Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back
-- Veterans Disarmament Act on its way to the President
Gun Owners Of America
Friday, December 21, 2007

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)......

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost.

Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate Wednesday came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage.

It was not immediately clear whether President Bush intended to sign, veto or ignore the bill. If Congress does not technically go out of session, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened, the bill would become law if Bush does not act within 10 days.

"This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen," said the Senate's chief sponsor, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.

One of the House's chief sponsors, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, spoke in the full House about her husband, who was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in New York. "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., added that the bill will speed up background checks and reinforce the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Propelling the bill were the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 and rare agreement between political foes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.

But other interest groups said that in forging compromise with the gun lobby, the bill's authors unintentionally imposed an unnecessary burden on government agencies by freeing up thousands of people to buy guns.

"Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others."

The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets.

Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.

His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun....

Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
Larry Scott | October 02, 2007

There is no such thing as the “Veterans Disarmament Act.” There is no pending legislation that would take firearms away from veterans. There is no pending legislation that would prevent a person with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), veteran or not, from purchasing a firearm or ammo.

But, there is a huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics being forwarded by a small gun owners group who view themselves to be in competition with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Let’s use some common sense instead of nonsense. If veterans were to lose the right to own firearms, you’d have a lot of unemployed cops. If those who have PTSD were to lose that right, there’d be even more unemployed cops and other first responders, as well. The arguments about a “Veterans Disarmament Act” are, quite simply, ridiculous and illogical.

The piece of legislation is question is H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 2640 was carefully-crafted by the NRA and Members of Congress to protect the rights of gun owners, especially those who may have mental health issues such as PTSD.

Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this legislation.

The NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database that contains the names of those not allowed to buy firearms and ammo. There are nine specific groups of persons who are included in the database.

Included is anyone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." "Any mental institution" would, obviously, include a VA hospital mental ward. And, the government's definition of a "mental defective" is: “A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.”

The confusion over H.R. 2640 and veterans, especially veterans with PTSD, began in 2000 when the VA gave the names of between 83,000 and 89,000 veterans to the NICS database. The names were of veterans who had been committed to VA psychiatric wards or who had been adjudicated as a “mental defective.” This was required of all government agencies.

Some thought that any veteran with a mental health issue ended up on the NICS list. That is an absurd assumption. If a veteran tries to quit smoking and goes to VA smoking cessation classes, they are in a mental health program because nicotine is considered an addictive substance. The same applies for those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. And, we know, these veterans did not end up in the NICS database.

Neither current law nor H.R. 2640 would put any person, including veterans, who have sought psychiatric treatment or voluntarily checked themselves into a psychiatric unit on the NICS list. This includes those with PTSD, those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and those who have voluntarily sought help and been admitted for observation, sometimes termed a “voluntary commitment.”

So, why all the noise about H.R. 2640? Some feel the small gun owners group is just looking for members. Others feel they have some kind of beef with the NRA. Whatever the reason, the misinformation and scare tactics should be considered for exactly what they are.

The NRA, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings that killed over 30 students, realized that current firearms legislation had some real problems. People who should be in the NICS database, like the Virginia Tech shooter, were left out. And, just as important, the NRA knew that some people who shouldn’t be in the database had been included and there was no way for them to get their names of the NICS list. Also, some believe there is wiggle-room in the current regulations that can allow government agencies to “interpret” them incorrectly. The NRA set out to solve those problems, and they did.

The NRA fully supports H.R. 2640. According to the NRA: “Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would ‘prohibit’ thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true…In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.”

H.R. 2640 would require states to provide quarterly information to the NICS database. This information would have to include those who no longer fall into one of the nine categories of “no buy” persons. There would be penalties for states that do not comply. And, the protections, especially for those with mental health issues, assure that a “medical finding of disability” would not put someone in the NICS database. That would include veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD. Here are the protections as stated in H.R. 2640:

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

( the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

© the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Please note again that a person cannot be put on the NICS list solely for a "medical finding of disability,” and that would include PTSD.

Also, H.R. 2640 will provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should not be on it, something they cannot do at this time. That provision reads:

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925© of title 18, United States Code.

The bottom line for veterans concerned about H.R. 2640 is to just use some common sense. Read the legislation. You may not agree with it. But, if you’re a veteran or you have been diagnosed with PTSD, don’t worry, they aren’t coming for your firearms. The NRA put it correctly when they said, “H.R. 2640 is NOT gun control legislation.” It IS...
(continued)

Background Checks/ NICS
The NICS Improvement Bill: Myth and Reality


Some opponents of the “NICS Improvement Amendments Act” (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners—if it was true.

The opponents’ motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake—an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.

MYTH: “Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,’ or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired.”

FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of “prohibited persons.” The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Also, H.R. 2640—for the first time—specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they’ve been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment “shall be deemed not to have occurred,” and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.

MYTH: “As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms—based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.”

FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are—as with civilians—those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be “adjudicated as a mental defective,” which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans’ Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals—just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don’t meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.

Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website www.vawatchdog.org) calls the allegation about veterans a “huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics.” Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA—but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed—are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn’t be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott’s analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,15...00.html?wh=wh.)

Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek “relief from disabilities” through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person “adjudicated” incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder “can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult.”

“Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer`s (and there goes the family inheritance).”

FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an “adjudication” or “commitment.”

Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an “adjudication” to include a decision by a “court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.” They claim any doctor could potentially be a “lawful authority.”

They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term “lawful authority” was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to “courts, boards, or commissions.” Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn’t override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person’s mental health.

Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.

FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person’s right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an “offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark.”

FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The “filth, mold, [and] mildew” in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.

Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term “committed to a mental institution” “does not include a person in a mental institution for observation.” Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR%202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.

MYTH: “Relief from disability” provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.

FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill (“Enough NRA Bashing”), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.

MYTH: The bill’s “relief from disability” provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the “relief” program.

FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn’t affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people’s mental health. BATFE doesn’t do that, but other agencies—especially the Veterans’ Administration—do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new “relief” programs set up under this widely supported bill.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.

FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

MYTH: The bill “was hatched in secret …and passed out of the House without even a roll call.”

FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under “suspension of the rules,” which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments—which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a “Christmas tree” for their agenda.)

After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.

Posted: 10/5/2007 12:00:00 AM

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly Parker v. District of Columbia), which struck down three D.C. gun bans as unconstitutional, many newspapers are publishing editorials, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor that read suspiciously like the anti-Parker “essays” that the Brady Campaign has been posting on its website for the last few months.

Here are the main points to use when refuting the Brady Campaign’s erroneous claims:

1. The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller may be limited. The Supreme Court has said that its review of the Court of Appeals decision will be “limited to the following question: Whether [Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home, and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

The case doesn’t deal with carrying a gun away from home, doesn’t seek to overturn D.C.’s firearm registration law, and doesn’t seek to overturn other laws in D.C. or anywhere else.

2. In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the Right To Keep And Bear Arms is a right of private individuals. It did not, as the District of Columbia claims, consider the Second Amendment to protect only a right to be armed while serving in a militia, or a “collective right” of a state to maintain a militia. As the Court of Appeals noted in Parker, the Supreme Court said in Miller that the militia consists of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion . . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves.” (Emphasis added.)

3. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller, the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns is clearly unconstitutional. As the Court of Appeals ruled, “the District’s claim runs afoul of Miller’s discussion of ‘Arms.’ The Miller Court concluded . . . . that militiamen were expected to bring their private arms with them when called up for service. Those weapons would be ‘of the kind in common use at the time.’ There can be no question that most handguns (those in common use) fit that description then and now.”

4. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is clearly a right of individuals, because it existed prior to the Constitution. Gun control supporters talk in terms of whether the amendment “creates,” “grants,” “establishes,” or “confers” a right, because to acknowledge that the amendment protects a right that existed before the government did, would amount to admitting that the right belongs not to government, or those on duty in a government’s militia, but instead belongs to private individuals. But, the amendment does not say, “the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” It says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.) As the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.”

5. The Second Amendment protects The Right To Keep Arms, as well as the Right To Bear Arms. Brady claims that “the right to keep and bear arms” means only “the right to bear arms” (when on active duty in a militia), but that the Supreme Court should ignore the word “keep.” But the Court of Appeals rejected the idea that “keep” has no meaning, saying “we do not take it seriously,” and saying that it “mocks usage, syntax, and common sense,” adding, “Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of ‘keep’ strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory. . . .We think ‘keep’ is a straightforward term that implies ownership or possession of a functioning weapon by an individual for private use.” Of course, to “keep” means “at home,” precisely what is at issue in Heller.
6. When the Second Amendment was written, it was universally considered to protect a private Right To Keep And Bear Arms. The idea that the amendment protects a right to arms only when serving in a militia, or a so-called “right” of a state to have a militia, were first invented by activist lower courts in 1905 and 1943, respectively. Interestingly, the Brady Campaign adheres to both of the bogus theories, though they contradict one another.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.

FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea.

Uhhh yeah.

Not many bills make everybody happy. I assume the NRA thinks it's better to give in a little rather than be forced later to go further. I wonder if anyone including the legislators have read the whole thing and understand all of it.

I trust the NRA to take care of that. That's where my money is. I'm a paid up life member, and endowment member and a regular contributor. Not just words on a screen.

I think the other bunch was a little over the top. Maybe trying to gain some separation from the NRA for membership and donation purposes.

How do you feel about that TT??

Why do you think this is happening??

GOA is a bunch of radical alarmists and as such can't get anything done. Very low influence (if any) on legislation. Backing them is akin to voting for Ron Paul. Losing.

What has the NRA done lately? I mean, besides supporting every left-wing gun control measure? If that's what you call progress, I'll take a pass. The GOA are stalwarts of liberty and the Constitution - they understand the orginal intent of the 2nd Amendment, unlike the pansies over at the NRA. I've heard then say - on radio and in print - that they support gun control. Your money is well spent.

You farkers are all alike. All you ever do is bitch and whine. Since when did a few fringe people bitching and whining get anything done? You don't know poop about gun control or the second amendment or much of anything else, but you holler constitution every time your little ox looks like it's gonna be gored. Come off your imaginary high horse and look at the truth. The NRA has done more for gun owners than all the others put together. Eat your little black libertarian heart out you little bunch of self serving bitches.

Why are you acting like that Bart? I didn't insult you, only the fairies over at the NRA.

If you ever want to debate the Constitution, Federalist Papers and/or common law, I would relish such an opportunity. I am interested in facts, not NRA rhetoric and propaganda.

Are you referring to great NRA sponsored legislation like this:

NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill

Because you're the next thing to an anarchist. The Constitution sets forth rules for out government. We have to have a government whether a few malcontents like it or not.

As far as you calling NRA a whatever you call them, you're calling me that too. I'm the NRA. Didn't you read my post re my membership levels?

Keep on hollering cause nobody's listening.

No, I'm not. I believe in limited goevernment - as set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution was devised to restrain the government, not the people. This was the whole farking point of the document - to maximize liberty. There aren't are few malcontents out there, there are millions of people sick of the abusive nature of the state.



I used to own Microsoft stock. Do you think I care if you called Bill Gates a fairy?



Like I said, more and more people are listening - and they are sick of it.

he NRA did win concessions.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

That wasn't enough for the Gun Owners of America, which said on its Web page that it was the only national pro-gun organization to oppose the McCarthy bill. "There are some seemingly pro-gun congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech," it said.

On the other side, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group supported the legislation, noting that the Virginia Tech shootings "tragically demonstrated the gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed."

He said he hoped Congress and the gun lobby would go a step further and extend background checks to all gun sales, not just those by licensed dealers covered by current law.

It ain't owning stock. I said before "I'm the NRA".. You insult me. But you insult all of our intelligence when you post that claptrap propaganda from GOA. Go ahead and believe that poop if you wish, but don't try to pass it off on us.

If there's that many of you out there then Ron Paul ought to be able to run as a Libertarian and win the presidency next year. As it is he's taking a ride with the republicans just to keep his name out there. That's a brave thing to do.

Do you even know what libertarian means? You use the term as if it has some eveil connotation. A libertarian is someone who espouses the principles of liberty. The Founders were libertarians, i.e, they believed in liberty.

I'd say he's more of a Republican than anyone on this board, including myself. You should also learn what you are talking about, you wouldn't look like such a knuckle-dragger.

Well...I donate to the GOA but I'm not the GOA. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I don't believe anything or anyone at face value, I really researched the bills being supported by the NRA. As the GOA pointed out, this is a veterans gun control bill - the subsections are as clear as day. Every article you posted forgets to mention some of the most important subsections of the bill. You're the one who apparently believes everything you read. If the NRA and Rush Limbaugh say so, it must be true.



How do you go from the NRA to Ron Paul? I don't get it. By the way, I am a registered Republican, and Ron Paul has been elected as a Republican for 10 terms in Congress. I'd say he's more of a Republican than anyone on this board, including myself. You should also learn what you are talking about, you wouldn't look like such a knuckle-dragger.

Do you even know what libertarian means? You use the term as if it has some eveil connotation. A libertarian is someone who espouses the principles of liberty. The Founders were libertarians, i.e, they believed in liberty.

If you were white and owned property. It isn't like they were all for anything approaching complete liberty.

It's obvious you believe Pratt's propaganda pieces rather than the actual bill.

It's also obvious you have skimmed over the content of some of the posts today.

Ron Paul was one of the heroes of us gun people in congress. However, he's more libertarian than anthing else so I think he'd be more honest to run as one.

I was simply providing the definition of libertarian.

Republican is a party, not an ideology. You can argue who is more conservative or liberal, but if your voter registration says you're a republican, you are.

It seems we have too many big gubmint types in the GOP.

For the time they were. But anarchy isn't always good for liberty. There have to be lines.

Bart,

All debating aside, I ALWAYS read what you post. Although we may not agree on everything, I do respect your opinions. I apologize if my NRA comments offended you, I am having a shitty day.

I think we agree on that much, but where and how to cut, as well has how much and getting the political clout to do that are major problems.

I'm a paid up life member, and endowment member and a regular contributor.

"I didn't leave the NRA, the NRA left me"

Sounds like the GOA represents what the NRA used to represent.

Gun Nuts.

Probably the reason the people some call terrorists use bombs - Guns aren't available. Logically what makes anyone believe that guns are the only way to kill people and all we have to do to make everyone safe is to restrict guns. rolleyes.gif

Bombs are random for terror as well. An aimed weapon isn't quite the same as a bomb that just kills and maims everything in an area.

Most of these incidents that bring out all the gun-control nuts are ones where the killings are random. I can understand the concept of the long range rifle, where one picks one person to pick off - but most of these killers are just mad and want to prove a point. They don't care who - or how many they kill - they just want to make a point.

What amazes me is the fact that everybody gets on the 'gun restriction bandwagon' and completely ignores the REAL problem. There are people out here that are a menace to society. I'm not talking about veterans who have war fatigue - I'm talking about people who MANY KNOW are walking time bombs. Because of our political correctness it is easier to take away the guns than to address the actual problem.

That's why the question about having been ajudicated mentally ill or incompetent is on the form you fill out when you buy a gun. Problem is there hasn't been any way to check on that item. We can check on criminal backgrounds, but not on the crazy issue.

Question! What do you think would have happened if the people involved in the 'school shootings' would have been denied a gun (or guns). I cannot believe these guys would have said "I better rethink my rage because I have been denied the means to carry out my revenge." Every logical bone in my body says they would have pulled off the same havic in some other way - maybe a worse way with more damage.

I would be very reluctant to deny any American citizen, who has not gone on record as being a criminal or mentally ill, gun ownership. It's one of those precious rights we should not destroy without a very good reason.
(with emphasis on 'very good').

The guy that shot up VA Tech had been referred by the court. He should not have been allowed to legally purchase guns. Do you really think such in introverted guy would have had the connections to buy one on the illegal market?

To put this in perspective for the upteenth time. The law is the law. The question is on the form 4473. It's a federal crime to lie on that form. We cannot, however enforce the existing law without a way to do this background check.

So where do you find fault with my position?

See question 11F:

do you find fault with my position?
Me??????? Probably not.

All I'm saying, 'cause I don't want to study the issue and I'm just talking through the top of my hat today' anybody who is going to go on a killing rampage will do whatever it takes to accomplish that. I think they will cheat, lie and steal. And yes, I think it would be wonderful, wonderful if we could isolate the crazies and the criminals and keep them from guns, fire, explosives, or all other hurtful things. I just definitely don't want the mental state of some returning veteran to play into this.

Actually I'm not sure what the debate is... but again, all I'm saying is I want it to almost take an act of God to deny an American citizen a firearm; most especially one who had a gun thrust into his hands and told to go defend America. Who are the people, safe and warm, in Washington to do that??

or am I on the wrong thread.... wrong chat line??? maybe the wrong subject...

Wouldn't sell him a gun based on the armed robbery convictions, not the mental health issue.

But he's a veteran.