Veterans Disarmament Act

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
Can anyone elaborate on this? It seems it has just got through the senate via "Unanimous Consent" without a recored vote. It's now on it's way to the Presidents desk. Plus, what is the real name of this anyways?

Jeff
 

tellner

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
4,379
Reaction score
240
Location
Orygun
Do you have any links or descriptions, anything at all?
 

Guardian

Black Belt
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
635
Reaction score
23
Location
Wichita Falls, Texas
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm

Their coming for them people and if we don't watch out they will sneak in the backdoor just like any other common crook.

Those who hate guns or at least are afraid enough of them will do anything and everything to see a disarmed America. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, they don't want guns in this country pure and simple.

This bill is a disgrace to all the Veterans that gave their lifes (either literally or figuratively to this country and now due to no fault of their own, they are being targeted by a few idiots.

A very interesting read and there are many more sites on it also. Sneaky little buttheads.
 
OP
SFC JeffJ

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
Thanks for the info. This is truly reprehensible.
 

morph4me

Goin' with the flow
MT Mentor
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
6,779
Reaction score
124
Location
Ossining , NY
Only veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD? What next, police officers? Rescue workers? Crime victims? PTSD affects people from all walks of life. Seems to me that with the patriot act and legislation like this, the government is trying to do an end run around the constituion and leading us to a dictatorship in this country.
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
Well isn't this nice. convicting someone and taking away their rights before they do anything wrong all because they fought for their country. How absolutely disgusting.

I thought on Canada made stupid laws regarding firearms.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Well isn't this nice. convicting someone and taking away their rights before they do anything wrong all because they fought for their country. How absolutely disgusting.

I thought on Canada made stupid laws regarding firearms.

I have to agree Lisa! I do not like the fact that they are taking rights away before they have done anything wrong and especially after they served and protected our country!
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.

Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.

Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?

There is ongoing discussions in Congress about those soldiers who were discharged from the military over the last five years for behavior issues (some 28,000). Many of those discharged may have been exhibiting symptons of PTSD. If a soldier is discharged with a method of 'less than honorable' (such as these behavior problem discharges), he forfits Veterans Benefits, including treatment for PTSD through the VA. There is an extentsive push taking place to retroactively extend VA benefits to these soldiers, for the rest of their lives.

If there service merits the nation paying to support them for the next 6 decades; because they are a danger to themselves or to others, should we really be arguing to give them weapons?
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.

Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.

Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?

Michael,

Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong. Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong. Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them. Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.
 
OP
SFC JeffJ

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
As a member of the VFW, I know many people who have been diagnosed with PTSD. Several of the own firearms and even carry concealed without ever having a problem. Sure, maybe a few have, but is that reason to deny a constitutional right to every Vet who had been diagnosed?
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
and furthermore, only cause I just thought of this...

There are probably Veterans out there with PTSD that have not been diagnosed. PTSD is not necessarily an all consuming thing. It has its triggers. Some suffer from it more then others. Some suffer so bad that they can not function while others have triggers that bring it on.

Do we then take the firearms away from every veteran JUST IN CASE? And where does one draw the line? If you have two episodes in a period of time we will take your guns, three?
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Should we take firearms away from a police officer because they have suffered PTSD! What about the paramedic or the firefighter or the emergency room nurses or physicians. What about people who have been in a self defense/violent encounter's and needed treatment? To many people could eventually lose their rights even when they have done nothing to merit it. That is my beef!
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,387
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
This post got me to look around the web a bit and I keep seeing the same thing "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" Now I am not an alarmist not and I am not big on conspiracy theories and I am admittedly not affiliated with any political group because experience has taught me they are really not all that different but if what I am reading in this post and on the web is true, and I need to look into this further to be certain, this is getting pretty scary.

I am seeing mentions of DSM-IV having disorders added and this "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" recommending every man, woman and child be screened for mental health and it is linked to the second amendment and supported by the NRA.

Has anyone else seen this?
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Michael,

Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong. Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong. Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them. Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.

How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?

What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?
 
OP
SFC JeffJ

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
44
How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?

What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?
So we penalize them all for the actions of a few?

So much for inividual liberty.
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?

What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?

I never said don't treat his PTSD, I said don't remove a constitutional right when he hasn't done anything wrong yet.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
So we penalize them all for the actions of a few?

