Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran

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

[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.