# Veterans Disarmament Act



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 20, 2007)

Can anyone elaborate on this?  It seems it has just got through the senate via "Unanimous Consent" without a recored vote.  It's now on it's way to the Presidents desk.  Plus, what is the real name of this anyways?

Jeff


----------



## tellner (Dec 21, 2007)

Do you have any links or descriptions, anything at all?


----------



## Guardian (Dec 21, 2007)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm

_Their coming for them people and if we don't watch out they will sneak in the backdoor just like any other common crook._

_Those who hate guns or at least are afraid enough of them will do anything and everything to see a disarmed America.  It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, they don't want guns in this country pure and simple._

_This bill is a disgrace to all the Veterans that gave their lifes (either literally or figuratively to this country and now due to no fault of their own, they are being targeted by a few idiots._

_A very interesting read and there are many more sites on it also.  Sneaky little buttheads._


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks for the info.  This is truly reprehensible.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 21, 2007)

Only veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD? What next, police officers? Rescue workers? Crime victims? PTSD affects people from all walks of life. Seems to me that with the patriot act and legislation like this, the government is trying to do an end run around the constituion and leading us to a dictatorship in this country.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

Well isn't this nice.  convicting someone and taking away their rights before they do anything wrong all because they fought for their country.  How absolutely disgusting.

I thought on Canada made stupid laws regarding firearms.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 21, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Well isn't this nice. convicting someone and taking away their rights before they do anything wrong all because they fought for their country. How absolutely disgusting.
> 
> I thought on Canada made stupid laws regarding firearms.


 
I have to agree Lisa!  I do not like the fact that they are taking rights away before they have done anything wrong and especially after they served and protected our country!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't. 

Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him. 

Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from? 

There is ongoing discussions in Congress about those soldiers who were discharged from the military over the last five years for behavior issues (some 28,000). Many of those discharged may have been exhibiting symptons of PTSD. If a soldier is discharged with a method of 'less than honorable' (such as these behavior problem discharges), he forfits Veterans Benefits, including treatment for PTSD through the VA. There is an extentsive push taking place to retroactively extend VA benefits to these soldiers, for the rest of their lives. 

If there service merits the nation paying to support them for the next 6 decades; because they are a danger to themselves or to others, should we really be arguing to give them weapons?


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.
> 
> Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.
> 
> Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?



Michael,

Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong.  Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong.  Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them.  Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 21, 2007)

As a member of the VFW, I know many people who have been diagnosed with PTSD.  Several of the own firearms and even carry concealed without ever having a problem.  Sure, maybe a few have, but is that reason to deny a constitutional right to every Vet who had been diagnosed?


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

and furthermore, only cause I just thought of this...

There are probably Veterans out there with PTSD that have not been diagnosed.  PTSD is not necessarily an all consuming thing.  It has its triggers.  Some suffer from it more then others.  Some suffer so bad that they can not function while others have triggers that bring it on.

Do we then take the firearms away from every veteran JUST IN CASE?  And where does one draw the line?  If you have two episodes in a period of time we will take your guns, three?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 21, 2007)

Should we take firearms away from a police officer because they have suffered PTSD!  What about the paramedic or the firefighter or the emergency room nurses or physicians.  What about people who have been in a self defense/violent encounter's and needed treatment?  To many people could eventually lose their rights *even when they have done nothing to merit it*.  That is my beef!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 21, 2007)

This post got me to look around the web a bit and I keep seeing the same thing "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" Now I am not an alarmist not and I am not big on conspiracy theories and I am admittedly not affiliated with any political group because experience has taught me they are really not all that different but if what I am reading in this post and on the web is true, and I need to look into this further to be certain, this is getting pretty scary. 

I am seeing mentions of DSM-IV having disorders added and this "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" recommending every man, woman and child be screened for mental health and it is linked to the second amendment and supported by the NRA.

Has anyone else seen this?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Michael,
> 
> Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong. Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong. Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them. Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.


 
How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned? 

What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?
> 
> What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?


So we penalize them all for the actions of a few?

So much for inividual liberty.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?
> 
> What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?



I never said don't treat his PTSD, I said don't remove a constitutional right when he hasn't done anything wrong yet.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> So we penalize them all for the actions of a few?
> 
> So much for inividual liberty.


 
This is not a penalty. 

It is an acknowledgement of a mental disorder. If you are diagnosed with this mental defect, the consequences of that defect is prohibition of a firearm.

Let's us suppose that one of us loses our sight. Do we continue to allow that person to operate a motor vehicle? Or do we acknowledge that without sight, one can not operate a motor vehicle safely, and revoke a license. 




			
				Lisa said:
			
		

> I never said don't treat his PTSD, I said don't remove a constitutional right when he hasn't done anything wrong yet.


 
Today, soldiers who exhibit behaviors of PTSD have been discharged with a less than honorable description (violent behavior, drug use, etc) In these instances, normal veteran benefits are withheld. The soldiers are not allowed access to treatement through the Veterans Administration. 

That, to me, is a far bigger crime and outrage than restricting access to firearms for someone with PTSD. 

I recommend, strongly, taking ten minutes to listen to this story. If what is described is accurate, I think there are bigger issues than just the revokation of the right to bear arms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17362654


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Today, soldiers who exhibit behaviors of PTSD have been discharged with a less than honorable description (violent behavior, drug use, etc) In these instances, normal veteran benefits are withheld. The soldiers are not allowed access to treatement through the Veterans Administration.
> 
> That, to me, is a far bigger crime and outrage than restricting access to firearms for someone with PTSD.
> 
> I recommend, strongly, taking ten minutes to listen to this story. If what is described is accurate, I think there are bigger issues than just the revokation of the right to bear arms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17362654



I am not saying one is a bigger outrage then the other, however, THIS thread is regarding the removal of their right to firearms.  Please feel free to start another thread regarding venteran benefits being withheld due to PTSD and less then honorable discharges.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2007)

Well, low and behold ... the situation is much different than what it appears. 

There is NO bill going through Congress called the 'Veterans Disarmement Act'. 

HR 2640 is designed to provide States with money so they can fill in criminal data from the State level into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 




> *H.R. 2640  NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
> (McCarthy, D-NY) *
> 
> *Order of Business:*  The bill is scheduled for consideration on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
> ...


----------



## Lisa (Dec 21, 2007)

Like many Bills that pass through legislation it gets a name attached to it.




> HR 2640, which has been dubbed the veterans disarmament act by gun owners, would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.



and what your congress or senate or whatever states it is "designed for" and what it will be used for are usually two different things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2007)

Scary.  The government wants to take the guns away from the citizens who know how to use them.  I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 21, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Only veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD? What next, police officers? Rescue workers? Crime victims? PTSD affects people from all walks of life. Seems to me that with the patriot act and legislation like this, the government is trying to do an end run around the constituion and leading us to a dictatorship in this country.


There are a small percentage of people who have been diagnosed with PTSD that probably shouldn't own guns.  They're one end of the spectrum of PTSD; at the other end is the guy who comes back from Iraq or Afghanistan, and startles a little more easily (hypervigilance) than he used to, but takes a couple deep breaths (autogenic breathing, if you want to be technical) and reminds himself that he's home, laughs about it, and has a beer later.  He's fine.

I've exhibited some PTSD symptoms; I was working the day that one of our lieutenants was badly injured.  He was alone, and crashed a motorcycle.  A passing driver (retired law enforcement) got on the LTs radio, and reported the crash.  For a while, I couldn't watch several of the videos showing attacks on cops where passerby got on the police radio...  Yep -- that's some of the elements of PTSD.  A traumatic event, with some reexperiencing of the event, and avoidance of the stimuli.  Gee... a couple of years later, and I don't have that problem anymore.

Without reading the entire bill, it's going too far.  I just also can't help but consider that the source at the moment is also probably practicing some hyperbole, too.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.
> 
> Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.
> 
> ...


To borrow from David Grossman...

PTSD is not pregnancy.  You ain't a "little bit pregnant."  You don't get a "touch of pregnancy."  Pregancy is binary; you either are pregnant, or you are not pregnant.

PTSD occurs along a spectrum; you have a few people at the far end of the spectrum who are debilitated and dangers to themselves or others.  At the other end, you have people that only would get diagnosed because of required exams; they'd go home, have a few beers, and a few sleepless nights, but be fine in the end.  You can't handle either end the way you would the other...

For more, I strongly encourage reading any of Grossman's books, especially *On Combat* and *On Killing*.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 21, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Without reading the entire bill, it's going too far. I just also can't help but consider that the source at the moment is also probably practicing some hyperbole, too.


 
I didn't read the whole article either, I just rsponded with a knee jerk reaction, I can only hope you're right about the hyperbole, the alternative is vey scary.


----------



## AzQkr (Dec 29, 2007)

_This is not a penalty. 

It is an acknowledgement of a mental disorder. If you are diagnosed with this mental defect, the consequences of that defect is prohibition of a firearm.

Let's us suppose that one of us loses our sight. Do we continue to allow that person to operate a motor vehicle? Or do we acknowledge that without sight, one can not operate a motor vehicle safely, and revoke a license.

_First, let me be the first to offer that ptsd has nothing to do with being mentally deficient in the majority of cases. Second, soldiers from both world wars, the spanish american war, the war of independance, and every other "war" has brought many many men home who suffered from ptsd in one form or another.

The question is this as I see it. 

Did we see ptsd victims of all these wars become a danger to society as a whole group, from each respective war? Obviously, the answer is *NO,* we didn't. Our grandfathers and their fathers didn't come home and go on a rampage and become a threat to society, they instead came home and got jobs, worked all their lives, and suffered ptsd the whole time they did so.

To think to take a veterans rights away because he is simply diagnosed with ptsd seems overly reactive, something the liberals really like to sink their teeth into from time to time. Why take rights away from the whole because the few on one end of the curve have become dangerous to themselves and others.

Those who thinks to revoke rights of any one very large group based on the actions of a relatively minor few, would not only be creating a travesty to the veterans it affects, but to this country, for allowing it's soldiers to be denied *every protection under the constitution they defended*.

Brownie


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2007)

Brownie, 

The legislation is not about taking anyone's rights away, despite the hyperbole of the original post, and the rhetoric coming from the Gun Owners of America. 

The NRA supports the legislation. 

The Legislation is about making certain that all parties who have information that should be available for the mandatory instant firearms background check can get the information to the correct places in a timely manner.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 29, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Michael,
> 
> Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong.  Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong.  Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them.  Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.



That isn't the way things are now. If you have been medically diagnosed as being a danger to yourself or others, you can't buy a gun (in CA). I think that it stands to reason that such folks are being disarmed for their own protection and that of others. With the VT stuff, and the actions of armed vets with PTSD recently, I can see how they would have come to this decision. Not sure if I agree, but I get it.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The NRA supports the legislation.



Makes sense to me. Why would I, a relatively sound-minded guy, want some psych job going on a homicide/suicide rampage to be seen as representative of American gun owners? I don't. Disarming such folks, as unfortunate as it is, protects the public image of gun owners. 
The 2nd Amendment is about the Militia, being able-bodied and capable men over the age of 18. Being of sound mind is obviously within the spirit of this qualification.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?



We don't. We let the actions of the individual decide rather then a collective law. Those deemed mentally unfit won't be able to get a concealed carry permit or purchase permit in most states anyway, just the same as if someone had a felony; however, having PTSD does not qualify one as mentally unfit in most cases, however. If you had any understanding of the disorder you would know that. Again, we need to respect people and their rights as individuals. 

Or, you could just be a jerk and try to use every possible opportunity to take people's gun rights away because you don't like or carry firearms, and therefore you want to force your opinions and choices on everyone else through the legal system.

At least, proponents of such a disgusting law would go that route, it seems...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

I should clarify, I am fine with the background check part of it; just not the use of medical records to do so.

