Veterans Disarmament Act
Can someone point me toward the language in this bill that would prevent veterans from possessing firearms? I read through it and failed to find anything. It looks like you still have to be adjudicated as mentally defective as per existing law. Notes on a patients file, including diagnosis, would still be confidential, right?
0
-
Go to GOA (Gun Owners of America) and check it out. 0 -
I understand their stance is that it does one thing, and other people say it does another. I was trying to find out what the bill actually does. I think the GOA is generally pretty good, but there is so much disagreement on this, I wanted to see if I could figure anything out. As usual though, American Law is written so that no American can understand it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
Can someone point me toward the language in this bill that would prevent veterans from possessing firearms? I read through it and failed to find anything. It looks like you still have to be adjudicated as mentally defective as per existing law. Notes on a patients file, including diagnosis, would still be confidential, right?
Wrong! That's the information that will be input to the NCIS computer. Furhtermore, all the blather about someone being able to "sue" to clear their record is just that, blather. How many rich veterans do you know that have money to blow on lawyers to get their second amendment rignts restored?0 -
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
Can someone point me toward the language in this bill that would prevent veterans from possessing firearms? I read through it and failed to find anything. It looks like you still have to be adjudicated as mentally defective as per existing law. Notes on a patients file, including diagnosis, would still be confidential, right?
Wrong! That's the information that will be input to the NCIS computer. Furhtermore, all the blather about someone being able to "sue" to clear their record is just that, blather. How many rich veterans do you know that have money to blow on lawyers to get their second amendment rignts restored?
Can you point me to that language, or is that just what you read somewhere else. From what I can find, unless your mental health records were entered into court records through some sort of proceeding (all this language is very vague) your records would still be private. This is why veterans are at the most risk because there records are already available to the government.
This does illustrate one point: Be careful what government programs you participate in as you may be voluntarily, although unknowingly, giving up your rights by participating.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
Can someone point me toward the language in this bill that would prevent veterans from possessing firearms? I read through it and failed to find anything. It looks like you still have to be adjudicated as mentally defective as per existing law. Notes on a patients file, including diagnosis, would still be confidential, right?
Wrong! That's the information that will be input to the NCIS computer. Furhtermore, all the blather about someone being able to "sue" to clear their record is just that, blather. How many rich veterans do you know that have money to blow on lawyers to get their second amendment rignts restored?
Can you point me to that language, or is that just what you read somewhere else. From what I can find, unless your mental health records were entered into court records through some sort of proceeding (all this language is very vague) your records would still be private. This is why veterans are at the most risk because there records are already available to the government.
This does illustrate one point: Be careful what government programs you participate in as you may be voluntarily, although unknowingly, giving up your rights by participating.
I think you just answered your own question.0 -
Illinois know requires all returning Nation Guardsmen from over seas to take a phycho-examination. Mandatory.
Presumed crazy...must prove your sanity before reentry into society.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
I understand their stance is that it does one thing, and other people say it does another. I was trying to find out what the bill actually does. I think the GOA is generally pretty good, but there is so much disagreement on this, I wanted to see if I could figure anything out. As usual though, American Law is written so that no American can understand it.
The bottom line is that it is another unconstitutional law that determines which of America's citizens shall be prohibited from exercising their RTKBA, as per Amendment II of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
What more does anyone need to know about it, really?0 -
Know many who should never own guns again. But a new law to cover that WRONG. 0 -
i've been trying to find out about this law since it was passed. i have called and written both senators,and my congressman. I haven't recieved an answer from any of them yet. i guess it's a national secret. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tysonagreen
Can someone point me toward the language in this bill that would prevent veterans from possessing firearms? I read through it and failed to find anything. It looks like you still have to be adjudicated as mentally defective as per existing law. Notes on a patients file, including diagnosis, would still be confidential, right?
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=278749&SearchTerms=2640
The NRA claims:
"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."
The Truth:
In U.S. v. Waters, U.S. v. Waters, 786 F.Supp. 1111 (N.D. N.Y. 1992), a federal district court ruled that under New York law a two-physician certification procedure constitutes a formal commitment. Judicial review of the commitment was not a requirement.
If the proponents of H.R. 2640 were not trying to expand the scope of the law, then why not simply amend the bill to limit "adjudication" to a court proceeding and thus put to rest this issue of concern?
Since at least one court has already ruled to validate the concerns of opponents of H.R. 2640, and the proponents of H.R. 2640 refuse to amend H.R. 2640 to specifically state what they tell us the bill "really" means, then how could any reasonable person believe that the words "other lawful authority" in H.R. 2640 will not be interpreted to include psychologists, psychiatrists, and review boards that do not provide the same due process that a court of law would provide.0 -
One of the main reasons given by the PRO-gun organizations that opposed this bill can be found below.
in the bill,
Sec 211,
(c)
1,
b,
quote: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
The bill opened the door so that, it will no longer be ONLY a court that makes the determination, but a board, commission, or other lawful authority will also have this power.
Which "board" will they give this power to in the future? A school board? Has your child EVER had a problem is school? No guns for his/her lifetime.
Which "commission" will get the power?
Any type of government (or civilian) agency that operates under the authority of a board of commissioners?
Then lets open up Pandora's box with "other lawful authority"
Has the government ever ABUSED this kind of opening?
How about ANY psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, etc?
Who could they give this power to in the future?
Just about anyone they felt had an agenda?
An ANTI-gun agenda!
Some make the argument, that it has always been this way. Wrong.
The source they site, "27 C.F.R. 478.11" is from the BATF's "Code of Federal Regulations"
Written by an OUT OF CONTROL BATF.
The actual law, "legally" passed into law, is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)
This WAS the United States Code.
quote:has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- in other words, only after constitutional "due process." Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process.
The BATF, in it's infinite wisdom, is who wrote the NEW "definition" by their "RULE" ---
Which was NOT A STATUTORY LAW passed by our representatives.
This new law codifies their definition, giving it the force of statutory LAW.
Now it IS law that ANY "other lawful authority" will be able to take your guns away.
Consider, has the government ever abused power before?
Then you can decide if this was a good bill.0 -
BATF= lawful athority!
Just ask anybody who has had their house busted in the middle of the night.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments