Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90

Thread: It begins, Veterans' Disarmament. A letter to GRGRSC El Presidente

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Folks, below is a message that was sent to GrassRoots President Ed Kelleher:

    "A few months back I was turned down for renewal of my CWP. I had
    held the permit for four years when I was told that because the VA had
    me listed as not being able to handle my own funds ( which a local
    doctor disagrees with) and I'm being treated for PTSD that I was on a
    FBI list. Ed I have never been involved in a crime in my life. I was
    in the military for seven years and ten months including two tours in
    Viet Nam. I have always been proud of my record and I'm a Life member
    of the NRA but now I feel like a convicted criminal. Has my country
    and my state forsaken me. Is there any hope in my situation."

    GrassRoots and pro gun organizations across the country other than the
    NRA fought against the Veteran Disarmament bill earlier this year. We
    warned that the above was going to happen. Now, it has - here in SC.
    This is shameful. Funny how many who say they support the troops will
    also turn the returning troops into second class citizens.

    Rob
    [code]http://www.scfirearms.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    This is not good, an Obamination (intentional misspell) Wonder how many million other Vets like myself will come under this scrutiny.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    All of us I am sure.

    If a felon may be properly disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', even to - a diagnosis of PTSD.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    This is shameful. Whywould anyone want to treat a veteranthis way. It's absolutely shameful.They could say that all veterans from WWII forward has PTSD and disarm a heck of a lot of people.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Is he willing to sue?
    I'm sure he could get help if he'd like it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    GOA warned of this, unfortunately, the NRA bought off on it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    GOA warned of this, unfortunately, the NRA bought off on it.
    Damn, the NRA. Can you cite, please.

    Edit: I believe you. I just want a cite.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The statement in the OP is not enough, even over a well known, to some, name?

    'Rob' is GRGRSC VP Director of Legislative Action and held a similar position in the now de-certified SC ACLU branch.

    There are 118 hits on a site search of scfirearms.org for "nra".

  9. #9
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Never been daignosed with PTSD, never wake up screamin' *There's Gooks inna wire, never dive under the table after hearin a backfire anymore LOL. Geez,,here we go again. Maybe we aught to get a class action law suit and get all what now? 10 million living Vets on it?
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598

    Post imported post

    This is the same thing that happened to Croatian war veterans after that war ended. ANYONE that fought in that war is routinely denied the right to even OWN a firearm. The Croatian Government says that since you experienced war, you must have some form of PTSD and under their laws, if you have any form of psychological problems, you are AUTOMATICALLY BANNED from firearms ownership!
    Bitka Sve Rešava!
    B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    GOA warned of this, unfortunately, the NRA bought off on it.
    Damn, the NRA. Can you cite, please.

    Edit: I believe you. I just want a cite.
    Here you go.

    http://www.gunowners.org/a010808.htm


    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...&issue=018

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    The statement in the OP is simply that. A statement. Where in the text of 2640 does itbar a non-adjudicated individual from firearms ownership or from having a CWP? The text of the bill instead indicates the remedy for denials due to non-adjudicated diagnosis. I will await veracity on the actual incident, and on citing of the "fbi list." Where does the letter tie to 2640?



    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP. Is this the same as "disarmed?" 2640 would bar firearms ownership, correct?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP.
    No. Renewal was declined.

    SC Law Enforcement Division has adopted extra-legal requirements, beyond those addressed in the shall-issue law. IIRC, more than five traffic citations will result in non-renewal as a habitual offender, nowhere addressed in the implementing legislation.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP.
    No. Renewal was declined.

    SC Law Enforcement Division has adopted extra-legal requirements, beyond those addressed in the shall-issue law. IIRC, more than five traffic citations will result in non-renewal as a habitual offender, nowhere addressed in the implementing legislation.
    So then this isn't an HR 2640 item at all then.....
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Ahhh, the ever so wise NRA strikes again. P#$%ks

    Thanks, Gordie.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    The statement in the OP is simply that. A statement. Where in the text of 2640 does itbar a non-adjudicated individual from firearms ownership or from having a CWP? The text of the bill instead indicates the remedy for denials due to non-adjudicated diagnosis. I will await veracity on the actual incident, and on citing of the "fbi list." Where does the letter tie to 2640?

    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP. Is this the same as "disarmed?" 2640 would bar firearms ownership, correct?
    An affirmative statement of your disagreement will be more effective than snarking, or even the relevant text of the Act.

    The letter is evidently from a disgruntled Vet. and posted to a gun rights e-mail list and then, by me, here. What is your problem? Do you mis-understand "shall not be infringed"? Did you read the posts intervening, including

    If a felon may be properly disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', even to - a diagnosis of PTSD.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Ahhh, the ever so wise NRA strikes again. P#$%ks

    Thanks, Gordie.
    Or not.......

    There are differing viewpoints on HR 2640

    I found an article that calls in to question the ambiguous views of 2640.

    NRA Bashers, Nope! Wrong again

    Another one by the same person.

    Enough NRA Bashing.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    They could even get PTSD diagnosed for somethings like being a victim of rape, armed robbery, bad car accident, anything they want. This is disturbing andevidently G.W. will or has signed it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Snarking? How so? You began with a topic line about "it begins, Veterans' Disarmament." You then qouted an email that only references the non-renewal of a CWP, not anything to do with disarmament. How is asking for clarification or specifics "snarking?" Isn't it dishonest to post about disarmament when there was none?

    I can only make statements as to the OP, absent context. You alleged that the OP was about disarmament, and reference was made to the NRA causing the case in the OP, with no verification other than the letter itself. What portion of what law was cited for the non-renewal for me to even respond to? Where in HR 2640 is a "diagnosis of PTSD" grounds for any bar from either ownership or CWP?

    What LAW was used to allow the non-renewal? Then I will respond in context; once context is provided.



    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    The statement in the OP is simply that. A statement. Where in the text of 2640 does itbar a non-adjudicated individual from firearms ownership or from having a CWP? The text of the bill instead indicates the remedy for denials due to non-adjudicated diagnosis. I will await veracity on the actual incident, and on citing of the "fbi list." Where does the letter tie to 2640?

    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP. Is this the same as "disarmed?" 2640 would bar firearms ownership, correct?
    An affirmative statement of your disagreement will be more effective than snarking, or even the relevant text of the Act.

    The letter is evidently from a disgruntled Vet. and posted to a gun rights e-mail list and then, by me, here. What is your problem? Do you mis-understand "shall not be infringed"? Did you read the posts intervening, including

    If a felon may be properly disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony', even to - a diagnosis of PTSD.
    Yes, I read the posts. You made the "felon almost equals PTSD" comment. Where is that in the law or act? What LAW was cited in the OP?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Bad stuff, trying to makecriminals out of veterans that wish to exercise constitutional rights. Hey Veterans Administration, say hello to my little friend
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Ahhh, the ever so wise NRA strikes again. P#$%ks

    Thanks, Gordie.
    Or not.......

    There are differing viewpoints on HR 2640

    I found an article that calls in to question the ambiguous views of 2640.

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP.
    No. Renewal was declined.

    SC Law Enforcement Division has adopted extra-legal requirements, beyond those addressed in the shall-issue law. IIRC, more than five traffic citations will result in non-renewal as a habitual offender, nowhere addressed in the implementing legislation.
    So then this isn't an HR 2640 item at all then.....
    [/u]
    Maybe it is:
    I was told that because the VA had me listed as not being able to handle my own funds ( which a local doctor disagrees with) and I'm being treated for PTSD that I was on a FBI list.
    Notice that it is because of the diagnosis through the VA that is being given as the reason.

    Regardless, this law has way too many chances for abuse built into it. As a veteran myself it scares me. If I was suffering from PTSD, I would think twice before going for the help that I needed. This is hardly the situation that is best for any of us.





  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Ahhh, the ever so wise NRA strikes again. P#$%ks

    Thanks, Gordie.

    Or not.......

    There are differing viewpoints on HR 2640

    I found an article that calls in to question the ambiguous views of 2640.

    NRA Bashers, Nope! Wrong again

    Another one by the same person.

    Enough NRA Bashing
    The problem that I have with these articles is that they are both by the same person, so of course they support each other. Also, they cite as their primary support the NRA, what else would the NRA say about a bill which they supported? The GOA had a different view.

    The article said:
    WASHINGTON, DC - Leading national gun violence prevention organizations - the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Legal Community Against Violence, and the Violence Policy Center - today warned that a bill intended to improve the records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) - the national system used to screen gun buyers - has been hijacked by the gun lobby and would now do far more harm than good. [Emphasis added]
    Yet Carolyn McCarthy told CBS News, "This is the best Christmas present I could ever receive."

    The article said:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a "relief from disability" program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have "been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed. As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply.
    GOA says:
    ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.
    ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.
    And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.
    More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person 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." (Emphasis added.)
    Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!
    Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."
    The article says:
    [The Bill sets] ...an arbitrary [sic - in other words, a definite] time limit for the VA to act on applications for "relief." If the agency fails to act within 365 days, applicants could file a lawsuit asking a court to restore their gun privileges, even if Congress fails to provide the VA with the appropriate resources to process these investigations. Some prevailing applicants would be entitled to attorneys' fees.


    GOA says:
    True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.
    Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year. Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.
    Thearticle says:
    Even more troubling is the fact that the NRA Bashers are on the same side as the following noted anti-gun activists who oppose the bill:
    I don't know where this comes from. The only thing that the anti's and pro's agreed on was their opposition to this bill. The anti's because it didn't go far enough, the pro's because it went too far. I note that the only people that they quote to oppose this bill are all anti's. Why don't they quote any pro-gunners?
    I also don't like the way in which this bill was passed.
    It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either at the airport or in the air returning home. They weren't in Washington, DC, because their party leadership had told them that all the major votes were over... that the only legislative business left related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would return from Christmas break, etc.
    But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and Senate passed the Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote. It was a huge deja vu, as this was the method that a previous Democratic Congress used -- together with compliant Republicans -- to pass the original Brady Law in 1993.
    If it was such a good bill then why didn't it go up for a floor vote?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Out of my 70% Disability 30% is supposedly PTSD/Hyper Vigilence Disorder.

    I guess it's good that I OC

    This is sad and does worry me though.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Where is the text that "locks in" supposedly barred veterans that were not in jeopardy before this act?

    Nothing in the OP even supports a use of the act for the non-renewal of permit, and in fact, further posts regard the non-renewal of permit as a local SC issue, and not a national Act database "barring."


    A diagnosis of PTSD is given as a reason in the OP, but there is nothing to indicate that the legislation of HR 2640 had a hand in the letter that began this thread.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    Out of my 70% Disability 30% is supposedly PTSD/Hyper Vigilence Disorder.

    I guess it's good that I OC

    This is sad and does worry me though.
    Hyper vigilance disorder? Is that like situational awareness? Oh hell,,I have that too, it's called being alert of your sorroundings after being in "Injun territory" (sorry for the negative term I can say it cuz I'm part ) for too long where there's folks tryna kill you.
    It's called Situation Yellow alert by Front Sight Training. Guess it's okay tho'. Fear naught you're not the only one.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •