• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
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?
 
ODA 226

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
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!
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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?
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

wrightme wrote:
The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP.
Click to expand...
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.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
wrightme wrote:
The letter also indicates that the person was turned down for a CWP.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
So then this isn't an HR 2640 item at all then.....
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top