RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_2,00.html

quote:

Originally posted by LeadShowers:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_2,00.html

People kill people, what difference does it make if the act is done with a gun or an axe? Maybe we ought to take all the axe's away from Veterans and Ice picks, shovels, clubs, rocks, chains, tire irons, hell maybe we should just shoot the veterans and be done with the whole messy PTSD syndrome! Of course if we did that then who would we send to war, as Mercenaries, to do the bidding of our rich manufacturer's or corrupt politician's? Disguested.

Dude, did you read the article?

Well Larry you can rationalize all the lists that you want and they will have no impact on criminals. None. Keeping lists of people, passing them to the federal government, making more lists, will do nothing but give the socialists a tool. Now, thats a fact.

Here, for me at least, is the turnoff:
"(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."

Anyone dealt with various government red tape lately? Someone could die before getting off the list. Some medical needs troops are getting on some pretty long lists just to get the medical attention they need.

Well, let's see...

The law specifically requires only "any lawful authority" to find "that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: is a danger to himself or to other".

Is Mr. Scott really going to tell me that every single one of the 83,000 veterans put into the NICS were involuntarily committed, and were dangerous at that point? That number is near to or possibly greater than the total number of NICS records submitted from every other agency for mental health issues combined. Even saying that military folk are that likely to be involuntarily committed, what chance of overturning an act done simply for malice or for keeping a psychologist's schedule open?

With extra funding and attention given explicitly for this sorta thing by HR2640, what is going to stop folk from simply flooding records into the NICS system? False positives are bad when we're talking about a Constitutional right, even more so when overturning the false positive is both time-consuming and expensive.

It’s nice and all that we’ll be able to appeal the decision after this, but to do so we either have to prove “that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest” to either a panel set up by the very folk who put our names into the system in the first place, or the District Court of Appeals, I think I'd rather avoid getting that particular mark in the first place.

Ask the Vietnam vets. There were (and still are some) people who thought we were all mentally defective. If one of those folks made it into a position to make the choice for us, what do you think would happen?

Mr. Scott has this screwed up.

Section C

Here are quotes from this section that puts the burden of proof on the person that was unfairly entered into the data base AND it does not say that the RELIEF has to be granted.

"and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction"

"may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial."

Here is the real kicker. Note that it doesn't say that the persons name is removed by the court or attorney general. It says the relief of the disability will be published in the federal register. It also says that the reason for the action will also be published.

This is one of the situations that the burden of proof and the expense is put on the victim of the system. If they really want to fix it, make it so that the agency that placed the name on the list has to pay all expenses for getting the name removed.

"Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor."

The bill also DOES NOT exempt those that volontarily have themselves commited to an institution. What about the guy with depression that has himself commited because he has been thinking about sucicide because of a VERY temporary situation? I could give many examples of just this situation but in the interest of brevity I won't. Are the military hospitals really going to withhold his name from the list?

Anyway you look at it this is a screwed up, lousy piece of legislation.

Mr Scott and the NRA has it wrong on this bill.

Politics, politics, politics,,,and more politics.............always trying to tie a tin can on the vets tails so they (politicians) know where we stand on the issues.

Simply put, the government doesn't need another list with vets names or any kind of info about us. They (gov) can't handle them properly. The VA can't even protect my social security number. Some flunky was able to take it home on a laptop and the laptop was stolen. Once your name is on their list it would take an act of Congress to remove it and this Congress can't do anything except make total fools of themselves.

I don't think that the veterans are going to buy this bunk. First off, we are not stupid. We've had dealings with the government before, and know instinctively that this is a blatant lie, like so many other lies we've been told. For example: according to the government, many of us were never in Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand. Or, "no one is going to prevent you from getting the benifits that you earned" Etc,etc. H.R.2640 is another bill that the criminals could care less about. IT WILL AFFECT THE PEOPLE (VETERANS) whose names are added to the list, with no chance of getting it removed without going broke, or dying of old age.

Larry boy is full of it- just read the original. Anyone committed it says. This would include just about all Vietnam vets who were routinely required to stay in the round room for a while upon returning to the US. Some of the most sane people I know are included in that group. We've been betrayed.

