into a psychiatric unit on the NICS list. This includes those with PTSD, those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and those who have voluntarily sought help and been admitted for observation, sometimes termed a “voluntary commitment.”

So, why all the noise about H.R. 2640? Some feel the small gun owners group is just looking for members. Others feel they have some kind of beef with the NRA. Whatever the reason, the misinformation and scare tactics should be considered for exactly what they are.

The NRA, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings that killed over 30 students, realized that current firearms legislation had some real problems. People who should be in the NICS database, like the Virginia Tech shooter, were left out. And, just as important, the NRA knew that some people who shouldn’t be in the database had been included and there was no way for them to get their names of the NICS list. Also, some believe there is wiggle-room in the current regulations that can allow government agencies to “interpret” them incorrectly. The NRA set out to solve those problems, and they did.

The NRA fully supports H.R. 2640. According to the NRA: “Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would ‘prohibit’ thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true…In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.”

H.R. 2640 would require states to provide quarterly information to the NICS database. This information would have to include those who no longer fall into one of the nine categories of “no buy” persons. There would be penalties for states that do not comply. And, the protections, especially for those with mental health issues, assure that a “medical finding of disability” would not put someone in the NICS database. That would include veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD. Here are the protections as stated in H.R. 2640:

(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.

Please note again that a person cannot be put on the NICS list solely for a "medical finding of disability,” and that would include PTSD.

Also, H.R. 2640 will provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should not be on it, something they cannot do at this time. That provision reads:

(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.

The bottom line for veterans concerned about H.R. 2640 is to just use some common sense. Read the legislation. You may not agree with it. But, if you’re a veteran or you have been diagnosed with PTSD, don’t worry, they aren’t coming for your firearms. The NRA put it correctly when they said, “H.R. 2640 is NOT gun control legislation.” It IS legislation designed to end inequities in the current laws that have unfairly prevented many from purchasing firearms and ammo.

[Joe Brower]

More grist for the mill.

I'm an NRA life member, and I remain wary. The weasel words and endless deceit of politicians know no bounds.

[EdReform]

BTTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908448/posts?page=27#27

[Dead Corpse]

Bovine scatology. The new bill opens up the criteria for more folks to be denied. That it sets up an office that reviews such things is as usfull to gun owners as the Class III office that was tasked with Registering new transferable Class III toys. It’ll only work until the “powers that be” that make such arbitrary rules shut it down via Executive Order.

[paul51]

I don’t buy it.

[Mr. Mojo]

there is a huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics being forwarded by a small gun owners group who view themselves to be in competition with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"View themselves" is correct, because there is no competition. The NRA focuses on gun rights, the GOA focuses almost exclusively on ...the NRA. The GOA can continue to what they do - primarily misinform and deceive - for the next 100 years and and they still wouldn't equal a pimple on the NRA's ass.

[Gilbo_3]

Well Joe, for all the infighting over this bill, the end result will be page after page of lawyerspeak that will only serve the gun grabbers. Any 'interpretation' for them will be gospel. OTOH any 'argument' for RKBA will be dismissed and fought for years redefining the word 'is'.

I fear that all of those who supported it based on a system to restore [IE grovel before the masters, which already exists but is ignored] God given freedoms, were wishfully thinking that somehow the grabbers would compromise their agenda in the future.

I see a lot of rights being restored/protected for vets who are LEO, as long as they tow the line and bust the opposing heads, just dont think the average vet will be protected past, present or future...my.02...

[PeteB570]

“or other lawful authority”

That’s the bit that chaps my butt.

Just who is/will be a “lawful authority”?

How long before school councilors are a “lawful authority”?

It’s so easy, just make all good libs a “lawful authority” and place all the gun owners/Republicans on the list. Gun ownership problem in America solved - except for the criminals.

[Ron H.]

I don’t buy it.

Dittos

[Ron H.]

Just who is/will be a “lawful authority”?

Uhhh, how about the U.N.? Do they qualify as “lawful authority" (that is after Boosh signs away our nations sovereignty to them)

[monkeycard]

I don’t buy it.

Double ditto.

[NYFriend]

OK, federal law says that you can’t own a gun for a number of reasons. Mental health problems is one category. What the law says is that if you have either been committed (not check yourself in, but been ordered into) a hospital (not gone to a doctor for outpatient treatment, but inpatient care in a hospital or psych center) for psych treatment, you can’t own a gun. The second is if you have been “adjudicated a mental defective”, meaning that a court or administrative body that abides by due process requirements has determined that you have a mental condition that makes you a danger to yourself or others, or you are not competent to enter into contracts or manage your affairs, you are prohibited from owning a gun. The feds keep a list, and the NICS check checks that list. Most states don’t share that information with the feds, so the feds list in incomplete. Some law makers (state and federal) want to share this state data with the feds. That’s what this is about.

