NRA Stabs Veterans--Is anti Veteran!

[BLUEDOT 72]

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
-- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White House.

The Veterans Disarmament Act has passed with the help of the NRA! The NRA has totally failed us here ! If I was considering which PRO-Gun organization to join now, It would not be the NRA! Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have let us down and they need to go! They have sold out to Chuck Schumer and we have let them do it!
The bill is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign. What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.

The efforts begun during the Clinton Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible but Section 101(c)(1)(C) of this bill, HR 2640, would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

Organizations opposing this terrible legislation included The American Legion, Gun Owners of America and The Order of The Purple Heart!

If you are asked by new shooters if they should join the NRA, say "NO!!" Tell them to join the Gun Owners of America or any other Pro-Gun organization.

[fabsroman]

I just received e-mails from the NRA and the NSSF stating that the bill in Congress was to improve the NICS check and to allow a means for people to appeal negative NICS results. Is the bill you are referring to something different?

Okay, I found HR 2640, copied and pasted it in Word and did a search for the word "veteran" and it isn't even in the bill.

HR 2640 is the bill that is the bill that is supposed to allow people to appeal negative NICS results and it allows the system to be amended if an adjudication of mental illness is later reversed. The bill is 12 pages long in Word, so I didn't have the time to read the entire thing, but I do know that the NRA and the NSSF both endorsed it.

If it does what the NRA and the NSSF say it does, then I am all for it. If it helps to keep guns out of peoples' hands like the VA Tech shooter and the recent mall shooter, I am all for it. Without these types of shootings, there wouldn't be as much opposition to shootings. Honestly, if somebody is suffering from mental illness, should we really allow them to have a firearm?

[gumpokc]

I'm not sure it's the same bill, but the one they were throwing a fit about several months ago basically said that if you had _ever_ been diagnosed with PTSD (which the vast majority are veterans), you would automatically banned for life from owning a firearm.
There was an appeals process, totally at your own cost, and made going to the VA without an appointment look like a spring picnic.

These are not people who have been adjucated as dangerous, as the VA-tech shooter was, just people who are having a few problems adjusting to experiences they recieved.

The VA-tech shooter fells through the cracks in the system, because noone wanted to take responsibility for violating his "rights". It's the system that needs fixing, not making additional laws that are not needed, just enforce the ones we already have that are not being enforced.

[Skinny Shooter]

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

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."

[Skinny Shooter]

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=246

Clearing the Air on the Instant Check Bill (H.R. 2640)
On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill (H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act") would create incentives for states to upgrade their records on criminals and others currently prohibited from buying guns.

While gun owners are often rightly skeptical about what they read in the press, far too many have fallen for the media line that this is a "gun control" bill that came about as a result of the horrific murders at Virginia Tech. From NRA’s perspective, the history of the bill goes back farther--to the earliest days of the instant check system, after it replaced the five-day waiting period created by the original Brady Act. (NRA, of course, opposed the original Brady Bill and its waiting period, supported amendments to force a transition to the instant check system and opposed later bills to make the waiting period permanent.)

In the late 1990s, gun buyers often experienced ridiculous delays while NICS sorted through cases of mistaken identity or incomplete police records. Many purchasers were wrongly denied and forced to go through a cumbersome appeals process. At the same time, state officials testified before Congress about woefully incomplete records they provide to NICS--a problem confirmed in recent reports by the U.S. Department of Justice.

H.R. 2640, like similar bills introduced since 2002, was meant to address those problems. State and federal agencies would supply updated records and would also have to remove incorrect records or records that no longer apply--for instance, when a person has an old criminal conviction expunged by a state judge.

More accurate records would mean fewer wrongful delays and denials. More honest citizens would be able to exercise their right to arms, while potentially dangerous people could be screened out more effectively. There’s just no sound reason to let the system be as incomplete as it’s been for the past nine years.

At press time, this bill is scheduled for debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We don’t know how that will turn out, but rest assured that as the bill moves through the legislative process, NRA will be on the lookout for any attempt to amend it into a gun control "wish list." If that happens, we will withdraw our support and actively oppose its passage. In the meantime, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation about H.R. 2640 has circulated, especially in the clogged lanes of the Internet’s "information super highway." The rest of this article will answer some of the questions NRA members have asked about this bill.

Does H.R. 2640 ban guns for anyone who’s ever seen a psychiatrist or received any other mental health treatment?

Absolutely not. H.R. 2640 doesn’t ban anyone from owning guns--it only makes records available on those who are already "prohibited persons."

When it comes to mental health conditions, the only people who can’t own a gun under federal law are those who have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or . . . been committed to any mental institution." Regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) define those terms too broadly in some ways, but narrowly in others. H.R. 2640 refers to those definitions, but only to help agencies figure out what records to provide to NICS; it doesn’t ban anyone new from buying or owning a gun.

Some critics of H.R. 2640 claim that BATFE’s regulation would impose a gun ban based on any psychiatrist’s diagnosis that a person "[i]s a danger to himself or to others . . . or . . . [l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." But that’s not true, because basic legal definitions mean that an "adjudication" can only come from a court or similar body. As cosponsor Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said in the Congressional Record, adjudication is a formal process, "not just a doctor’s notes on a patient’s charts."

Finally, of course, ordinary doctors’ records--whether on mental health or anything else--are private under federal and state laws, as well as longstanding legal and medical tradition.

"The confidentiality between a doctor and patient is sacred, and we do not intend to breach it, " said Rep. Dingell.

H.R. 2640 doesn’t ban anyone from owning guns--it only makes records available on those who are already "prohibited persons."


How does the bill affect veterans?

Some have asked if H.R. 2640 would prohibit gun ownership by veterans--for instance, those who return from war with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

The answer, fortunately, is "No." For all the same reasons a psychiatrist’s diagnosis can’t ban gun ownership, an evaluation by Veterans’ Administration (VA) or other doctors isn’t an "adjudication" or "commitment" under federal law.

In fact, H.R. 2640 aims to fix problems for veterans and their families. During the Clinton administration, the VA started sending information to NICS on veterans (and veterans’ family members) who had representatives appointed to handle their benefit checks.

The VA treated these records as "adjudications," but supporters of H.R. 2640 disagree. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) denounced the VA’s "overreach" and pointed out that H.R. 2640 would allow wrongly listed veterans to seek restoration of their rights. [Note: If you are a veteran and have been denied a gun purchase due to the VA’s actions, please call NRA-ILA’s Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1160.

What records would NICS get from the Department of Homeland Security?

The bill requires federal agencies to provide records on people prohibited from possessing firearms. Homeland Security includes all the agencies (such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Border Patrol) that have records on known illegal aliens. Illegal aliens, of course, have been prohibited from possessing firearms in the U.S. since 1968.

Why did NRA support a bill sponsored by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)?

NRA-ILA looks at every bill on its own merits, asking one basic question: Will this bill be an improvement for gun owners and all Americans, compared to current law? For example, NRA supported arming airline pilots for defense against terrorists, even though anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) joined pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) in leading that fight.

Sponsors of the NICS improvement bill include Reps. John Dingell (the only current House member who voted against the Gun Control Act of 1968), Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.)--all of whom are longtime supporters of gun owners’ rights and sponsors of many pro-Second Amendment bills.

Why didn’t the Congress have a roll call vote on this bill?

Voice votes are standard procedure in the U.S. House; every bill first gets a voice vote, followed by a recorded vote only if a House member asks for it and 20 percent of the House agrees. No one even asked for a recorded vote on H.R. 2640--which is not at all unusual for a bill with such broad support in both political parties.

[Skinny Shooter]

This is continued from the NRA page:
Relief in Sight?
by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed a lifetime ban on firearm possession by any person who was ever adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 provided that such persons could petition BATFE for removal of such disabilities, but Congress has prohibited that procedure in annual appropriations acts. For the first time since 1968, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," H.R. 2640, would allow the states to provide procedures to remove these federal disabilities, and also require federal agencies to adopt disability removal procedures.
Imposing a lifetime firearm ban on all persons who were ever subject to such adjudications or commitments, without any hope for such persons to prove themselves recovered, is cruel and vindictive. H.R. 2640 would remedy this injustice and allow restoration of such persons’ Second Amendment rights.

Almost all mental commitments and adjudications occur under state law. This bill requires states to have procedures to allow such persons to show that they would not be a danger to public safety. Under H.R. 2640, the State "shall grant the relief" if the person is unlikely to endanger the public. The person would also have the right to appeal a denial to a state court. This is the first time since the ban was imposed in 1968 that persons could seek relief at the state level, thereby reforming current law which only authorizes BATFE to decide on relief. When BATFE used to administer such a program, it granted relief about 40% of the time, but Congress has circumvented that law by defunding the BATFE program.

The Veterans’ Administration and other federal agencies also conduct certain adjudications and commitments, and the bill provides for removal of these disabilities by these same agencies—rather than by BATFE—and for judicial review of any denial. Many people could also get relief from a provision in the bill that excludes adjudications or commitments where the person has been "fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring."

Passage of H.R. 2640 would, for the first time in their lives, give hope to persons who in the past were subject to a mental commitment or adjudication and have recovered their mental health. Current law only serves to sentence such persons to a lifetime ban on firearms without any chance of ever redeeming their Second Amendment rights.