So what we are being told is that "we're from the government and we're here to help." We all know where that comes from. This bill can and will harm anyone who sees a mental health or even a medical practitioner. The jurist argument that it would take some kind of governmental committee to do so is patently no more than an interpretation, open to interpretation. Even if correct it will take the proverbial "act of congress" to get you off the list you were "wrongly" placed on. Long, costly and relying on a bureaucracy not in place. Remember- you're guilty until you prove you're innocent. We're being told that we should trust the government. I see no reason to do so. Do you?

I feel quite cinfidant in saying that any law that can be abused will be abused regardless of the intent of the legislatures that proposed or passed the law.
In Illinois we had a suposed anti-gangbanger law that resulted in several hunters having their vehicles confiscated. Apparently hunters would lean their guns against their vehicle for whatever reason, to fetch their gun case, to stand around and bullshit, whatever and this was somehow interpretted as a violation of some drive-by shooting law. I never actually heard of any gangbangers actually being arrested & forfeiting their vehicle under this law. I would be very curious to know if the law was ever actually enforced against those of it's supposed intent.
I spoke to a sate senator about this once and he said "OH no that isn't happening. That was never the intent of the law." I replied "I'm not going to argue with you about whether the confiscations are happening or not. You have the resources to check my story out." He called me sometime in the next week or so and apologized for basically calling me a liar and promised to try do something to correct the law.

The problem with this bill can be summarized by one line:

"court, board, commission, or other lawful authority"

What exactly does that mean? Who gets to determine what a "lawful authority" is? What board? What commission?

I'm OK with the court. Our legal system already has a system for finding people to not be of sound mind.

But I am NOT ok with some totally ambiguous line that essentially gives anyone the right to decare anyone as not mentally fit to own a firearm.

This bill is carefully crafted to APPEAR harmless. Don't be fooled. The above line I quoted can and will be used against you the first time you say something to someone who is anti-gun - that person may be or may know a "lawful authority."

Consider the Democratic Presidentail debate. One caller, a gun enthusiast, referred to his AR-15 as "his baby." Now, it's COMMON for enthusisasts for anything to refer to their "thing" (car, gun, tools, whatever) as their "baby" - it's a figure of speach used to indicate that you really enjoy or appreciate an item. One Presidential candidate claimed that he "questioned" whether the person was mentally fit to own a gun. Is this guy a "lawful authority"? If not, as President coould be appoint "lawful authorities"? Judges are at least inclined to follow existing case law. "Lawful authorities" are not bound by anything.

This is a BAD BILL. The author and the NRA have it all wrong. It's obvious.

Want my support? Make it so that only the COURTS can declare you unfit. The way it should be. Declaring someone mentally defective is an incredible responsibilty that should not be taken lightly.

I am new to posting messages on Miltary.com discussions, but one brother's post made me want to shout for joy.
Now my question:
Could "any other lawful authority" in HR2640 include Mayor Ray Nagin who confiscated legally owned weapons from hurricane Katrina survivors?
Could a superior officer who doesn't like you be a "lawful authority"?
Sincerely,
Bill

An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, October 4, 2007


It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

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.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans'
most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex.
Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer.
It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability"
provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,


Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel

I'm tired of the NRA telling me I'm wrong and they're right.

As a veteran, I'm PISSED. Anyone who says this bill is not anti-Veteran is flat-out LYING.

The NRA has completely lost touch with its membership base on this issue. You want to remain a force in Washington? Then it's time to reverse course on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Tbailsh:
Anyone who says this bill is not anti-Veteran is flat-out LYING.

No, anyone that says the bill IS anti-veteran is either lying, or too much of an idiot to actually read the bill so they instead repeat the BS lies that others have spread about the bill.

Read the proprosed legislation. It is not anti-veteran. It doesn't add anyone who has sought mental health treatment from the DoD or VA to the list of those prohibited by 18USC922(g)(4). All this bill does is require that information about those who have been "adjudicated a mental defective" or "involuntarily committed to a mental institution," be reported by government agencies including the VA. Do a little research voluntarily seeking treatment, even voluntarily commitment does NOT meet the legal definition of someone prohibited by 18USC922(g)(4).

So someone can go see the mental health people on base, get treated for PTSD (or any other issue), including treatment with meds/counseling/voluntary commitment, and they will not become prohibited persons under 18USC922(g)(4). This new bill does not change that, AT ALL, and I'm tired of people lying about it, including the two post wonder I just quoted.

Oppose the legislation if you don't like it, but don't lie about it to push your agenda.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogerOT,