Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: HR 2640 VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Just want to know if anyone else on here knows about this and if there being anything done about it. Its mainly referred as the Veterans Disarmament Act, aka NICs Improvement act as well. This woman Carolin Mccarther and some other guy ran with it straight threw the House in D.C. with it, now they want our senators to go along with it also.

    We don't want this period, it's totally infringing on our second amendment rights in whole, and it's going to affect everyone who has some sort of mental illness beside just us war vet with ptsd. Anyone , civilians and all, kids will be marked if they take mental health meds in schools or have ADD or one of those other types of conditions will be marked on the NICS list before they even have a chance to bear arms. If you've been to a Phyciatrist or Psychologist, taken meds to help you get through a rough time losing someone you love, just about everyone is covered under it.

    So I ask all of you, what are we going to do , and what can we do is even more the answer. Please post, and thanks for future comments

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    The Veterans Disarmament Act is an affront to all of us who are veterans. Since when is having depression from time to time an indication of mental instability? Everyone and I mean everyone is depressed from time to time. Look at Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Einstein. Were they unstable? I think not but they all had significant depression.

    Psychiatry does not have a diagnosis of mentally ill. It has diagnoses such as psychosis, schizophrenia, disassociation and multiple personality disorders. There are six classifications of bipolar disease for example and several of varying degrees of depression. PTSD is a constellation of problems and not a single problem. There is no way that a VA desk jockey or some fat legislator should be making any decisions as to whether an individual is worthy of carrying a weapon. The Constitution does not give legislators the right to make such decrees “the right shall not be infringed”. They must change the Constitution through the amendment process or leave it alone.

    You are not alone in feeling hopping mad about this. I’m with you. (By the way, I’m an MD and know a little bit about this subject.)

    "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."—Thomas Jefferson


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Hmmmm..... My brain is trying to connect dots. This brings a whole new question into play about reasons why the public schools systems are trying so hard to get most of the boys declared to have ADD or a similar condition, and then putting them on meds.

    Should the law pass and be bureaucratically or judicially allowed to prohibit all who were "labeled" this way while in the public schools, there will be tons of young men who would be disarmed by this potentially insidious law. The public schools are rabid about labeling young boys this way.

    Alarmist? Probably. But this is the kind of incrementalism that slowly erodes freedom. Hey fellow frogs, is it getting any hotter in here, or is it just me?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Not that I am specifically condoning any illegal behavior, but the reason we have guns is so that we can prevent things like this from lasting long....You know....when diplomacy through peaceful means ends and aggressive negotiations begin....

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to mere allegations of domestic discord and misbehavior.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    Was this HR2640 of the 110th congress? (111th, or the current session does not currently have any bills numbered that high) -- short name "NICS Improvement blah blah"

    That's what I found, and I read as much of it as I could, and I didn't see anything in particular that specifically targeted our veterans. I still think that it's a complete waste of time, don't get me wrong, but this is from last year's session.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Not that I am specifically condoning any illegal behavior, but the reason we have guns is so that we can prevent things like this from lasting long....You know....when diplomacy through peaceful means ends and aggressive negotiations begin....
    No there's nothing illegal there about what you said Theseus, its states in there shall not be infringed, and we have a right to protect and defend the second amendment against both foreign and domestic alike.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Was this HR2640 of the 110th congress? (111th, or the current session does not currently have any bills numbered that high) -- short name "NICS Improvement blah blah"
    That's what I found, and I read as much of it as I could, and I didn't see anything in particular that specifically targeted our veterans. I still think that it's a complete waste of time, don't get me wrong, but this is from last year's session.
    Sorry fixing to go out the door, keep on reading on check on the Nra's site to and if your a NRA member like I use to be I highly suggest you disbann yourself from them since there the ones who agree'ed with this Carolin Macarther from New York and the NRA actually said that it was a good idea. Also search it up on youtube as well.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    The Veterans Disarmament Act is an affront to all of us who are veterans. Since when is having depression from time to time an indication of mental instability? Everyone and I mean everyone is depressed from time to time. Look at Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Einstein. Were they unstable? I think not but they all had significant depression.

    Psychiatry does not have a diagnosis of mentally ill. It has diagnoses such as psychosis, schizophrenia, disassociation and multiple personality disorders. There are six classifications of bipolar disease for example and several of varying degrees of depression. PTSD is a constellation of problems and not a single problem. There is no way that a VA desk jockey or some fat legislator should be making any decisions as to whether an individual is worthy of carrying a weapon. The Constitution does not give legislators the right to make such decrees “the right shall not be infringed”. They must change the Constitution through the amendment process or leave it alone.

    You are not alone in feeling hopping mad about this. I’m with you. (By the way, I’m an MD and know a little bit about this subject.)

    "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."—Thomas Jefferson

    Yeah, this is a way the government I believe is slowly disarming all of us and eventually somehow they'll change the 2nd amendment entirely, " remember against foreign and domestic"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    I'll have to do that when I can -- probably at lunch.

    Even if I don't understand it the same way Mr. Advocate does, I still think it's useless. Of course, I'm one of those that would like to see the Brady Feel Good bill go away entirely.

    And whatever legislation it is that makes it where we can't order/ship guns without going through an FFL. And licensing. You know, go back to the 2nd? (I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here...)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Old News. NICS Improvement act did pass. NRA's position was "Brady doesn't like it so we will" -- which many saw as a sellout. From NRA members' perspective, apparently, it was a bad move.

    In Sept, an NRA representative at the Gun Rights Policy Conference said it couldn't have been too bad, because none of their members had come to them for help after being denied. Like any would believe NRA was prepared to help.

    Yes, NRA sold you out, on that, and again on the Holder fiasco (apparently -- rumor, mind you -- NRA offered not to count the Holder vote in its scorecard results). But you can't change the NRA from the outside.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

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

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Old News. NICS Improvement act did pass. NRA's position was "Brady doesn't like it so we will" -- which many saw as a sellout. From NRA members' perspective, apparently, it was a bad move.

    In Sept, an NRA representative at the Gun Rights Policy Conference said it couldn't have been too bad, because none of their members had come to them for help after being denied. Like any would believe NRA was prepared to help.

    Yes, NRA sold you out, on that, and again on the Holder fiasco (apparently -- rumor, mind you -- NRA offered not to count the Holder vote in its scorecard results). But you can't change the NRA from the outside.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/19366.html



    Discussion has been done. I haven't seen or heard any direct evidence of any disarmament of Veterans wrt HR2640.

    In Nevada, we are just now seeing the proposed legislation for the state response to fulfill the mandate of HR2640.

    A big part of HR2640 falls to the definition of "mentally adjudicated" as regards court adjudication vs military officer adjudication. The definition called to in HR2640 does NOT support the contention that a diagnosis of PTSD fits the description of "mentally adjudicated."

    HR2640 could have been better, but it forces the states to provide a process for relief. Also, the NRA has had a call number on their website since HR2640 went into effect requesting to hear from anyone who is denied due to HR2640.



    Don't believe everything you read without independently verifying it, unless it fits your world view.
    "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

    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.

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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.
    You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to mere allegations of domestic discord and misbehavior.
    Hmmm I was thinking the same thing.

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

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.
    You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.
    Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' have no truth value, are not falsifiable and are not 'scientific' (after Sir Karl Popper).



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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.
    You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.
    Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' have no truth value, are not falsifiable and are not 'scientific' (after Sir Karl Popper).

    Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.
    You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.
    Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' have no truth value, are not falsifiable and are not 'scientific' (after Sir Karl Popper).
    Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.
    Parse it. The final clause excuses the invincibly ignorant. It is not mine and it is not a trap.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    HR2640 was going to move through the House quickly before the NRA ever got involved. in it's present form, there was no way for a Veteran to get off of the list once they were added. The NRA stepped in at that point and insisted that there must be a procedure to be removed from the list and at theStates expense, not the individuals.

    Had the NRA not got involved, the bill would have passed with no provisions for getting off of the list.

    Getting put on a list for having mental heath issues could not be stopped. Adding a way to get off that list needed to be done. Thats what the NRA did. You can call it a sellout if you wish, but I know a few veterans that don't see it that way.




  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview." We stand on the shoulders of giants.
    You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.
    Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by 'would', 'should' and 'could' have no truth value, are not falsifiable and are not 'scientific' (after Sir Karl Popper).
    Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.
    Parse it. The final clause excuses the invincibly ignorant. It is not mine and it is not a trap.
    I did. The final clause is the one I refer to. Your posts frequently show that you are using the final clause to provide your opinion. Call it what you will, but I call it the pot calling the kettle black each time you use that as your sig file. Your world view allows you to accept without question that which you do not wish to verify.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    squisher wrote:
    Was this HR2640 of the 110th congress? (111th, or the current session does not currently have any bills numbered that high) -- short name "NICS Improvement blah blah"

    That's what I found, and I read as much of it as I could, and I didn't see anything in particular that specifically targeted our veterans. I still think that it's a complete waste of time, don't get me wrong, but this is from last year's session.
    Yep. My point also. I argued it in the thread I linked, and was called a "troll." I had a multiple email dialog with a GOA rep to no avail. I posted the summary in the other thread, and also a summary of my position from reading the text of HR 2640, and reviewing the referenced portions of the definitions.

    The statements by GOA and NRA about HR 2640 are at odds. It is most likely that the truth is somewhere in between those public statements. I note that while the NRAs statement is specific about the bill, GOA spends plenty of time simply decrying the role of the NRA in the legislation. My discussion with the GOA rep did nothing to counter my contention that the GOA website statement is mostly "sour grapes" and anti-NRA rhetoric. It is my belief that the statement on the NRA website is factual, and provides an accurate representation of the reality of HR2640.

    I have seen NO instance where a veteran has been prevented from owning a firearm due to HR 2640.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Thank you for the note.

    We lobbied hard against HR2640's passage but many moons ago it passed
    anyway.

    I regret to inform you, it is the Law of the land.

    Robert E. Duggar
    Public Liaison




    > Subject: Gun Owners Of America: In regards to HR 2640
    >

    There was an email that was attached to it as well that I typed to the GOA, but it was kinda length, thats for everyone's view on this subject I will be looking forward to any new news on this, I go to renew my CC here in Al. for the 5th time, well will see how that goes or if they'll shoot me down or not. I really do hope this is old news. Then after I renew my ccw, I going to purchase a new Eagle perhaps, no just kidden, I can't afford one of those right now, maybe just a Ruger or a new Glock.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Some of you flap your jaws about no one having been denied under HR 2640. I have been denied. These are not just conspiracy theories.

    I'll follow up with the NRA and see if they really do what they say.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Redox wrote:
    Some of you flap your jaws about no one having been denied under HR 2640. I have been denied. These are not just conspiracy theories.

    I'll follow up with the NRA and see if they really do what they say.
    Thanks for the heads up Redox are you a vet as well that fell into that crappy as* list of bs that b*t*ch Carolin Macarther came up with to. Cause if so, I'm screwed, if this is whats about to happen to me as well, I'll just move to place else that doesn't come up with b.s. like this. I'm so happy to go and fight for my country and our rights just to come back and have this airheads in the House take them away from me and everyone else that falls under HR 2640. BTW have you tried to appeal the denial yet

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Redox wrote:
    Some of you flap your jaws about no one having been denied under HR 2640. I have been denied. These are not just conspiracy theories.

    I'll follow up with the NRA and see if they really do what they say.
    Are you saying that your state has already enacted legislation to support the provisions for reporting adjudications to the NICS list? From what I read in the text of HR2640, it did nothing to create a new class of prohibited persons. It mainly requires the states to enact legislation to propagate adjudications to the NICS list, and to force the states to enact procedures to provide for removal from the NICS list. Nevada for one is just now seeinglegislation to address HR2640 in AB46
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •