Posted on 10/29/2007 11:48:25 AM PDT by neverdem
--snip--
The Veterans Disarmament Act *Does Change* Federal Law
The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps regulations that have been issued by the BATFE over the years. The net result is that Section 203(2) of S. 2084 ends up outlawing guns for millions of people (including veterans) who are not "currently prohibited" from owning guns.
You can see in greater detail how these regulations will drive the implementation of the Veterans Disarmament Act.
The bottom line is that this bill will ban a person from owning guns because he or she was merely diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's, ADHD or bipolar disorder by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. This is because the Veterans Disarmament Act will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued. (Again, see the URL above for more details.)
False Attempts At Defending The Veterans Gun Ban
Nevertheless, those who merely do word searches for "veteran" -- and thus conclude a bill has nothing to say about veterans -- try to defend what the Clinton administration did. Take Senator Hatch. He says, the Veterans Disarmament Act specifically excludes "any finding of mental illness that consists only of a medical diagnoses [sic] from being included in the NICS."
What Hatch is doing is quoting (or referencing) half a sentence in the bill to make the supposed argument that veterans who are only suffering from PTSD will not fall prey to the gun ban, since they are only subject to a "medical finding of disability."
This is a partial quote from Section 211(c)(1)(C) of S. 2084, which is duplicated in the House bill. But to say this -- that people can't lose their gun rights based solely on a "medical finding of disability" -- is to engage in an outright fraud... because the rest of the sentence in the bill says that they can be added into the NICS system if they represent a miniscule danger to themselves or others or are unable to handle their own affairs.
The legislation states that a person can’t lose their gun rights "based solely on a medical finding of disability, WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE PERSON IS A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR TO OTHERS." (Emphasis added.) You see that? What little freedom is protected with the one hand, is destroyed with the other. What government shrink isn't going to say that a person suffering from PTSD is a potential danger -- even a teensy, weensy danger -- to himself or others?
A BATFE letter from May 9 of this year indicates that this danger does not have to be a substantial threat; it can be just a MINISCULE danger.
Yes, this gets slightly technical. But it helps to actually read entire sentences in the bill, rather than to selectively quote a passage here or there; and it especially helps to read the underlying federal code and regulations.
That's why Gun Owners of America has posted the entire bill -- and a scholarly point-by-point analysis of the Veterans Disarmament Act -- here. By reading this information for yourself, you can stay informed on the very real threat posed by this legislation.
When you read through that section, you will understand why the American Legion and the Military Order Of The Purple Heart have both opposed this bill. You will also see the PDF copies of their two letters of opposition, and see Sen. Tom Coburn's letter which GOA reported on last week. Sen. Coburn sent his letter to Veterans Affairs and asked them to explain how they plan to prevent even more veterans from being disarmed without due process.
As a veteran who has been diagnosed with PTSD....”from my cold dead, and I mean DEAD fingers..”
Meadow Muffin
ADHD, huh?
Instead of the usual counter-productive argument which is designed to divide allies in the gun freedom camp, how about we simply agree that ANY LEGISLATION that ANY LAWYER can write is going to be riddled with "INTERPRETATIONS" meant to insure confusion and endless litigation which we ALWAYS LOSE !!!
As plain as the wording of the 2nd is, we are still fighting an uphill battle to 'prove' what the obvious meaning is and has been for 200 years.
Lets simply put this POS bill where it belongs and get back to taking back our rights ...
Considering the high number of boys prescribed ritalin, that could turn into huge numbers!
Off topic, but I did a search on ADD and ADHD and military eligibilty one day. They have to be off the meds for one year prior to enlistment.
There is no bill to take guns away from veterans. If you have been involuntarily committed to inpatient treatment in a mental hospital, or a court has found you either a danger to yourself or others, or mentally incompetent to manage your affairs, you can’t own a gun under federal law. The feds want states to report these findings to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS check required when you buy a gun.
Again, how many vets with PTSD have been forced to submit to inpatient psych. care?
This isn’t about seeing a shrink, it’s not about family counseling, it’s not about ADHD, it’s not about whose taking psych. drugs. It’s limited to reporting cases where people have had a court or commission with due process protections finding them a danger to themselves or others, or sending to the a psych hospital against their will.
This bill came out of the Va. Tech. shooting, but there have been a number of other cases before that have attracted attention.
The GOA is being deceptive. You can’t invent your own name for a bill, describe it inaccurately, have people call their Congressmen about it, and then accuse those Congressmen of lying about not knowing what bill they are talking about.
I have also seen where a young man, as good as they come, was diagnosed with ADHD or somesuch and forced to take Ritalin, and as a direct result now he can't even get into the miltary because of his previous prescription to the drug. Sounds like a typical big-government operation to me!
Of course, the end-game to this sort of legislation is the eventual "consensus" among the "psychiatric community" that you're mental unbalanced just to want to own a gun, and it's Catch-22 time.
Bump to that. Any law is one too many when it comes to firearms nowadays.
My experience with this was about five years ago; the boy was the oldest son of a friend of mine. He was attempting to enlist in the Marines. Perhaps the USMC has its own criteria on this, or has changed its policy since then.
As if that would be a first
Gun restrictions have never been shown to be effective as crime control. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Has this passed or is it still lingering in committee?
Meadow Muffin
“Are Senate Offices Lying To You?”
Are thier lips moving?
H.R. 2640 passed the House on an unrecorded voice vote. Senator Coburn has placed a "hold" on it in the Senate. It's probably one of the Senate's arcane rules.
“Are Senate Offices Lying to You?”
Does a bear go poo-poo in the woods?
Folks, we’re talking about politicians here; some Senators, some representatives, some just lobbyists for the NRA or the GOA but all politicians. Of course they lie! That’s how they communicate!
Never, never, ever believe what they say. Don’t even believe what they say they’ve done because someone else probably did it and now the politician who’s talking to you is trying to steal the glory!
As for those who think the NRA is perfectly capable of walking on water, let me disabuse you of that myth - the NRA lies too! But then, so does the GOA, so the proper thing to do is go read the bill yourself, then consider each and every part of it in a way that some liberal gun grabber might, because if it passes you can bet that some day a liberal gun grabber will read it differently than it may have been intended and they’ll use it to shove some new gun confiscation scheme up your . . .
The only way to avoid such an outcome is to make it an automatic death sentence for anyone in Congress to file, back or vote on any bill that contains any reference to guns, firearms, weapons, clubs, knives, bows, spears or large rocks. Even then some lawyer type would find some way to infringe on the Second Amendment.
Never give the government anything it doesn’t need. In most cases, we’d be better served if the government fell rather than give up more of our rights. Remember, while anarchy can be a bad thing it need not be. Tyranny, on the other hand, is always a bad thing.
Or “other lawful entity”, don’t forget. I’m not sure just who they mean by that, since the original law just said court or commission.
BATFE just got a fed court to define “other lawful entity” to be two physicians signatures, if I remember correctly. Others on the thread will, I’m sure, flog me if I’m wrong.
I find reason for extreme care on this bill, Schumer and Brady et al would hardly be pushing hard for a bill that allowed more people to get or keep guns, or make it easier for people to get them back once taken away.
Using V Tech as an excuse is also odd- a state failure to report is a state issue and should not require a federal response.
Of course, the end-game to this sort of legislation is the eventual "consensus" among the "psychiatric community" that you're mental unbalanced just to want to own a gun, and it's Catch-22 time.
Precisely. For example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908448/posts?page=27#27
Offices are not people and thus have no lips to move.
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.