How many veterans meet those requirements? It’s not many. It’s not guys who see a shrink, and its not even guys who check themselves into a hospital. It’s guys who are civilly committed to psych centers or are sent to psych centers because they are not competent to stand trial, or are not guilty by reason of insanity. How many of those do you want having guns?

Now, there are groups competing with the NRA for political power, money, and membership. Gun Owners of America is one. SCOPE is another in New York. Do they do some good things? Sure. Are they ever just looking to distinguish themselves from the NRA? I think so, and I’ve had professional contact with a bunch of them.

[dljordan]

They’re just opening the door for more restrictive legislation later on. A little bit here, a little bit there. I’m a life member too and have been a member since the 60’s but sometimes the NRA seems a little bit to willing to compromise.

[blackie]

I’m with you, Joe!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[looscnnn]

The fact that McCarthy/Schumer/Brady are for it, should be reason enough to be against it.

[SWO]

I don’t trust the folks who will define what is required to get you on the list in the first place not to keep moving the goal posts. You need to understand, if a serviceman checks yes on enough of the questions in the post deployment health screening he (or she) gets “directed” to see the Head Shrink. Is that “ordered to treatment’ according to the Act? First time a veteran who shoots someone is later found to have been in that situation, that will be the new criteria, and every single other veteran who was also sent will be disarmed.

Here’s an idea. Make the act self negating. The day after the rights restoration program fails to be funded (as was and is done now by Schumer etal) it and one other (1986 GCA (?)) act is repealed. No one should object to that since I’m certain (says NRA) that this time they won’t snatch the ball away at the last minute like Lucy does with Charlie Brown. Every time.

The problem with the NRA is that it is on the strategic defensive all the time. They let the Grabbers frame the argument after Virginia Tech. As a result the best they can hope for now is not to get screwed too badly this time around.

[ozzymandus]

Thanks for posting this. I see the dupes are still falling for GOA’s fundraising propaganda.

[ReignOfError]

At bottom. this bill is about Cho Seung-Hui. He shouldn’t have been allowed to buy a gun, and he was. Everyone but the NICS knew he was a psycho. This bill clarifies what information the NICS should have.

[kAcknor]

Thanks for the ping Joe, as always.

The NRA is wrong on this one. They fail to mention three items in this 'explanation': Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy.

Three of the most ardent anti-gun senators in office today are the SPONSORS of this bill. That alone is reason enough for me.

This issue has come about because the of the Virgina Tech shooting. A 'compromise'. It's the wrong answer. What the NRA should be doing instead is attacking the very reasons the shooter was able to pull it off: Active and on the record prevention of on campus concealed carry laws by those in charge. Instead, they are teaming with the enemies of our rights to give them more reasons to block gun ownership. I'm not trying to NRA bash, but I say they are wrong in trusting the very people that are out to take those rights.

For example, this restoration of rights issue. Thruth is, we have that now, but funding is being continually blocked by: Charles Schumer! So he smiles and says we can have what he has easily already taken away and we should believe him? Arrghh!

The NRA has done and continues to do a lot of good. But maybe, just maybe, it's time to get new people in the organization to deal with Congress. Those there now seem to be getting a little comfortable.

Enough.

[NYFriend]

That is correct, but there have been other similar cases. On Long Island, a guy with a history of invol. hospital treatments bought a rifle and shot a priest at his church a couple years ago. Same deal, everyone knew he was nuts except the feds and the gun store clerk.

Now, in NYS, there is a confidentiality section in the Mental Hygiene Law that the Office of Mental Health (OMH) has interpreted to mean that the State can’t share hospital records with the feds. There had been talk of allowing that information sharing. However, there are exceptions to those confidentiality laws for pistol permit applicants, and a pistol permit applicant’s OMH record must be checked. The rub is that OMH only records State-run hospital stays, and not people ordered to private hospitals for inpatient mental health treatment.

However, the doc at any hospital is allowed to certify a person who is ordered to that hospital for psych treatment as “not suitable to possess a rifle or shotgun”, and the police are expected to go and collect his guns. But, the do not automatically notify a pistol license issuing authority or NICS so that the guy can’t but a new gun.