posted
VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS
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."
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with it to a certain extent... I'm always for gun control but in this case show statitistics of whether the mentally ill have committed more violent acts or suicide then the general public... if so then I'm for it... people with mental problems whether a vet or a non vet should not own a gun...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That bill would open up a real can of worms. Does that mean that you cannot serve in a combat zone if you have these symptoms. I guess most of our combat troops will be coming home soon or will not be allowed to carrying any type of weapon.
How many jobs will veterans be discriminated against under this bill. More lawsuits coming.
Will this allow a ton more veterans to become 100% disabled under veterans law? If Veterans are not allowed to get employment in their respective field,(law enforcement, security guard etc.) they will be considered 100% disabled under Veterans law, i guess they will have to change that law just in case this one goes through.
Will this include All people that have symptoms of PTSD? Here is just a brief explanation of PTSD.
What is Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)? Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can occur after you have been through a traumatic event. A traumatic event is something horrible and scary that you see or that happens to you. During this type of event, you think that your life or others' lives are in danger. You may feel afraid or feel that you have no control over what is happening.
Anyone who has gone through a life-threatening event can develop PTSD. These events can include:
Combat or military exposure Child sexual or physical abuse Terrorist attacks Sexual or physical assault Serious accidents, such as a car wreck. Natural disasters, such as a fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, or earthquake.
After the event, you may feel scared, confused, and angry. If these feelings don't go away or they get worse, you may have PTSD. These symptoms may disrupt your life, making it hard to continue.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a classic divide and conquer technique. On the face of it there is little impact on "Us"... Ohhh it's just them... well they don't need that right... It's not me... They plan for you to say that about every group they steal rights from till it's you. Funny they use a diagnosis that can easily be assigned to any one of us at any time.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This issue really is a joke, not necessarilly a funny one. For me guns have been something i want no part of for many years now. But if i needed one i am sure i could get one with little trouble.
Most new laws or issues seemed to be to save us from them, unfortunatly the majority of us are the "Thems". Just like Relentless said.
Diagnosing PTSD can be done by doctors and indivuals in VET centers(not doctors) who are there specifically for this diagnosis and treatment.
Veterans PTSD can be rated once diagnosed, the rating percentage can be from 0-100%. This rating is based on how it affects a veterans life.
Under the criteria the VA or military use to reach a determination for PTSD, you could probably put every combat veteran and soldier (especially those in infantry, etc.) in this PTSD classification.
Our Government would like to take the right to bear arms away from soldiers and veterans, yet the VA (Gov.)will not want to adequatly compensate these veterans for the loss of this right.
Again how do you say to soldiers that have been diagnose with PTSD (in the service now) that the gov. will allow you to bear arms while in the service, yet that same Government will not let you bear arms when you are out of the service because you are to much of a danger.
Again this is not just a soldiers problem, yet they seem to be singled out at this point. I wonder how far this bill would have gone if they tried to do this to the firemen or policeman after 911.
I do realize that soldiers do have more exposure to the conditions that cause PTSD.
How can you take right to bear arms away from one group? Isn't that discrimination? We all know it is.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Do you disagree with all of the constitution or just parts of it?
Do you agree with EVERYONE having a gun(s)? . Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal.Let's not even get into the ones who have committed suicide over the years. I'm not saying all mass killings are committed by vets but the majority or more like the most destructive ones barring the school/campus killings since Columbine are committed by Vets.
As for Gun Control in general. I have to laugh at people who say it's their right to own a gun to protect themselves. But what are you protecting yourself from? Yes from mentally ill people or criminals having guns due to lax Gun Control laws that have loopholes etc. If you are a legit gun owner then what do you have to fear from about Gun control laws?. So you can't own a assault rifle that has no legitimate means for ownership other then mass destruction of a human being and/or to fulfill some freakin fantasy that your GI Joe from your childhood games... either that or you lack something between your legs that makes you want to own a Big Gun to make up for it...
Ok, so you perhaps some of the laws does some more stringent background check before you are approved to own a gun or make take 1 week more then it does now... what is the rush? ... isn't it better to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands?.. if your legit then you'll pass the background check and get the gun... perhaps a week later but you still get it... I wish for once that gun owners think about the big picture about what Gun Control is and not think it is some sort of conspiracy from letting you own a gun... it's about keeping guns away from illegitimate hands and not your legitimate hands...
Disclaimer: This is not to single out Relentless at all but gun owners in general who fear Gun Control laws for no reason if they are not illegitimate owners...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This potential law is such an open gate for lawsuits and major problems that i am not sure i really care what happens with it. If passed i see nothing but eventual problems when they try to enforce it. What happens when a large number of vets(lets say rolling thunder) decide to protest the law by packing and they force the police to have to arrest them and the media gets involved. Many of these Vets are not what some politicians are trying to portray them as, many have a lot more pull than many think and a lot more money than most think they do, even though many are combat vets.
What some of these politicians try and make people think is that the majority of combat vets are nuts, maybe so, but they still want our votes. The majority of vets are not the ones committing these acts that Machiavelli is talking about it's a very very small percentage.
Machiavelli are you talking about a weapon or a gun in your phrase?
Again are they allowed to discriminate against a particular group because a very small percentage do something wrong. In the 2000 Census there were 26,549,000 vets in the US and Puerto Rico. I am not sure how many combat veterans are in the US now, but with the amount increasing everyday from Iraq the number has to be very large.
The wording on this document is rather vague maybe it is suppose to be that way. The pharse "Anyone that is a tiny bit of a danger to himself or others will have his gun rights taken away". That catagory could be singled out for many citizens not just Vets. The big question is, if someone wanted to hurt themselves or others why would they need to buy a legal gun, it really does not matter to them in the end and no law will stop that from happening.
This new law does not solve any problem, it will just create more problems, and a lot more expenses.
An issue that i am actually much more concerned about is the dwindling of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) and the way the VA is misinterpreting these laws to turn down veterans seeking disability compensation. The VA is really hurting Veterans(especially the young ones) by misusing (misinterpreting) the laws.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The founding fathers did. There are no causes in the 2nd amendment. Why can't people just read the damned thing and stop interpreting it.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal.Let's not even get into the ones who have committed suicide over the years. I'm not saying all mass killings are committed by vets but the majority or more like the most destructive ones barring the school/campus killings since Columbine are committed by Vets.
how about some facts here instead of biased slur...
i seriously question the veracity of this statement.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
On August 20, 1986, 14 employees were shot dead and six wounded at the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office by a postman, Patrick Sherrill, who then committed suicide with a shot to the forehead.
he was not in the nam:
On August 20, 1986, Sherrill killed 14 employees in a post office in Edmond, Okla., before turning the gun on himself. The local news reported that Sherrill was a Vietnam veteran, and repeated that assertion even after a Navy spokesman had said it wasn't true and Burkett had contacted the news room and told them about the Navy's statement. Sherrill had served stateside in the Marine Corps in the mid-Sixties. Burkett concluded that the only thing most people would likely remember was that a "Vietnam vet" had killed 14 people, and noted the terrible irony that went largely unreported: Two of the seven men killed by Sherrill were real Vietnam veterans, one the grandson of Knute Rockne.
On October 10, 1991, Joseph Harris shot and killed four people, including his former boss and two other USPS employees a year after being fired. 1991 : A former postal worker commits mass murder
Former U.S. postal worker Joseph Harris shoots two former co-workers to death at the post office in Ridgewood, New Jersey. The night before, Harris had killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott, with a three-foot samurai sword, and shot her fiance, Cornelius Kasten, in their home. After a four-hour standoff with police at the post office, Harris was arrested. His violent outburst was one of several high-profile attacks by postal workers that resulted in the addition of the phrase "going postal" to the American lexicon.
Harris, who was born in prison and had a lifetime of psychiatric problems, was fired from his job in April 1990. Harboring a grudge against his ex-employer, he began to stockpile automatic weapons, grenades, and ninja swords. Two years later, he learned that he had lost as much as $10,000 by investing it with broker Roy Edwards. Dressed in a black ninja costume, Harris entered Edwards' Montville, New Jersey, home and handcuffed the family. After sexually assaulting Edwards' wife and two daughters, he shot Edwards to death. Since hundreds of investors had lost money while dealing with Edwards, police never even considered Harris a suspect in his death until after the mass slaying on October 10.