The problem we have here is we have politicians who have no ****ing idea what PTSD actually is other then what they have heard on TV deciding that if someone is stamped with the disorder at any point in their life, then that they  shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, same as a mental patient or a violent criminal. This is the part that is BS. PTSD is not a mental deficiency in almost all cases. And when it is, it is usually in conjunction with another mental deficiency that would make one untrustworthy with a weapon. But, people don't take the time to understand things before making decisions.

And this is why our medical records need to be kept private. Did we really need Terri Shaivo to prove to us that politicians are not doctors? If someone is deemed a danger for mental reasons, then this should be done by the courts with procedures we have in place now, not by assumptions from people who aren't doctors looking at our medical records and posturing to make that info available for things like background checks, insurance, and so forth.

And then, of course, we have jerks who want to use the legal system to force their will on everyone else. These jerks happily look for any opportunity to gun grab, and justify it through some other pseudo-rational.

This is  the real  problem here.  The problem isn't background checks, it is the attempt to gun grab by any means necessary...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Or, you could just be a jerk


 
... Well, that's a bit personal, isn't it?






The bill, as I read it, is about enforcing the laws on the books, and giving funding to the various organizations who have obligations under the current law.

So much for the idea of "enforcing the laws already on the books", eh?

And I thought "unfundend mandates" used to be a big issue for some folks too. Here is a law that appears to provide funds for the legal mandates. But, Noooo!


----------



## Guardian (Dec 30, 2007)

*b) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. 
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribal governments, and state and local courts to establish or upgrade information technologies for firearms eligibility determinations (to be provided electronically to NICS). [/FONT]*
*Ø *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]*Provides for penalties for noncompliance by state and local governments, specifically allowing the Attorney General to withhold federal funding that would otherwise be allocated to the state under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including mandatory reductions in federal funding of 5 percent if compliance is not met after three years following implementation of this Act.*[/FONT]

*[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Possible Conservative Concerns**:* Supporters of Second Amendment rights, including the two largest and most prominent gun rights groups in the country, are split on this issue. Gun Owners of America (GOA) is strongly opposed to this legislation, stating:[/FONT]

the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun.


*Michael - What you put down here in your own post shows what we are talking about, I've underlined the portion of interest for you to reread my friend.  It says it all, there are two (2) portions underlined that hold significant information pertaining to this conversation.*

*Yes, someone labeled it the Veterans Disarmanent Law or whatever, it's a name only, it doesn't detract from the intent though does it.*

*Read carefully, I did.*


----------



## Lisa (Dec 30, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> That isn't the way things are now. If you have been *medically diagnosed as being a danger to yourself or others*, you can't buy a gun (in CA). I think that it stands to reason that such folks are being disarmed for their own protection and that of others. With the VT stuff, and the actions of armed vets with PTSD recently, I can see how they would have come to this decision. Not sure if I agree, but I get it.



See maybe I am not understanding but being diagnosed with PTSD does not automatically qualify you as being a danger to yourself or others.  This, however, will make it seem so.



Cruentus said:


> We don't. We let the actions of the individual decide rather then a collective law. Those deemed mentally unfit won't be able to get a concealed carry permit or purchase permit in most states anyway, just the same as if someone had a felony; however, having PTSD does not qualify one as mentally unfit in most cases, however. If you had any understanding of the disorder you would know that. Again, we need to respect people and their rights as individuals.



I agree with your statement and I think that is the crux of why gun owners are upset.



Cruentus said:


> Or, you could just be a jerk and try to use every possible opportunity to take people's gun rights away because you don't like or carry firearms, and therefore you want to force your opinions and choices on everyone else through the legal system.



Yes, that could very well be true.  I often wonder why people are so quick to disarm others for things they have yet not done.  Makes no sense to me but hey, I am not a US citizen either and perhaps I don't understand completely.  I know people with PTSD.  I would trust my children with them and if I was ever in trouble they would be the first I would want on my side, hopefully heavily armed.   They are no more a danger to themselves or others then a recovering alcoholic is behind the wheel of a car.  I wouldn't think taking someone's drivers license away cause they "might" get drunk and kill someone makes any more sense then this would.  But that is, I guess apples and oranges, as driving is a privilege where as bearing arms is a right.  

Or he could be just stating his opinion, something we are all allowed to do on this board, beit we like what the other has to say or not.  If we don't like what they have to say there is the ignore feature.  It is a wonderful little thing built into the system.  I rather like it a lot and often wish others would use it.  It isn't at all like real life where we have to put up with and deal with people who get under our skin.  Can't just click them away, yet, I often wonder how often we get into heated discussions with people in RL.  It wouldn't be very productive in our every day life and it surely isn't here on the board.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> ... Well, that's a bit personal, isn't it?



Sorry... I meant the universal "you" not like you as in Micheal Edwards. But that came out sort of bad... sorry 'bout that.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

As to the problem with this; as I understand it, the problem is that this allows the VA office to turn over MEDICAL RECORDS of vets to the NICS, and non-doctors can decide that because someone was labeled PTSD at one time in their life, that they are now mentally unfit to own a firearm. This would be like a person going to a therepist for anxiety issues, then being labelled as someone with an anxiety disorder and having those records turned over to the NICS to prevent that person from ever owning a gun.

We cross the line from a reasonable background check to now finding any reason or clause to prevent someone from owning a firearm. This would make the process about as fair as insurance companies and their denial process for claims.

So, the problem as I understand it is what I described above. I have no problem with criminal background checks and enforcing the existing laws that are reasonable. But as I understand it, the bill proposed creates these problems, and this should be addressed before pushing such legislation through...


----------



## Lisa (Dec 30, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> As to the problem with this; as I understand it, the problem is that this allows the VA office to turn over MEDICAL RECORDS of vets to the NICS, and non-doctors can decide that because someone was labeled PTSD at one time in their life, that they are now mentally unfit to own a firearm. This would be like a person going to a therepist for anxiety issues, then being labelled as someone with an anxiety disorder and having those records turned over to the NICS to prevent that person from ever owning a gun.
> 
> We cross the line from a reasonable background check to now finding any reason or clause to prevent someone from owning a firearm. This would make the process about as fair as insurance companies and their denial process for claims.
> 
> So, the problem as I understand it is what I described above. I have no problem with criminal background checks and enforcing the existing laws that are reasonable. But as I understand it, the bill proposed creates these problems, and this should be addressed before pushing such legislation through...



Nice post and I agree with you 100%.

It seems, at least to me, that some of the laws that the government makes to "protect us from ourselves" usually hurt those that follow the laws that are already in place. At least that is my humble opinion


----------



## morph4me (Dec 30, 2007)

Lisa said:


> It seems, at least to me, that some of the laws that the government makes to "protect us from ourselves" usually hurt those that follow the laws that are already in place. At least that is my humble opinion


 
An opinion that I share. The laws are usually passed by people to deal with issues that they are unqualified to judge. Instead of new laws, I would like see us go the route of consumer education and enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2007)

Guardian said:


> *Michael - What you put down here in your own post shows what we are talking about, I've underlined the portion of interest for you to reread my friend. It says it all, there are two (2) portions underlined that hold significant information pertaining to this conversation.*
> 
> *Yes, someone labeled it the Veterans Disarmanent Law or whatever, it's a name only, it doesn't detract from the intent though does it.*
> 
> *Read carefully, I did.*


 
Guardian, 

I did not write the language you copied. I read it. And copied from a page about the legislation. 

The underlined portion is language from the Gun Owners of America. They are hardly an impartial group, are they? 

Strange, that when you copy the information from my post, you do not copy it completely. ... You leave out the part that says the NRA supports the legislation. 

What's your agenda?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2007)

morph4me said:


> An opinion that I share. The laws are usually passed by people to deal with issues that they are unqualified to judge. Instead of new laws, I would like see us go the route of consumer education and enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.


 
Despite the hyperbole of the title of this thread, what I can read and understand of this legislation, is that it provides money to organizaitons so that they can comply with laws on the books. This legislation does not appear to be creating new laws in any way. At least as I understand it.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The underlined portion is language from the Gun Owners of America. They are hardly an impartial group, are they?



No, they are not, & I wouldn't want them to be. 



			
				Lisa said:
			
		

> See maybe I am not understanding but being diagnosed with PTSD does not automatically qualify you as being a danger to yourself or others. This, however, will make it seem so.



Roger that. It's on the federal forms whenever you purchase firearms. If you're diagnosed as a danger to yourself or others, you're SOL. Mental health issues aren't mentioned as a general disqualifier.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> No, they are not, & I wouldn't want them to be.


 
I have no problem with the organization having an agenda, and vigourously advocating for that agenda. It seemed to me that the discussion was using the GOA's interpretation of the bill, and conflating it with the bill, itself. 

It seems unhelpful to confuse to two.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems unhelpful to confuse to two.



Funny, I thought that was politics... ^_^


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Despite the hyperbole of the title of this thread, what I can read and understand of this legislation, is that it provides money to organizaitons so that they can comply with laws on the books. This legislation does not appear to be creating new laws in any way. At least as I understand it.



The problem is, new stipulations on the existing laws, and those stipulations are more then unreasonable.

From what I understand (unless I am misinformed), section [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 provides for raw medical records (from the VA and elsewhere) to be dumped into the NICS system. There is historical precidence for this, as this was done during the Clinton admin., and 83,000 vets were prevented from owning firearms due to things in their medical records, like PTSD.

And, supposedly, under legislation, they redefine "mentally defective" as anyone who is diagnosed to be a possible danger to himself by any "[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]court, commission, committee or                  other authorized person." [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] This is far different then before, where "mentally defective" was something that had to be determined by the court system, and where people had all the protection of due process. Now, with this legislation,  any kook  could diagnose you with PTSD, anxiety, depression, or what  have you, and despite the accuracy of that determination, if those raw records end up in the system, you could be denied your right to own a gun. 

For most private citizens, your medical records can remain private because there is no government agency overseeing them. For vets, much of your medical records are kept by a government office (VA). So all that has to happen is that these raw records are turned over to the NICS system, and bam, thousands of vets are now unable to own a firearm. It appears that this legislation provides for exactly that.

Do you know how many vets rely on their abilities to carry and own firearms for their employment? How many vets are in the security and law enforcement industry, for example? Or how many vets serve in the National Guard and in other agencies, and rely on their abilities to own firearms to stay trained up on their own time so they can continue to effectively serve (going to ranges and so forth)? Yet, they will now be barred from employment and livelihood as well, because they won't be allowed to carry due to raw records.

The real ***** of this is, vets went to war to protect our freedoms. Now they come home to lose theirs!? 

Now, knowing that this is what is wrong with this bill, how could ANYONE, anti-gun included, be in support for this bill? 

[/FONT]





> The NRA supports the legislation.



If my information is accurate as I have read, I don't care if the Pope, the Dali Llama, and Charlton Heston himself team up to support this legislation. What's wrong is wrong, and if the end result is what I described, then it is wrong regardless of who supports it.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]

C.


[/FONT]


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

lol...

OK, I'm totally fired up and pissed off....

BUT I DON"T KNOW WHO I AM PISSED OFF AT YET!! :toilclaw: 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018

The NRA is claiming that vets won't be adversely effected by the law, and that it would actually help because of the expungement process.

But I am skeptical still. But basically, stories are not matching up right now.  Proponents, NRA included, are making one claim, while exponents are claiming another. I will need to see more evidence on this one before I know who to be mad at. I do know that if the exponents are correct, that this is a very scary proposition. I just hope that they aren't if this goes through...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2007)

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018


----------



## Guardian (Dec 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Guardian,
> 
> I did not write the language you copied. I read it. And copied from a page about the legislation.
> 
> ...