Stephen P. Halbrook is an attorney and author in Fairfax, Virginia. His latest book is The Founders’ Second Amendment (Stanford University Press, 2007). For more information, visit www.stephenhalbrook.com.

[Jack]

I did some searching about this bill after reading the original post. There is quite a buzz about this bill on the internet. But all of it traces back to one source- Larry Pratt.
JMO, but this looks like a spat Larry Pratt and his organization (GOA) is picking with the NRA more than anything else.

[gumpokc]

Thanks for the info skinny, clears up a few things, but raises more questions.

Now that it's inplace, whats to keep them from "redefining definations" and amendign it later on? they have done so before.

[fabsroman]

There is absolutely nothing in the way of them amending definitions, repealing the entire law, or changing the law further, except that it has to go through the same process. Any change in a definition would have to pass both the House and the Senate and the bill would have to be signed by the President. Any change in a definition is essentially a new bill, whether it is this year, next year, or 10 years down the road. Once a law is enacted, it cannot be changed in any way without another bill being passed.

Isn't it amazing how one person can send something negative out on the Internet and it gets to millions of people rather quickly. This is why we always need to be very cautious about what we read on the Internet.

[BLUEDOT 72]

What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides
a process
for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
only if "the person 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." (Emphasis added.)

[BLUEDOT 72]

Skinny Shooter, If you believe what you have posted in RED, then you must believe in the Easter Bunny! Calif. Congressman Dan Lundgren is one of the most ANTI-Gun Republicans ever! He was part of the ANTI-s that took over Californicate when he was their attorney general!

[Skinny Shooter]

Hi BLUEDOT 72, why don't you call the NRA and ask them about it.
I've called them to clarify their positions in the past and they will talk with you. I'd like to know how you make out.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018
Background Checks/ NICS
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 www.vawatchdog.org) 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.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh.)

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.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.

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.

[Skinny Shooter]

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh

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.

[Skinny Shooter]

http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR%202640.htm

Shotgun News, September 1, 2007, pp. 28, 30, 32

HR 2640: Sensible Solution or Trojan Horse?
My last two columns addressed the problem of psychosis, violence, and gun control. This column is about HR 2640, a mental illness and gun control bill currently before Congress that has split the gun rights community more than I can ever recall seeing.

What does HR 2640 purport to do? (Remember that I am talking about the HR 2640 as of the day that I wrote this column, July 21, 2007. Bills change as they work their way thorough Congress.) At least 28 states either intentionally, because of a shortage of money, or by bureaucratic incompetence, fail to turn over mental illness commitment information to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system.[1] HR 2640 tries to improve the level of compliance by a combination of carrot and stick. The states that are failing to turn over the information can get additional money to upgrade their computer systems and hire more staff to solve this problem. States that still won’t turn over the information will have their federal funding under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 reduced.[2]

One very poorly thought out provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 specified that if a person was found to be mentally incompetent, they lost their right to own a gun forever.[3] What about people who have a mental illness episode in their teens or 20s, and never have another problem? Even twenty years later—no matter how many judges or doctors have declared you competent and safe to own a gun—you still can’t legally own one under federal law. At the insistence of the NRA, HR 2640 adds a new provision to federal law that allows the federal government or states to relieve you from this disability.[4]

Now, a lot of gun rights organizations whose commitment to the cause I do not question have broken with NRA on HR 2640. Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are notable examples of groups that are very concerned that HR 2640 is going to open a Pandora’s Box of new gun restrictions, and they have managed to get this concern expressed to a large part of the gun rights community.

Partly, I think this is because NRA has worked with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), one of our archenemies, to get this bill through the House. There is a grave suspicion that anything that McCarthy supports must be intended to harm gun owners.

I have spent a lot of time reading their concerns, and those of my many readers, trying to see if they are correct about the dangers of HR 2640. As much as I respect these organizations and their zeal, I’m just not finding anything in the bill that gives me reason to oppose it. One of the concerns that Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America expressed in a widely distributed email was that the language of the bill refers to “adjudications, determinations and commitments,” and that it wasn’t clear what “determinations” means. Korwin was concerned that any doctor could decide, quite arbitrarily, that you couldn’t be trusted with a gun.

But federal regulations define this: “Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) 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.

“(b) The term shall include—

“(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

“(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.”[5]

This is a pretty high standard. The due process requirements for this are pretty darn high, at least partly because the ACLU in the late 1960s and 1970s made a very serious effort to end involuntary mental illness commitment. They did not achieve their entire goal, but the courts put up many substantial barriers. Contrary to the claims that some have made, a doctor can’t get you adjudicated insane, and the fact that you were given Ritalin as a kid won’t qualify as “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

Korwin was concerned that the language of HR 2640 refers to commitment, but not “involuntary commitment.” It turns out that the legal language is a bit confusing on this. A person that enters a mental hospital and asks for help isn’t, contrary to what you might logically think, “voluntarily committed.” This is either “informal admission” or “conditional voluntary admission.” A “voluntary commitment” means that you have voluntarily given over to the hospital substantial authority to decide when you are well enough to leave—and this is not all that common.[6]

Another concern was that Congress might not fund the appeal process for those who were involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is certainly a legitimate concern. There is a very similar appeal process by which those who have been convicted of felonies can request federal relief from this disability—and Congress has refused to provide any funds for this process since 1992. Two points, however.

1. If you were declared incompetent by a state agency or court, HR 2640 allows you to request relief from the body that declared you incompetent. For states to receive any funding for improving their records under this act, they are required to offer such a disability relief appeal process. They are not required to do so now.

2. Under the current law, once you have been “adjudicated mentally defective,” there is no appeal process under federal law. Yes, if Congress refuses to fund a federal disability appeals process, you will not be able to get your firearms rights back. But that’s no worse than today—where there is no appeals process at all.

HR 2640 does not change the requirements for who can own a gun. If you were adjudicated mentally incompetent in say, 1980, but your state did not pass the information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, you might still be able to pass a firearms background check—but if you are in possession of a gun, you have committed a federal felony. If for any reason the authorities discover that you have a gun, you are in serious trouble. HR 2640 does not change this—but at least it reduces the risk that a person might unintentionally or unknowingly break the law by buying a gun from a dealer.

Alan Korwin also expressed concern that: “The mental health community is entrusted with the ability to restore a person's rights by declaring them fit (I'm paraphrasing a lot of legalese here). Doctors are by-and-large among the most anti-gun-rights groups in society (check the med journals, AMA, CDC, etc., but I know you know that).” I’ve looked through the bill and the current laws and regulations, and I just can’t find anything that fits this. The decision as to whether someone is fit is not made by a doctor. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of the last forty years has been the increasing unwillingness of the courts to trust that psychiatrists know anything at all. The ACLU has taken the position (and the courts have to a large extent bought it) that psychiatric opinion is like flipping a coin in its accuracy, and not taken very seriously.

Korwin is concerned that HR 2640 would allow illegal aliens to legally own guns if the amnesty bill that was under consideration in early July had passed. “In other words, if the Amnesty Bill removes the illegal status from the people here illegally, they cannot be put in the NICS denial list!” Very true. But if the amnesty bill had passed, and HR 2640 did not—illegal aliens would doubtless have been allowed to own guns, anyway. That’s a problem of the amnesty bill—not HR 2640.

[Skinny Shooter]

Shotgun News article continued:

Gun Owners of America put out an alert on July 10 that warned about a Horatio Miller in Pennsylvania who “said that it could be ‘worse than Virginia Tech’ if someone broke into his car, because there were guns there.” Miller was arrested, but not charged. Nonetheless, the district attorney instructed the sheriff to revoke Miller’s concealed carry permit, and according to GOA’s press release, the district attorney “asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."[7] The district attorney might want to consult a lawyer (or someone who knows how to read). Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act is not an involuntary commitment under federal law at all. The title is “Involuntary emergency examination and treatment authorized by a physician.” It is limited to 120 hours, and does not involve the due process requirements necessary for adjudication under federal law.[8]

I suppose that I should point out that Miller’s problems may be a bit larger than a thoughtless remark. I wouldn’t bet the farm on this guy being right, but one gun rights activist in the area where Miller was arrested has been following the case, and reports that local newspaper coverage indicates that the police have been called to Miller’s apartment building 22 times in the previous year.[9] Maybe the district attorney completely overreacted. But maybe there’s some history of inappropriate behavior. Without more data, I would not make too many assumptions.

I appreciate the concerns that gun rights groups have about HR 2640. Anytime that Carolyn McCarthy wants a bill passed, we should definitely read it carefully, and consider if there might be something nasty hiding in the woodwork. But so far, all of the objections that I have seen raised to HR 2640—at least as it is written today—seem to be erroneous.

[Skinny Shooter]

Now after all that, I gotta wonder why the NRA would screw the very people that would "Zumbo" them at the drop of the hat. The same people that support them with memberships.
Zumbo got worse treatment than any politician I know of.
Too bad that kind of anger can't be directed at the anti-gunners in elected office...
We might really get somewhere.

[Jack]

Call me a cynic, but....
Larry Pratt runs an organization that competes with the NRA, and so competes with the NRA for members.
Larry Pratt has gotten more ink in the pro gun community in the last few days than he could have gotten with a 250,000 dollar ad campaign.............
I'll let you do your own math and come to your own conclusion.

[DON WALKUP]

lots of good information in this thread.

of one thing i'm certain...we need to keep an eye on EVERY legislator or the whole nation will end up like kaliphornia.