Sgt Grit Marine Forums

By Larry Pratt September 22, 2007 NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted. How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list. This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD. The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning. No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation. The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement. But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights. One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others. The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist). Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns. Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD. Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist. If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act -- misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act -- will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished." © 2007 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved>

Thanks for the heads-up, Ray. This subject has already gotten some attention on here and will no doubt get more. Leahy and all these other homo-lovin commies are once again targeting the wrong people.

If I am killed as they try to take my guns away, my son will avenge me.

I've got your son's "6", Al...

Rog that, Bill, that is one tough lookin hombre there...and one badass truck.

A little bit long and yes it is cut and paste but well worth the read.  Sent out by the NRA... and I am sure that they do not want any guns taken for those the have them lawfully..

..................................................................................................................................
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 40                                         10/05/07 
 
THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL:  MYTH AND REALITY


Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.   

The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete.  But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill.  The following are some of the common myths.

MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."   

FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."  The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons.  H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill.  In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms. 

MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder." 

FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.   

A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process.  The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court.  Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.

Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.3.3025065) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics."  Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640.  (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.4.3025065.) 

Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs.  Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder  "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)." 

FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."   

Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."  They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."   

They are wrong.  Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position.  In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions."  Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way.  The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.

Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns. 

FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms.  NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark." 

FACT:  This case does not hold up to close investigation.  The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors.  (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.)  After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.

Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation.  Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms.  Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR%202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.

MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights. 

FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated.  When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf.  The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions.  Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.6.3025065. 

MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program. 

FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill.  The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health.  BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do.  Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress. 

FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea.  NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners.  Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call." 

FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote.  This is not unusual.  The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote.  (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)

After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote.  There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.

I firmly believe that all military personnel and most definately the Marine Corps as a whole have been properly trained on how to responsibly use any firearm. Service members who are diagnosed or suffer from PTSD are primarily dealing with issues, thoughts, and stress that they have no control over. It is not a disorder that makes them insane or dysfunctional. They are still human beings. To try and take away something that clearly has nothing to do with the issues at hand is quite frankly unjust and ridiculous. Just another way for those non military affiliated individuals in Washington D.C. to pick on this countries service members. What really has my mind boggled, is the fact that they give us these weapons, train us to use them, then dont trust us to use proper judgement when dealing with physical or mental adversity.