 
*I know you didn't write it Michael, that was not my intent, my intent was that you read that they sent medical records over to be included that in the system to include those with PTSD which is in the bill for those with mental disorders, that's it's to general and could eliminate alot of folks from owning a gun.*

*No agenda partner, just making a point or trying to.  Don't think because something is different then or not everything is put down, that their is agenda, some would think your paranoid which I don't think is the case here.*

*All I did was try and point out an opposing view. *


----------



## Big Don (Dec 31, 2007)

Were I conspiratorially minded, I'd say this was a conspiracy to take guns out of the hands of those with the skills (assumes a lot) to use them best. 
Since I'm not, PTSD is one of those things that is just over diagnosed. I'm surprised there aren't commercials on TV for anti-PTSD drugs


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 31, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Were I conspiratorially minded, I'd say this was a conspiracy to take guns out of the hands of those with the skills (assumes a lot) to use them best.
> Since I'm not, PTSD is one of those things that is just over diagnosed. I'm surprised there aren't commercials on TV for anti-PTSD drugs



Just one more reason to support the CMA...


----------



## tellner (Dec 31, 2007)

Don, I really don't think that's an issue. We already know that the Masses will not rise up in revolt against the government. If they were going to it would have happened by now. And we are under such thorough surveillance and monitoring that no organized violent resistance is possible. A bunch of unorganized, unsupported, thoroughly infiltrated guys with sub-par small arms simply can not fight the police state. 

Blackwater versus MoM? 
Delta Force versus some former ground-pounder and a dozen of his friends (not including the three informers)?
The MJTF versus a bunch of guys who think that their religion will protect them from automatic weapons?
MacArthur versus the Bonus Marchers?
The FBI versus the Aryan Nations?
The Pinkertons versus the CIO?

I know which way a smart man bets.

A few rifles and pistols are completely irrelevant. The military and DoJ know this.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 1, 2008)

tellner said:


> Don, I really don't think that's an issue. We already know that the Masses will not rise up in revolt against the government. If they were going to it would have happened by now. And we are under such thorough surveillance and monitoring that no organized violent resistance is possible. A bunch of unorganized, unsupported, thoroughly infiltrated guys with sub-par small arms simply can not fight the police state.
> 
> Blackwater versus MoM?
> Delta Force versus some former ground-pounder and a dozen of his friends (not including the three informers)?
> ...


 
*Do you think that's true that those who wished would have by now?  How did it take the Colonies to rise up, how much crap did they take, quite a bit if I remember right.  You don't rise up miltiarily wise against a vastly superior force.  You plan and then you implement those plans that will give you the best chance possible and direct to direct confrontation will not be on the menu.*


----------



## tellner (Jan 1, 2008)

Maybe. But there has to be some sort of chance of actually succeeding. 

The British had other concerns that split their attention. The colonies received aid from Britain's enemies. They had at least a third of the population actively on their side. They had an independent industrial base. They had weapons which were at least equivalent to the other side's. They had Dupont making their gunpowder. 

Most of all, they could organize.

Today that's pretty much impossible. Most people are probably not aware of the degree to which what we say is recorded, collated and analyzed. There is truly massive surveillance, and the government has a well developed program of domestic intelligence. You can be just about guaranteed that any serious efforts at undermining or overthrowing the current will be squashed. During the American Revolution the papers and broadsheets were independent. And it was easy to ignore the media. Today the media are all-pervasive. And they are owned by a small and shrinking elite which is utterly committed to things the way they are.

The Maoist program of starting with the countryside, moving to the villages, then the towns and finally the cities saving your regular troops for the last push won't work in a  highly urbanized country. "Leaderless resistance" a la the Neo-Nazis is annoying. So far it hasn't actually accomplished anything.

Nope. The 1776 fantasies are just that. The popguns are worthless as tools of social change. All they'll do is bring overwhelming force down on anyone stupid enough to use them against the government or its owners. The only thing that has a chance of working is a sea-change in attitudes. If the subjects and the enforcers decide not to listen to the rulers the rulers have nothing.


----------



## chinto (Jan 2, 2008)

unless and until there is a reason from the ACTIONS, then the taking of any constitutional right from any one is beyond reprehensible and as far as I am concerned Illegal!! the Constitution of the United States of America is the final arbitrator and trumps all laws... ( call me a strict constructionist!)


----------

