Military.com says
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...
(continued)
Page 1 | 2 | >>
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...
(continued)
Page 1 | 2 | >>
0
-
i am a life member of the nra, the nra suits in washington didn't ask me if i supported this bill, they just agreed with the most anti 2nd ammendment congresspeople and senators that this is the way to go.
i disagree with this bill along with veteran organizations and also thousands of americans.. at the stroke of a pen many gunowners could and probally will become criminals. why do they need a new law to take the place of the same law already in force. i trust the government just about as far as i can throw my car.
if any of you want to support S2640 you have that right. i choose not to support it and have contacted my senators as to my opinion.
if this is so great why did the house slip it through without a vote?0 -
Pro-Gun New Hampshire
Enough NRA Bashing!
Enough NRA Bashing!
By Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law
Introduction by the Board of Directors, September 30, 2007: While the policy of Pro-Gun New Hampshire is to focus on state legislation, we have received enough inquiries about a controversial federal bill, HR 2640, to warrant a response. Attorney Evan Nappen, the Executive Vice President of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, has studied this federal bill and researched it at length. His analysis, which follows, is the official position of Pro-Gun New Hampshire.
Misguided NRA bashers are doing a better job of helping the anti-gun movement than the anti-gunners could do themselves. You may have heard or read things like "NRA pushing gun control" or "NRA supporting bill to disarm veterans" or "NRA in bed with Schumer and Kennedy," etc. A number of gun rights organizations have generated a wave of criticism over HR 2640 and its supposedly terrible effect on gun ownership. They make the NRA sound so bad that Sarah Brady might even become a Life Member. The misinformed pro-gunners who spew this venom are shooting our gun rights in the foot and potentially stopping thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens from regaining their gun rights.
NRA deserves PRAISE for HR 2640. In the aftermath of the atrocity at Virginia Tech, the NRA was able to turn a renewed anti-gun hysteria into a pro-gun gain. HR 2640 is a shrewdly devised bill that creates no new prohibited persons, limits records, helps veterans, and mandates a system of relief so that disqualified persons can legally own guns again. But hey, don't just take my word for it. This is why Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), OPPOSES HR 2640. He states in his blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html ) the following:
LaPierre's palpable frustration is understandable, because a closer look at the NRA-added sections raises strong concerns. So strong, that yesterday three national gun violence prevention organizations -- the Violence Policy Center (which I head), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence -- issued a press release voicing them. In the release, the three groups state that while they "strongly support the bill's goal of improving the mechanism by which mental health and other records are added to the NICS, they are concerned that components of the bill would create new loopholes for potentially dangerous individuals to possess firearms." In the release, the groups cite three key changes made to the original McCarthy bill:
The compromise bill creates a bifurcated system for submitting mental health records to the background check system-depending on whether the disability finding is made by the federal government or a state agency. As a result of these changes, fewer records would be eligible for inclusion in the system and many currently in the system would be removed.
The compromise bill revives a program that allows those prohibited from owning guns to apply to the federal government to once again possess firearms. In 1993, Congress de-funded the four-million-dollar-a-year, taxpayer-funded federal "relief from disability" program, which allowed those prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to possess a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program was shut down, and remains de-funded, after studies done by my organization revealed that among the tens of thousands it had re-armed were drug dealers, gun criminals, sex offenders, and at least one terrorist. Some of those granted "relief" went on to commit new crimes. The bill would re-establish a federal "relief" mechanism for persons prohibited from possessing guns because of a mental health disability and would also require states to establish similar state-based "relief from disability" systems in order to be eligible for the grants the bill makes available to improve mental health records.
The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing 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.
Now, to address a specific objection: Much of "the sky is falling" alarmist warnings have been over the definition of the term "adjudicated as a mental defective"; they claim that with the bill allowing "adjudication" by not only a court, but by a "board, commission, or other lawful authority," a person could be prohibited from possessing guns by the declaration of a "board" of, say, any two anti-gun psychiatrists. What HR 2640 actually says is as follows (go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look up bill number HR 2640):
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.
That's right: HR 2640 merely adopts the well settled federal regulation that has ALREADY defined the term for years. Here is what that regulation, 27CFR478.11, ALREADY says under the Code of Federal Regulations (See: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&TITLE=27&PART=478&SECTION=11&SUBPART=&TYPE=TEXT ):
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 article
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
If this regulation is so rotten, horrible and treacherous to gun rights in America, then where were all the NRA bashers' voices when this regulation was proposed? Even if HR 2640 is defeated, this regulation is not going away. HOWEVER, if HR 2640 is passed, then for the first time, folks who have lost their gun rights due to being "adjudicated as a mental defective" may get RELIEF, regardless of how the "adjudicated" term is defined! (See HR 2640 sections 105 - state relief - and 101(b)(c)(2) - federal relief.) That's one BIG reason why the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence oppose HR 2640.
Unlike the so-called "pro-gun" hit pieces put out against HR 2640, this article includes the relevant citations and web links so you can see HR 2640 and the Federal Regulations for yourself. The choice is yours: continue bashing the NRA and aiding the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence, or support the NRA and the protection of your gun rights!
For more details on the issue, here are two NRA documents further explaining HR 2640:
Clearing the Air on the Instant Check Bill (H.R. 2640)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018
H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" FACT SHEET
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018
UPDATE: Senator Coburn of Oklahoma is attempting to BLOCK THE PROGRESS of this pro-gun measure.
Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to make this bill law without delay so that thousands of folks denied their gun rights can get their rights restored, including 80,000 veterans disarmed by former President Clinton.
CALL your Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC TOLL FREE at 800-828-0498.
Direct mail and phone numbers are:
Senator Judd Gregg
393 Russell Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Senator John Sununu
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
c 2006-20070 -
Simply said I don't trust the federal government or state goverment, not to use this bill against veterans. In other words we have enough gun laws as it is. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by victorlvlb
Simply said I don't trust the federal government or state goverment, not to use this bill against veterans. In other words we have enough gun laws as it is.
AMEN. I don't oppose this bill because it would disarm vets or certain vets or crazy vets or whatnot. I oppose this bill because it could be used to disarm otherwise law-abiding and non-threatening CITIZENS. That, and, like 99.8% of all other gun laws, it's patently unconstitutional.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments