# 140K Veterans may have Gun Rights taken away



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

http://www.gunowners.org/a122007.htm

The Bill is on Bushs desk. See where this is going?


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

I know that it's asking an awful lot from you, but you should really read the actual text of the bill before you snap up some BS propoganda like this.


----------



## usmarine0352 (Nov 26, 2005)

Reddbecca said:


> I know that it's asking an awful lot from you, but you should really read the actual text of the bill before you snap up some BS propoganda like this.


I don't like reading that much.

What does it say?


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

http://www.gunowners.org/a122007.htm

Read It, or are you illiterate in addition to being stupid?
The Bill seeks to ban all firearms from Vets with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome..
They dont want trained fighters owning firearms WTSHF



> ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.
> 
> ANSWER: 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Read It, or are you illiterate in addition to being stupid?


You're on the edge buddy. You want to see some real control just keep calling people stupid on here.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

No,
I just have 0 tolerance for those that cant read a simple text concerning a gun rights bill, then attempt to correct one that can, and do so Falsely..

Illiteracy is forgiveable. But they say..you cant fix stupid. 
I tend to agree with that.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

uglyman said:


> Read It, or are you illiterate in addition to being stupid?
> The Bill seeks to ban all firearms from Vets with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome..
> They dont want trained fighters owning firearms WTSHF


The VPC, the head of all gun control is this country, says that you're wrong.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0712nics.htm



> _Resuscitate a failed government program that spent millions of dollars annually to allow persons prohibited from buying guns to regain the ability to legally acquire firearms. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a "relief from disability" program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have "been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed. As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) used to run a similar program that, in addition to those with mental disabilities, even allowed felons to apply for "relief." Annual costs for the ATF program ballooned to more than $4 million in 1991, with an average cost of $4,800 per applicant and 43 full-time employees dedicated to processing the applications. Congress shut down the ATF program in 1992 because of its high cost, inefficiency, and threat to public safety. Under the bill, states would also be required to establish such "relief" programs to restore the gun privileges of those with mental health disabilities in order to be eligible for potential grant money to upgrade records submitted to the NICS.
> 
> Set an arbitrary time limit for the VA to act on applications for "relief." If the agency fails to act within 365 days, applicants could file a lawsuit asking a court to restore their gun privileges, even if Congress fails to provide the VA with the appropriate resources to process these investigations. Some prevailing applicants would be entitled to attorneys' fees. This provision is contrary to a unanimous 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ATF's failure to act on a relief application from a felon (because of lack of appropriations) did not constitute a denial that would entitle the applicant to judicial review. The decision noted that courts are ill-equipped to make decisions on individual applications for "relief" under the standards that would apply under the "NICS Improvement Act," stating: "Whether an applicant is `likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety' presupposes an inquiry into that applicant's background--a function best performed by the Executive, which, unlike courts, is institutionally equipped for conducting a neutral, wide-ranging investigation. Similarly, the `public interest' standard calls for an inherently policy-based decision best left in the hands of an agency."
> 
> Significantly narrow the category of records of people with mental disabilities that would be submitted to the NICS by the federal government. The current permanent bar on persons with certain health disabilities would be replaced with temporary restrictions._


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Fox guarding the henhouse...of course they dont..

VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER is the VPC.
They dont advocate for Gun owners Rights!

As stated, you cant fix stupid.

Read what the actual bill means to the average Veteran with a mental disorder of PTS.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I've read the bill. Reddbecca is right and you're wrong. It's as simple as that.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

You read it from a Govt organization that is Not an advocate of Gun owners Rights, of course the Govt would never lie to us, right?
She is wrong & so are you!



> An email from Gun Owners of America (GOA) regarding the passage of HR 2640 in the Senate is shown below. IMHO, we, the gun owners of America, were sold down the river by the NRA (National Rifle Association), AGAIN! When are we going to learn that NRA is NOT adequately looking out after us legislatively! Otherwise HR 2640 wouldn't have gotten passed and the NRA would be speaking out against Michael J. Sullivan ('Chappaquiddick' Kennedy's best bud) as Director of the ATF.
> 
> The NRA doesn't speak out (when the GOA, JPFA, and CCRKBA have) because the SOB (Son Of a Bush) appointed (via erstwhile AG, Gonzales) Sullivan as acting Director. The NRA is in the neo-con's (neo-Jacobins) coat pocket (and I will leave that there.) The NRA is corrupt in the sense that they do not do what they are supposed to be doing but rather feathering their own nest too often and they full of dead wood (political sycophants).
> 
> ...


"Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm," said LaPierre, who oversees the powerful gun lobby's political operations. "The federal law is pretty clear on this. He [Cho] should have been in the [FBI] data base."



> "This looks like an enormously expensive, extremely intrusive, extremely stigmatizing approach to a tragic situation," Dr. Nada Stotland, vice president of the psychiatric association, the largest group representing the nation's psychiatrists, said of the McCarthy bill. "It is unconscionable to restrict people's civil rights because they have a medical illness&#8230;."
> 
> "&#8230;McCarthy told NEWSWEEK that she was pleasantly surprised to hear of the NRA's public position, noting that an executive of the Gun Owners of America had met with House Republicans this week to gin up opposition to her measure. "I have a feeling that this is their [the NRA's} way of showing they can be moderate," she said. (A McCarthy aide said that when the congresswoman's staff members met with NRA lobbyists last January about her proposed measure, the NRA officials said they would not publicly support it unless language was added that would eliminate the existing ban on interstate purchases of firearms. No such language has been added, the aide said.)


