Posted on 10/16/2007 7:47:27 AM PDT by 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.
When Democrats propose a new “gun law”, it’s never what it seems.
Larry Scott should be believed because.........?
Ok I searched a little on Larry’s political slant on different subjects and long story short Gun Owners trusting Larry is like Chickens trusting Col Sanders.......:o)
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_Index,00.html
Do you think ex-military airline pilots can’t handle a peashooter like a handgun after they used missile laden aircraft?
[Your logic says since feinswein was for arming the pilots you are immediately for the opposite side.]
Post again when you are thinking clearly enough to post a cognitive response.
Hardly. That is what they would like you to think.
I’d sure like to see all the effort the NRA has put into this “improving” or “strengthening” the Brady Instant Check system, instead be put into repealing it. It’s just as unconstitutional as any other “infringement” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And every year, Chuckles the Clown (and senior Sinator from New York), will prohibit spending any appropriated funds on the program, just as he does with current "Relief from disability" programs.
There is no 1986 GCA. The 1986 legislation was the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It was a good bill, repealing the more egregious provisions of the '68 GCA (Maybe that's what you meant), such as having to show ID and sign a register when purchasing "handgun" ammunition(including .22 rim fire), and removing the provisions against interstate shipment of ammunition directly to a consumer, It also provided several protections for gun owners, such as the ability to transport firearms from one state where possession of them is legal to another where is also legal, never mind the laws of states or localities in between (with limitations on the conditions of transport).
The one bad feature, and it's truly awful, because it was the first outright *ban* of a whole class of firearms for civilians, was a last minute (literally) addition that many did not even know was in the bill and fewer yet understood. In fact it was so poorly worded it should not have changed anything, but it's being enforced as the author intended, not as the law actually reads.
Even though I'm a member, I've not gotten an email or snail mail asking for money to fight this bill.
OTOH, the NRA, of which I'm also a member, sends a begging letter every couple of weeks, if not more often. Or one selling this or that "NRA Merchandise". I have no problem that, although it's got to be an immense expense compared to what it brings in. The NRA talking about the other groups "fund raising efforts" is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.
Even the Associate Press is calling this "the first major gun control law in more than a decade." ( "Bill on Gun Restrictions Bogged Down", By Laurie Kellman, The Associated Press, September 26, 2007)
Senator Coburn says "The bill does not fund a process by which such individuals can regain their rights.”
BTTT
I was a member of GOA for one year, and I got tons of beg letters from them for years after that. I also got tons of beg letters from NRA until I sent them a letter telling them I was already a life member and that they were wasting money sending me junk mail. I haven’t gotten one since.
As for AP, do you believe anything they say? I don’t.
That one I'm not sure I blame them for. As I said the "machine gun ban" was a last minute floor amendment, and no one really knew what it meant, although they did know the intent of it's author. I suspect the NRA thought, if they knew at all, that because of the poor wording, the ban would be unenforceable. OTOH, I don't recall it being challenge in court either.
Machine guns and NFA weapons in general have been so demonized that virtually no one will challenge the First Federal Gun Gun Control law. Regarding that law, the sponsors wanted to treat handguns the same as Machine Guns. In the late 1930s, Roosevelt's attorney general had asked Congress to require every owner of a rifle, shotgun, revolver or pistol to register his weapon with the bureau of internal revenue. A tax of one dollar would have been payable for every firearm sold. The attorney general stated that this legislation would broaden the scope of the NFA and "would place a potent weapon against criminals in the hands of law-enforcement officers." (See Chi. Daily News, May 4, 1937, at 4.)
It took until the very '94 Brady Act that this very Gun Bill is "improving" before the federal government got in the position to be able to register, each and every firearm sale from a dealer.
If Canckles becomes President, and the 'Rats retain control of Congress, BOHICA, big time.
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.