So much for inividual liberty.

This is not a penalty.

It is an acknowledgement of a mental disorder. If you are diagnosed with this mental defect, the consequences of that defect is prohibition of a firearm.

Let's us suppose that one of us loses our sight. Do we continue to allow that person to operate a motor vehicle? Or do we acknowledge that without sight, one can not operate a motor vehicle safely, and revoke a license.


Lisa said:
I never said don't treat his PTSD, I said don't remove a constitutional right when he hasn't done anything wrong yet.

Today, soldiers who exhibit behaviors of PTSD have been discharged with a less than honorable description (violent behavior, drug use, etc) In these instances, normal veteran benefits are withheld. The soldiers are not allowed access to treatement through the Veterans Administration.

That, to me, is a far bigger crime and outrage than restricting access to firearms for someone with PTSD.

I recommend, strongly, taking ten minutes to listen to this story. If what is described is accurate, I think there are bigger issues than just the revokation of the right to bear arms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17362654
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
Today, soldiers who exhibit behaviors of PTSD have been discharged with a less than honorable description (violent behavior, drug use, etc) In these instances, normal veteran benefits are withheld. The soldiers are not allowed access to treatement through the Veterans Administration.

That, to me, is a far bigger crime and outrage than restricting access to firearms for someone with PTSD.

I recommend, strongly, taking ten minutes to listen to this story. If what is described is accurate, I think there are bigger issues than just the revokation of the right to bear arms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17362654

I am not saying one is a bigger outrage then the other, however, THIS thread is regarding the removal of their right to firearms. Please feel free to start another thread regarding venteran benefits being withheld due to PTSD and less then honorable discharges.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Well, low and behold ... the situation is much different than what it appears.

There is NO bill going through Congress called the 'Veterans Disarmement Act'.

HR 2640 is designed to provide States with money so they can fill in criminal data from the State level into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.


H.R. 2640 — NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
(McCarthy, D-NY)


Order of Business: The bill is scheduled for consideration on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Summary: H.R. 2640 would modify and expand information reporting requirements from state and federal agencies for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill also provides federal grants to states, local government and Indian tribal governments to establish and upgrade systems to electronically report information to NICS. Major provisions of the bill are summarized below.
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Modifies current law to require federal agencies to provide electronic information (on at least a quarterly basis) regarding individuals that are barred from owning a firearm under federal (18 U.S.C. 922) or state law, which is entered into the NICS.[/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Requires the Department of Homeland Security to submit information quarterly to the Attorney General which is relevant to determining whether a person is disqualified from possessing a firearm to be used in background checks performed by NICS.[/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Requires the Department of Justice to:[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]1) ensure that any information submitted to NICS is kept accurate and confidential,[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]2) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from NICS, and[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems that would allow electronic notification when[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]a) a court order has been issued, lifted, or otherwise removed by order of the court, or[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]b) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. [/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribal governments, and state and local courts to establish or upgrade information technologies for firearms eligibility determinations (to be provided electronically to NICS). [/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Provides for penalties for noncompliance by state and local governments, specifically allowing the Attorney General to withhold federal funding that would otherwise be allocated to the state under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including mandatory reductions in federal funding of 5 percent if compliance is not met after three years following implementation of this Act.[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Possible Conservative Concerns: Supporters of Second Amendment rights, including the two largest and most prominent gun rights groups in the country, are split on this issue. Gun Owners of America (GOA) is strongly opposed to this legislation, stating:[/FONT]

“the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun… Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun.”

The National Rifle Association is strongly supportive of this legislation, stating:

“Gun owners’ organizations such as the National Rifle Association have long supported instant background checks to screen potentially dangerous gun buyers, without burdening law-abiding citizens. The new version of the “NICS Improvement Act” (H.R. 2640) would improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by ensuring that relevant federal and state records are available for use by NICS.”
 

Lisa

Don't get Chewed!
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
13,582
Reaction score
95
Location
a happy place
Like many Bills that pass through legislation it gets a name attached to it.

HR 2640, which has been dubbed the “veterans disarmament act” by gun owners, would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

and what your congress or senate or whatever states it is "designed for" and what it will be used for are usually two different things.
 

Latest Discussions

Top