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

uglyman said:


> You read it from a Govt organization that is Not an advocate of Gun owners Rights, of course the Govt would never lie to us, right?
> She is wrong & so are you!


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... c79:e34859:

_(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--

(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;

(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that 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; and

(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.

(b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities With Respect to Firearms- If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 102(c)(1)(B), the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code._


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and John Dingell, D-Mich., view the Virginia Tech murders as the perfect time to push H.R. 297, one of the most insidiously Machiavellian anti-gun laws yet to be introduced.

It is co-sponsored by Rabid Anti-2nd Amendment advocates Reps. Michael Castle, R-Del., Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn. It is supported by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Conyers and NRA board member Larry Craig&#8230;."

Post Stress for Veterans, qualifies as a mental illness, As said all along!..


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

Then you should've said it was H.R. 297, instead of leaving everybody to believe it was H.R. 2640!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-297

Status of H.R. 297, introduced. Just like so many other gun control bills, all they've gotten to is the introduction, some a referral to a commitee, but no action on their parts.

Edit: Good Lord did you even read the language of 297? Nowhere in the entire body is "stress" or "PTSD" mentioned. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=h110-297


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Private & Government studies reveal that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems.

Put any Vets serving as potential sufferers of Post Stress Syndrome.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> You read it from a Govt organization


No kidding Sherlock. Where else would one read the full text of a Government bill?



> "Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm," said LaPierre, who oversees the powerful gun lobby's political operations. "The federal law is pretty clear on this. He [Cho] should have been in the [FBI] data base."


How could any sane person not agree with that? You will note that at present the law does not require a person to be adjudicated by a court before their name is placed on the list. That's why there are now a bunch of Vets on that list. There are at present no means for that Vet to have his name removed. This bill closes those loop holes. You would do well to expand your search a little farther than what Larry Pratt rants about on his controlled GOA.

You're stumbling again. H.R. 297 is not the bill your quote from GOA refers to. H.R. 297 is dead in subcommittee where it has sat since Feb. 5th, 2007. H.R. 2640 is the bill passed and the subject.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Hence, if a person were --

a. A vet found by a VA doctor to be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder [PTS],

b. A kid put on Ritalin under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in part because of the increased danger of playground fights;

c. A senior with Alzheimer's receiving home health care under the Medicare program --

then, under the new interpretation being pushed by anti-gun advocates, that person would be subject to a lifetime gun ban IF the term "adjudication" included a diagnosis, as opposed to just a court order.

http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm



> Second, in the case of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, kids with attention deficit disorder, or seniors with Alzheimer's, de minimis levels of "danger" or incompetence are almost always an underlying issue (and, hence, an implicit finding). And the statement conveniently fails to mention the standard in the BATFE's May 9 letter, starting that "any" danger, no matter how de minimis, is sufficient.
> 
> Third, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare or the state National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids, and seniors prohibited persons -- even without meeting the de minimis "danger" standard in 101(c) (1) (C), which is applicable only to federal diagnosis, not state diagnosis.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

A blog post does not equal anything but the opinions of a single person.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

From Gun Owners of America..Youre an aplogist for more gun laws that harm gunowners & Combat Vets. You should be ashamed.



> Second, there is language in the bill which could arguably restore the rights of the most dangerous -- but not those who were simply "diagnosed" with PTS, ADD, Alzheimer's, etc. Hence, while someone who was actually intended to be covered by 922(d) & ) (g) and is dangerous and locked up might actually be able to get his rights back by proving that he had been "released and discharged" under 101(c) (1) (C) (A), someone who is just subject to a diagnosis -- and hence can't be "released or discharged" from an institution which never restrained him -- cannot benefit from this provision.
> 
> Third, again, note the use of the word "federal." State diagnosis in connection with IDEA, Medicare, or the State National Guard would be enough to make veterans, kids and seniors prohibited person -- but these victims would not be able to restore their rights under sections 101(c) (1) (A), even if a thousand psychologists testified that they were wholly "normal."


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324830

Read it, all of it.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

> "Don't faint, but the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have Joined forces behind a bill regulating the sale of firearms."
> -"Gun reform with NRA blessing," The Denver Post, June 17, 2007
> 
> "The NRA is the nation's largest gun-rights group. But its support for the new bill actually reflects the NRA's long-standing belief that existing gun laws should be enforced before new ones are written. That's exactly what the McCarthy/ Smith/Dingell bill would do.
> ...


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

Give me the link to the Gun Show Background Check bill.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Read It, or are you illiterate in addition to being stupid?





> Illiteracy is forgiveable. But they say..you cant fix stupid.


You know uglyman I respect every person on here. I share your faith, but have a different view than you. I support your right to express your views and your faith, but on two other threads I have told everyone I don't want people degrading each other. This is unacceptable. This is not on the edge it is over my tolerance edge. I am an intolerant old &*(^% that wants to protect everyone's dignity.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Had you of actually read the bill that you chided others and called them stupid then you would have read the following in Section 3, C, 1-B.

(c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

(1) IN GENERAL- *No department* or agency of the Federal Government *may provide* to the Attorney General any record of an or determination adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if-

(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;

Read it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2640

I can see this thread is turning into a vicious circle jerk just like the last one you were involved in. I'm out.


----------



## uglyman (Dec 25, 2007)

Youre the one playing mental masturbation along with REDbecca..



> Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
> 
> Does the NRA Defend Gun Rights?
> December 28th, 2007
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is way out of line and locked, and good-bye.


----------

