TexasCHLforum.com

GOA published an alert today on the status of H. 2640, anti-gun rep Carolyn McCarthy's Federal gun-control legislation (the one that GOA opposes, but NRA-ILA supports.) Unfortunately for people relying on GOA for information, GOA's update is somewhat badly written and gives the impression that H. 2640 is moving forward on it's own. That does not appear to be the case.

H. 2640 has been incorporated into anti-gun Senator Patrick Leahy's S. 2084, the "School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007". Information this bill can be viewed here on the THOMAS website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02084:

According to GOA, this legislation might be passed in the Senate by unanimous consent, without a recorded vote. That is how it was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which includes Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

This is my modified version of GOA's suggested letter text, which I am faxing and emailing to John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison tonight. I strongly encourage everyone to contact them. The key thing here is not letting the anti-gunners get a win-- it will only encourage them.

Dear Senator:

It has come to my attention that gun-control advocates in the Senate are seeking passage of Senator Patrick Leahy’s S. 2084, the “School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007�. This legislation incorporates Representative Carolyn McCarthy’s gun-control bill H.R. 2640. It is said that S. 2084 might be passed by unanimous consent. This would be a grave mistake.

As currently drafted, this legislation contains no provisions to protect the gun rights of veterans diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, people diagnosed during their youth with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, or elderly persons diagnosed with Alzheimers, especially if such diagnoses turn out to be premature or incorrect. Such persons, regardless of being safe and trustworthy gun owners, would get treated by the law the same as the worst psychotics and sociopaths. This legislation is very clearly not aimed at protecting the public—it aims to increase the ranks of people with Federal firearms disabilities, and put every barrier possible in the way of their recovery of their rights.

Many gun owners do not support this legislation, which is beginning to acquire the nickname of the “Veterans Disarmament Act�. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Further, this bill will give anti-gun activists license to boast about their passage of “new Federal gun control legislation� and will embolden them to seek even more. This is unacceptable to myself and many other Texas gun owners.

I strongly encourage you place a hold on the Leahy bill, the McCarthy bill, or any other bill that carries this or similar language. I strongly encourage you to object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge these or any similar bills.

Sincerely,
Anthony Garcia

After further research, it appears that it's me who's behind the times and GOA who's on target. H. 2640 may indeed be moving forward on it's own:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1190338 ... lenews_wsj

Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill
Despite Support, Background-Check Measure Staggers in Senate Amid [Democratic] Infighting
By DAVID ROGERS
September 21, 2007; Page A6
...
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), an early proponent of the House bill, has begun planning for a back-up strategy: If Sen. Leahy's package stalls, Mr. Schumer said -- and the chairman's office agrees -- that the chairman has promised the gun records bill will move as a standalone piece of legislation.

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."

It's currently stalled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20997008/

NRA 'clears the air' on this issue:

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=246

Xander wrote:It's currently stalled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20997008/

Yeah, but I'd rather see it die a painful death...

Or it be removed from the original bill...

I really hate it when they sneak stuff like this in there...Thinking some of us won't see it in time...

Good news-- Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is standing up to block passage of this legislation. Not sure from the GOA update whether it's the standalone HR 2640 or the full S 2084.
http://gunowners.org/a092707.htm
GOA encourages everyone to contact Coburn and thank him for this stand, and to contact one of a short list of other senators to ask them to join him. See the link above.

I admit to being utterly confused about whether the NRA or GOA are right about this bill. That in itself proves what the problem is: trying to "fix" bad laws by tinkering.

The right approach is to repeal bad laws. Otherwise, you get more and more laws piled on top of laws, getting longer and more complicated.

See this link for a "pro-NRA" explanation of this bill.

http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

It makes sense to me.

KBCraig wrote:I admit to being utterly confused about whether the NRA or GOA are right about this bill. That in itself proves what the problem is: trying to "fix" bad laws by tinkering.

The right approach is to repeal bad laws. Otherwise, you get more and more laws piled on top of laws, getting longer and more complicated.

I agree completely. Instead of working with those that will use this to further strip us of our rights, why not both fight this and work to do away with all unconstitutional gun laws. If a person is legitimately unable to responsibly own and carry a gun then they need to be hospitalized or imprisoned. Why punish everyone else to control those who have problems or are criminals? We the people and our government servants must stop looking at the people of this country as a single entity. Punish those who are guilty, help those who need help, and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives in peace and freedom.

This approach by the NRA is a prime example why we need the GOA and other more absolute minded groups. I support the NRA but, I don't want to compromise one more thing. Compromise, for the purpose of civility or political correctness, is the reason we enjoy only a shadow of our rights now. That is my opinion.

shootthesheet wrote:Compromise, for the purpose of civility or political correctness, is the reason we enjoy only a shadow of our rights now. That is my opinion.

A 100% correct opinion, btw.

Negotiable "rights" are not rights at all.