collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: NRA Endorses HR 2640  (Read 4484 times)

Offline Ray

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 6817
  • Location: Kirkland,WA
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1475043431
    • Hunting-Washington
NRA Endorses HR 2640
« on: June 22, 2007, 06:27:31 PM »
I personally disagree with the stance the NRA has taken on this bill. I will let the following response from GunOwners.org do the explaining below. Don't screw over veterans coming back from Iraq or wherever else. I believe there is substance behind the claims of smoke being blown around by congress and the NRA with regards to this area :
Quote
2. Second, there already is a procedure for persons to "clear their names." It was created by McClure-Volkmer and is contained at 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that, for many years, Congress, on appropriations bills, has barred anyone from using this procedure. So, having blocked procedures allowing people to "clear their names," the House is now creating redundant procedures to do the same thing. And they expect us to trust them?

Other interesting factors: http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

Including-
Instant Checks Deny People For Traffic Tickets

PDF Form of the Bill : http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2640eh.txt.pdf

Article below is from: http://www.gunowners.org/ne0701.htm
Quote
Analysis Of HR 2640
By Mike Hammond, legislative counsel to GOA
June 13, 2007

It can hardly be any surprise that anti-gun House members worked to sneak this bill through before anyone was aware that it was going to be considered. The negotiations have left legislation which is WORSE THAN THE ORGINAL McCARTHY BILL.

The worst aspect is, in section 3(2), that it STATUTORILY FREEZES IN regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 which would make you a "prohibited person" if:

* You were found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:
1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;
2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or
3. Be incapable of managing your own affairs; or
* Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.
This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:

-- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;
-- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;
-- Seniors diagnosed with Alzheimer's in connection with Medicare's home health care assistance; or
-- Seniors (perhaps with a gun collection accumulated over a lifetime) who continue to live in their homes, but are put under guardianship by their adult children.
In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, mom is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.

The bill, in section 101(c)(2)(A) and section 105, also requires federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and states to set up procedures for prohibited persons with "mental disabilities" to "clear their names." There are at least four problems with this:

1. First, prior to this bill, vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder were arguably not required to "clear their names." Ditto, seniors with Alzheimer's kids on Ritalin, etc. By statutorily codifying 27 CFR 478.11, this bill, for the first time, makes it statutorily mandated that these persons ARE and SHOULD BE prohibited persons under 18 USC 922 (d) & (g). So the bill makes it absolutely clear that vets, seniors, and adults who were problem kids are statutorily prohibited from owning guns (for life), and then graciously opens the possibility that they may apply for relief, in accordance with unspecified standards based wholly on the discretion of the government.

2. Second, there already is a procedure for persons to "clear their names." It was created by McClure-Volkmer and is contained at 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that, for many years, Congress, on appropriations bills, has barred anyone from using this procedure. So, having blocked procedures allowing people to "clear their names," the House is now creating redundant procedures to do the same thing. And they expect us to trust them?

3. Third, the bill states that "[r]elief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code." But, since Congress has blocked the implementation of section 925(c), there is at least a question of whether this new, redundant procedure would not be similarly automatically blocked, at least at the federal level.

4. Fourth, there is also a procedure for "clearing one's name" in subsection (g) of the Statues-at-Large portion of the Brady Law, when the name is erroneously submitted to NICS. The problem is that persons seeking to invoke this procedure to establish that they were incorrectly classified are routinely sent a form letter denying relief.

Ironically, a particularly dangerous person who is actually held in a mental institution may be able to obtain relief after he is "released or discharged," pursuant to section 101(c)(1)(A). But a person who is found to be suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood behavioral problems, or Alzheimer's -- and who is not held anywhere (or subjected to anything) from which they can be "released or discharged" -- could never take advantage of a provision which is available to the criminally insane. And even this limited provision applies only to federal agencies, and not states.

Incidentally, if Congress appropriates NOTHING to implement this bill, the states will still be required to comply with the unfunded mandates or risk loss of DOJ funds under section 104.

All of this is on top of the usual concerns that the McCarthy bill would still require the states to turn over 90% of all information which was "relevant" to whether an individual was a prohibited person by reason of being "an unlawful user of or addicted to" any controlled substance or a mental defective (as that term will now be defined.).

Ironically, given the "tough enforcement" language being used to try to dislodge the "amnesty" bill, the new draft excludes crackdowns on illegal aliens -- a category which, more than any other, includes terrorists who have snuck into our country. But the Attorney General, without a court order, can, at his or her unilateral discretion, demand any information held by any state (or its agent) which would be "relevant" in determining who fell into other categories, including Medicare medical records, IDEA medical records, National guard medical records, drug diversion records, records of drug charges not prosecuted, etc. And, unlike the convicted serial killer, the unprosecuted marijuana smoker, veteran, or senior would not be protected merely because his records were not available electronically.

And, finally, having compiled, potentially, the biggest list of dangerous persons in existence, the records could not be used to go after terrorists or other criminals.

SUMMARY: It was not the intention of 18 USC 922 (d) & (g) to make veterans, seniors, and misbehaved kids "prohibited persons" with an FBI dossier. Any provision in 27 CFR 478.11 to the contrary is just plain wrong, and should be changed. To freeze these regulations into statutory law is simply evil.

Offline Dustin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2007
  • Posts: 19
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2007, 06:48:54 PM »
Again!!   :puke:

I think I need to stop reading this page.  Causes my blood pressure to go WAY to high and Im only 24.

Offline Ray

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2007
  • Posts: 6817
  • Location: Kirkland,WA
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1475043431
    • Hunting-Washington
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2007, 10:30:22 AM »
More about 2640

An excerpt from a Gun Owners of America distribution...

Quote
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his car, because there were 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. Nevertheless, Miller was arrested, but not charged with anything.

The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say. But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.

Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "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."

Get that?

Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR 2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy bill. Right?

Well, think again.


DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?

The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders (such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a tyrannical American government?

Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting a detailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make a statement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'd blow him away!"

Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts think you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to others?

Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2) codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code says it only takes a "lawful authority" to  "adjudicate" someone as a mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear
this "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)

Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years, but they've been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not statutory law).

But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF THE LAND -- even though those regs were never submitted to a legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can fall into this category of "other lawful authority" that can deem someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.

But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A school counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city councilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their own right. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?

Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of what the words "lawful authority" in 27 CFR 478.11 mean -- once they have been "statutized" by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?

If the "lawful authority" thinks you pose a danger to yourself or others (or can't manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could be gone.

In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or
"substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using the Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?

As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.

HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politician nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing psychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over. Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) See 27 CFR 478.11.
(2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).

Offline Jerbear

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 1381
  • Location: Goldendale
  • Y.A.R. MEMBER
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2007, 01:35:03 PM »
It is situations like this that made me drop my NRA membership some time ago.  The are now all about banquets, movie stars, and money.  They are not the same organization that I joined years ago. This was a compromise.  Gun Owners of America don't compromise.  The second amendment, protects our rights,and there is no room to give an inch.  The NRA is now in the enemy camp. 

Offline Hermit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 705
  • Location: Arlington
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2007, 06:55:33 PM »
I agree with Jerbear......... I dropped mine for the same reasons.
The first bird may get the worm, but it's the second rat that gets the cheese.

Offline robb92

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 3685
  • Location: Spokane Wa, Andrews AFB, Maryland and King George, VA
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2007, 12:16:28 AM »
This is why I do not and will not get a membership with them.
"ITS NOT WHAT THE WISE MAN SAYS BUT WHAT THE WISE MAN DOES IN HIS LIFE THAT MATTERS"


Offline Hermit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 705
  • Location: Arlington
Re: NRA Endorses HR 2640
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2007, 09:06:10 PM »
They used to be all about gun safety, and family anf fun. Turkey shoots and get togethers.......... Not any more.
The first bird may get the worm, but it's the second rat that gets the cheese.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

10th Annual - 2024 YOUTH TURKEY HUNT CONTEST (enter by Mar 14) by BigVinn
[Today at 10:21:19 PM]


World Record Archery Blacktail by huntnnw
[Today at 10:09:06 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington bull by huntnnw
[Today at 10:06:34 PM]


Fishing with kids in Wenatchee by HardCorpsHuntr
[Today at 10:03:34 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by jjhunter
[Today at 09:12:44 PM]


Hunting Dog Memorial by ghosthunter
[Today at 08:55:30 PM]


Pairs by Dan-o
[Today at 08:15:34 PM]


Springer 2024 Columbia River by Blacklab
[Today at 06:50:06 PM]


Holster for FNS 40C by bb76
[Today at 06:37:56 PM]


Bangers and mash by elkrack
[Today at 04:32:06 PM]


Wenatchee Hydro Park Fishing by Jake Dogfish
[Today at 03:40:17 PM]


Owners of Ireland Farms Dogs by ASHQUACK
[Today at 12:24:39 PM]


1x scopes vs open sights by andersonjk4
[Today at 09:23:28 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal