Gun Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

· Plays Counter Strike and knows everything about gu
1,089 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know there are several vets on here that may find this interesting.


By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007

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."

© 2007 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for 27 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

He published a book, Armed People Victorious, in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense of Liberty was published in 2001.

The GOA web site is: Pratt's weekly talk show Live Fire is archived there at:

E-Mail: [email protected]

Either Pratt or another GOA spokesman is available for press interviews

· Registered
4,273 Posts
i certainly think a trial would be required to determine if someone is enough of a danger to themselves or others to warrant this. it would be WAY to easy to "persuade" a psychiatrist or "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" to say one thong or other. on the flip side of that coin, there are PLENTY of people with PTSD that should not be allowed to own guns.

· 10mm Fanatic!
934 Posts
Ummmm ... no. I'm all for keeping weapons away from people that aren't US citizens, aren't mentaly sound, and people that are violent criminals, but the way congress is going about this is just insane! They need a new way to classify people that shouldn't have weapons that won't infringe on the rights of the American public. Congress is making me sick how useless they have been.

· Registered
146 Posts
Keeping guns out of hands of crazies? Ok by me. Makeing the selection process arbitrary, giving little to no recourse to those selected? Not ok by any standard.

Plenty of people suffer PTSD to some extent after any variety of traumatic events. Its not too hard to see this become a law that would eventually include any one who suffers from this affliction, not just soldiers. And then?

Anyone who is a victim of crime, experiences a stressfull event (natural disaster, car accident, etc.) that might leave them feeling symptoms of PTSD, gets automatically added to the list once the police report if filed. Then you have to go through hoops to prove you aren't crazy, just to gain a right you always had and lost through no fault of your own.

This law is offensive at best in its current state, and downright frightning if you consider possible future implications.

This doesn't address the other upseting side to this story, that laws like these will just encourage people who DO need psychological help to avoid it, out of fear of loosing rights. Then you get of bunch of untreated people unwilling to seek help to help move past thier issues.

All in all, its a pretty pathetic solution to a problem that needs to be addressed in an entirely more thoughtful and considerate manner.

· Premium Member
7,388 Posts
Thank you for giving your life to service for this please relinquish your constitutional rights. What is this shit?! When did Kim Jong Il start running shit?

· Registered
1,881 Posts
techwrtr2 said:
What you have is legislators who recognize that now and again there is a problem. What they fail to understand is that a sledge hammer is seldom the best tool for swatting a fly.
Wasn't it Confucius who said that...
This proposed legislation is rather abhorrent. Granted, I don't want to see crazies with guns any more than the next guy, but this really is pushing it.

· Premium Member
1,270 Posts
I do believe that the text of this bill indicates that in order to be placed on the NICS "do not sell-danger will robinson" you have to be adjuncated to a mental health facility, not merely a simple PTSD diagnosis. That's fine with me.

Doesn't matter much, becasue even with the NRA's support for this bill, it's going nowhere. Id expect it to die in committee.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.