HR 2640
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.
[..]
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.”
There’s quite a bit of bleating about HR2640 from the anti-gun crowd and from some in the pro-gun crowd. I don’t see cause for concern.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
I don’t see cause for concern.
Because when you have a badly written law, providing incredible encouragements for psychologists (who have never exactly been our greatest allies) to enforce the law to the greatest extent possible doesn’t seem like a brilliant concept?
It’s hard to see the GCA or 27CFR478.11 as anything but a badly written law. Making those two statutes HIPAA-agreeable doesn’t help things, nor does providing massive incentives to report as many names as possible under them.
It’s nice and all that we’ll be able to appeal the decision, but to do so we either have to prove “that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest” to either a panel set up by the very folk who put our names into the system in the first place, or the District Court of Appeals, I don’t think it’s exactly a good switch.
I wouldn’t be so worried if the NRA actually planned to fix the definition of mental defective so that most labels on the DSM would no longer fit it, or gave us a method of overturning a NICS value without having to prove a negative in a hostile court at great personal expense.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
There’s nothing wrong with the law/bill, it’s the implementation I don’t trust.
It’s like the death penalty. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty I just don’t trust the .gov to not kill innocents.
+ Unintended consequences and all that goes with.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 am
[…] Thirdpower and Uncle […]
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
The people who don’t see the harm in this bill fall into three categories: They are liars; or they are young and naive; or they have not paid one damn bit of attention.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
And which one am I?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I’ld like to know which one I fall under as well SA.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Progun NH (www.pgnh.org) has a through writeup as to why they think we should stop bashing this bill and the NRA. It also happens to make clear *why* this is a bad bill. It hinges on a federal regulation’s definition of a mental defective. Federal Regs can be changed without congressional oversight. Good example: BATFE. Additionally it puts the onus upon the prohibited person to spend big bucks to regain their constitutional rights rather than require the goverment to prove that they should not have their rights restored after a sunset time. Even violent felons come up for parole every so often unless its a life sentence. And where does this leave the thousands of servicemen being discharged for “pre-existing personality disorders” after they’ve put years into the military?
There may be good parts to HR 2640. Those should be extracted and submitted as a new bill. On the whole, this is not a bill I want to see my NRA burning political capital on.
BTW: I do agree that we should not be ‘bashing’ the NRA. But we should be letting them know when they are not meeting our needs politically.
My list:
1-reform so that it goes back to collecting taxes only.
2-state based activities to prevent ongoing infringement of 2A protected rights. (IL, NJ, CA come quickly to mind.)
3-Improved Federal support for markmenship programs.
4-Prevention of Federal agency policies that infringe upon 2A protected rights. (National Forestry Service, National Parks Service come to mind.)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I agree with Ninth Stage. Don’t let the bastards get a toe hold. It’s just another one of their myriad ways to antagonize us. Mark my words – If this bill passes in less than a year the Law of Unentended Consequences will have all of you moderates on this saying “What were we thinking?”
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
They already have a toehold. This doesn’t change a thing.
From PGNH:
“That’s right: HR 2640 merely adopts the well settled federal regulation that has ALREADY defined the term for years. “
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Yep. On the other hand, I’d certainly like to avoid having massive monetary incentives for folk to enforce the very poorly written law.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
No offense guys, but when you have the who’s who of gun litigation attorneys like Steve Halbrook, Evan Nappen and Dave Hardy all saying that HR2640 is an improvement over the current gun laws, and is a good thing… I’m going to tend to listen to those people, and give their opinions quite a lot of weight in deciding whether my opinion needs alteration.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The only thing this bill does is computerize existing records. It does not add one person who is not already prohibited from owning a gun to the list. GOA is flat out lying about this.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
So would I.
On the other hand, I’d like something a little more firm than an appeal to authority or distinction by statements of an antigunner. Not a single thread had had someone explain to me what part of the law prevents the sort of abuses I’ve listed, why it’s worth encouraging the enforcement of a law that is so poorly written, or why being “allowed” to try and get a right back by proving a negative in a hostile court is worth this.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
[…] Prompted by Say Uncle’s post. […]
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I say enforce the gun laws we already have on the books and repeal from there.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
There isn’t any encouragements for psychologists to do anything. Nobody can arbitrarily be added to the list just because some shrink says so. You have to be judged mentally defective by a court.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
SayUncle Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
And which one am I?
I am not prepared to call you or thirdpower dishonest. I know better. Both of you have and others have demonstrated your integrity, include both Sebastians in this also.
However, I will say I think you are naive to a fault if you believe this won’t be abused. Some of you, maybe all of you are young enough to be naive, but I really think inattention to the history of the execution of badly written laws is the causative factor in the blind spot I believe you have.
For instance, tell me who these “others” are as set forth in the bill. Don’t know, do you? Neither do I, nor does anybody else.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Trust me on this, I don’t want to be right. I hope you guys are, but it sn’t the way to bet. History and human nature are against you.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
There isn’t any encouragements for psychologists to do anything.
The act authorizes $125,000,000 over a couple years for the states and departments which follow the requirements of the bill. It’s ‘petty change’, but so are the relative costs to the states and agencies. Can you think of anyone who’s genitals Eliot Spitzer would not suck in exchange for the lawful disarmament of hundreds of thousands of individuals and more than two million dollars?
Nobody can arbitrarily be added to the list just because some shrink says so. You have to be judged mentally defective by a court.
No, you have to be judged mentally defective by “a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority”. Previous court cases have shown the simple agreement of two psychologists to work — see U.S. v. Waters.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:39 am
That’s legislative-speak for it requiring legal action before being judged defective. Doctors are not lawful authorities. A shrink can’t just write a note saying your nuts and then you lose your guns.
The appropriations for computerizing existing records. Not one new person not already prohibited from possessing a firearm is added because of this bill. Accept it.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Again, look at the damn case law, including US v Waters. There were no legal actions or judges involved until after the man was already placed on the NICS list.
This ‘only’ enforces the law to the maximum limitations of its letters, but I think it’s quite simple to argue that would not be a good thing.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
You are wrong, deal with it.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Gattsuru, I think we have stumbled upon the rose-colored glasses garden.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I am not sure that PTSD causes violence, as women as well as men get PTSD and other mental disorders but very few of the violent episodes have been done by women. They are almost all being done by men. Could it be the way we raise them? There is something else at play here other than mental illness otherwise women would be just as guilty since they get mental illness too.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:29 am
What about these already diagnosed ADD and ADHD socially incompatable kids that have an extensive history of therapy???Could they not be considered unstable to own a first time firearm??
October 10th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Short answer: No, they can own firearms.