Arguing that he was insane, Harris' lawyers said that he had told psychiatrists that he was driven by the "ninja spirit" to commit the crimes. In 1992, Harris was convicted of both the Montville and Ridgewood attacks and was sent to death row. But in September 1996, two days before a New Jersey State Supreme Court battle to overturn its death-penalty law was to start, he died of natural causes.
From 1983 to 1993, there were 11 murderous rampages in U.S. post offices. On August 20, 1986, the worst of these incidents took place in Edmond, Oklahoma. Pat Sherrill, who was about to be fired, killed 14 mail workers, wounded another five, and then shot himself to death as the SWAT team arrived.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a smack in my face by a government that tells me it supports the troops. I cant believe we spend 15 months on an extended tour in a dump they call Baghdad to come home and be told I cant go duck hunting or ever teach my future children how to hunt because of a diagnosis. This just makes me not want to talk to anyone about what I had to go through ever.
This is ridiculous. Again more laws against guns when the current laws just need to be enforced more. You might find one or two bad apples here and there of someone with some sort of PTSD going looney.
Hey guess what congress....all these cases of PTSD are a byproduct of this so called chase for WMDs. Now we are bogged down in a troop surge that should never have had to happen in the first place if this was done right from the get go.
troops suffer because of politicians mistakes. what a joke. seems like a repeat pattern from a haunting past.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
and what's next... oh... simply drawing disability
give an inch... they take a mile.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BooDog I know what you meant about your statement, and it is a good one.
There is nothing simple about drawing Disability in most cases, you better have a lot of time,(years)persistence and money (pay bills) or you will end up on the short end and in the street. That is not the way it was suppose to be, but welcome to the future. That would apply to VA Disability and SS Disability.
Glass that is so true. Any problems the Vets or others are having are compounded by dealing with the system. This system in most cases is suppose to protect them not fight them.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some questions that should be asked by veterans and the public about these Veterans that are to be the recipients of this new law. 1. How much disability compensation are these Vets receiving since they are such a danger to themselves and others. I think many people would be very surprised at how low that number would be. 2. Does the government have adequate housing, hospital facilities and staff to take care of these vets that obviously need more care to help cure them. We know the answer to that.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think there are a lot of vets on this board alone. (retired navy myself) and i think many would agree that todays vets (baby boomers just now retiring from the service or out due to disability) do not fight for their rights as a whole. in the norfolk area alone i used to see legionnaires and vfw vets trying to recruit new blood. even todays unions are having a tough time getting people to step forward and keep the ball rolling. my union is hanging on but each time the govt takes a step forward without the union - instead of things being brought back for debate we only get half way back - if that imo. anyway - before going off on a tangent - more people need to step forward to protect their rights.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree BooDog. Vets can make a big differance because of the numbers involved, our politicans know that if they unite, Vets can make a big differance in the elections. The politicians will listen if they think Vets are generally united on an issue.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
i was in a lot of different places but never on the line.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
let's say somebody is diagnosed with ADHD that's a "mental illness" but it doesn't make them likely to shoot somebody..
try again...
as for this being a "changed time"? some things never change.. the constituaion was written by REBELS, revolutionaries who recognised that when the King of England controlled who had guns and who didn't he controlled everything...
that hasn't changed, and never will...
you see? this isn't really about hunting ducks in th fall or turkeys in the spring.. it's about a 70 to 150 million person army that will NEVER be run over by a tank..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charles Whitman never served a day of combat duty try again...
n August 1962, Whitman married Kathleen Frances Leissner, another University of Texas student, in a wedding that was held in Kathy's hometown of Needville, Texas, but presided over by Fr. Leduc. The following year, he returned to active duty at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where he was both promoted to Lance Corporal and involved in an accident in which his Jeep rolled over an embankment. After rescuing his pinned comrade, Whitman was hospitalized for four days.[9] That November, Whitman was court-martialed for gambling, possessing a personal firearm on base, and threatening another Marine over a $30 loan for which Whitman demanded $15 interest. He was sentenced to 30 days of confinement and 90 days of hard labor and was demoted to the rank of Private.[12]
In December 1964, Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines and returned to the University of Texas,
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i think felons should lose the right.
i don't know anybody who isn't mentally ill tho
i suppose it's a matter of degrees..
let's say somebody is diagnosed with ADHD that's a "mental illness" but it doesn't make them likely to shoot somebody..
try again...
as for this being a "changed time"? some things never change.. the constituaion was written by REBELS, revolutionaries who recognised that when the King of England controlled who had guns and who didn't he controlled everything...
that hasn't changed, and never will...
you see? this isn't really about hunting ducks in th fall or turkeys in the spring.. it's about a 70 to 150 million person army that will NEVER be run over by a tank..
I didn't say all mental diseases.. just the ones that are more likely to do such a thing... that is left up to the experts and not us...
I know the old saying that guns don't kill people... that people kill people... yeah well that's true to a certain extent... but guns sure the hell make it easier to kill people and alot more of them then a knife or other weapons... perhaps you did not read my post carefully... I didn't say people should not own guns... I said if you do not have a criminal background (note: felon) and do not have a mental disease (note: schizophrenia and other diseases that can cause someone to kill.. and not ADD and other miscellaneous ones that are obviously not dangerous ones) that will harm themselves or others then by all means own a gun... but for legitimate reasons only...
You all make it sound like murders are not committed everyday in this country by guns and kill more people collectively when used as a murder weapon then other weapons... and your solution is to own more guns... which is not a solution but a contributor to the problem... alot of guns get stolen from private homes etc. that are used in violent crimes... and to say you do not want any gun control whatsoever to prevent them from being in the hands of people that should not have them because they are criminals and/or mentally Ill (seriously ill so let's cut it out with the BS)is very absurd and perhaps the only way a gun owner can learn that some gun control is needed is to tragically lose a loved one to a gun by a criminal and/or mentally ill person... like what happened in Long Island years ago:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...
try again...
I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the WW2 vet you mentioned, Unruh was a little wierd when he was in the military indicating that he was dysfunctional to begin with too
Always a reserved man, he had turned into a recluse in the three months before his spree. The World War II veteran was unemployed and lived with his mother. During the war, he was reportedly a brave tank soldier who kept meticulous notes of every German killed, down to details of the corpse.
thats' just wierd man...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
the case specifically brought up by Congrees is about PTSD...
that's a combat issue for the most part..
it is possible to acquire it from abusive relationships and other stressfull experiences, like car accidents...
i agree that there are mentally ill people that should not have firearms....
but like i said, there's mentally ill and then there's psycho... where do you draw the line?
and how do you make the decision?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...
try again...
I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
here's your exact wording:
Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
the case specifically brought up by Congrees is about PTSD...
that's a combat issue for the most part..
it is possible to acquire it from abusive relationships and other stressfull experiences, like car accidents...
i agree that there are mentally ill people that should not have firearms....
but like i said, there's mentally ill and then there's psycho... where do you draw the line?
and how do you make the decision?
Should not have firearms but do because there is no law that I'm aware of barring them from owning any... perhaps the application process should include psychiatric evaluation or mental health background check...
As for the "decision"... like i said not us but the experts should... and not a quick decision but a "study" they come to collectively and agree upon along with the politico's who make the laws for such a thing... didn't say it was a easy task but it can be done fairly... like i said serious mental diseases... not passive ones... I'm not a expert but I would include schizophrenia, bipolar, personality disorder etc.. among others...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the WW2 vet you mentioned, Unruh was a little wierd when he was in the military indicating that he was dysfunctional to begin with too
Always a reserved man, he had turned into a recluse in the three months before his spree. The World War II veteran was unemployed and lived with his mother. During the war, he was reportedly a brave tank soldier who kept meticulous notes of every German killed, down to details of the corpse.
thats' just wierd man...
He sounded more like a Serial killer to me in the making then a spree/mass murderer...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
