Thread: Threat to vets' 2nd Amendment rights on hold

Threat to vets' 2nd Amendment rights on hold
Proposal could be used to deny gun ownership to Americans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


An anchor has been attached to a proposal in the U.S. Senate that will slow down progress on the plan that could be used to permanently remove a person's right to own a gun in the United States, according to an organization opposing the measure.

Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, told WND that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has attached a "hold" to the plan, H.R. 2640, dubbed the "Veterans Disarmament Act," which means that while the bill remains alive, its advance will be delayed considerably.

Pratt's group earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also are being joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and now the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

The proposal would update federal law in the United States concerning the ownership of guns, and restrictions on those who can. A decades-old law creates a ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been adjudicated to be mentally defective, Pratt told WND. It was intended to be used in cases when a person is declared innocent by reason of insanity in criminal cases.

However, the proposed update would allow that "adjudication" to be determined not only by a court but by any competent authority, which could include a Veterans Administration psychologist, any panel of psychologists or a wide range of other possible "competent authorities."

It also would automatically include people on a federal no-gun-ownership limit who have been diagnosed with some behavior-related childhood conditions, and in a provision that is especially objectionable to the Gun Owners organization, any veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

"The opposition is starting to snowball," Pratt told WND. "The cat's out of the bag on this issue."

His organization also has published an open letter to members of the National Rifle Association, which has not been opposing the legislation on the grounds there are provisions that would allow an improperly classified person to "regain" his or her Second Amendment rights.

The letter, from GOA founder and chairman Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson, Executive Director Larry Pratt, and legal counsel Michael Hammond, noted the three include two Life Members of the NRA and one who was a paid consultant for the NRA.


Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns

"In fact, over the last 30 years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories…" the group said. "But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."

The GOA said if it becomes law, the plan would "embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights." It also would take the "horrifically expansive unlawful regulations" developed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regarding gun restrictions and make them law.

"We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership," the GOA letter said, "and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it."

Eric Pratt told WND that his organization is hearing from a lot of NRA members.

The hold by Coburn prevents a smooth transition from proposal to law, but doesn't prevent that completely. It means that there have to be discussions and votes, including amendments, on the plan, instead of having it move forward by unanimous consent, officials said.

The Capitol-based The Hill newspaper said an actual vote, however, could create complications.

"The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the bill, which its board member and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) helped to craft, but the Gun Owners of America (GOA) has backed Coburn and mobilized its grassroots against the measure," the report said.

"Coburn also has objected to what he and the GOA … believe is the risk of inadvertently placing veterans treated for mental illness into the background-check system, thus endangering their ability to buy a gun," it said.

At least two other senators, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Jim Bunning, R-Ky., have reported getting a "high volume" of contacts from voters worried about their gun buyer's rights.

The concerns expressed by Larry Pratt, whose organization represents more than 300,000 Americans, were echoed by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas congressman seeking the GOP nomination for president.

"In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment," he said. "H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – by creating and expanding massive federal government databases, including medical and other private records of every American."

He noted the new information that would be submitted to a federal database would come from medical, psychological and drug treatment records that traditionally have been considered protected from disclosure under the physician-patient relationship.

"We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support," he said.

The GOA said the arguments are not all hypothetical, citing a recent Pennsylvania case to illustrate the dangers that would be presented.

It was an apparent "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark" made by Horatio Miller that got the case started. He allegedly said it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his car, because of the guns there.

"It is not clear whether he was making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage because of the guns he would find there," the GOA said.

Miller, with no criminal record and the holder of a concealed carry permit who had passed rigorous background checks, was ordered never to own or possess a gun again.

"I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily," the district attorney reported.

"The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say," said the GOA. "But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements in this country – at least not yet."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58009

What part of "this right shall not be infringed" don't they get?

"We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support," he said.

as a veteran I am opposed to any of this out landish crap that continuously get's thrown at veterans

When will this assault on 2nd ammendments rights stop

By the way... you hear very little crime frm veterans.. I am sure it happens but lord look what the bad guys are doing and it gets thrown on our backs

If an Illegal drives a car without a license... should you also have your car taken away.... I know I know... that sounds stupid... The point I am making is it's the start of disarming of America..... look what they did after Katrina.... the state and federal government came in and took everyone weapons (Law abiding citizens) and left them defenseless

did it stop crime ... no it did not.... crime got out of control because the state and federal government couldnt protect the people and good people could not protect themselves..... be wary... your gun is next and the next hurricane is right around the corner

By the way... you hear very little crime frm veterans.. I am sure it happens but lord look what the bad guys are doing and it gets thrown on our backs

Very little crime, mass amounts of patriotism. Look at all of our Mexican flag stories here. They were all taken down by vets. Vets are trained in combat. When the NAU is formed and they try to take away our sovereignty, the last thing they want are armed vets. It is only practical to disarm America before the final paperwork is signed. Anybody else who is proficient in weapons will also be declared nuts and lose their rights too. A blind little old lady will probably be allowed to keep her small pistol just to show they are honoring the 2nd amendment.

We have to watch Congress like a hawk!

Everyday week there seems to be unconstitional legislation coming down the pike!!

Congress SUCKS!