• 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.

HR 2640 VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT

W

wrightme

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

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.
 
M

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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
>
Click to expand...


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.
 
R

Redox

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
6
Location
, ,
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.
 
M

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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:question:
 
W

wrightme

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

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
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:question:
Click to expand...
Advocate, what language of HR2640 adds any classes of prohibited persons to the NICS list?
 
W

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm - Cached

check it out, a bunch of bs
Click to expand...
Got a link that yahoo doesn't provide severe warning against following?

I see your new link. The GOA didn't provide the complete sentence of the section they reference.

Please review the post I did on this specific point about the "mental adjudication"

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=19366&forum_id=4&jump_to=327749#p327749

The GOA did not provide the full story. The definition called to in HR2640 does not provide a blanket that allows non-court adjudications.
 
W

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
HR 2640 - The Veterans Disarmament Bill

lets see if this works also , straight from YouTube, hold on I'm still doing some quick referencing
Click to expand...
Have you read the text of the actual bill as enrolled, or are you just going off of the reads of others? The text of the bill does not provide for the addition of non-adjudicated persons to the NICS listing. It doesn't add vets with PTSD to the NICS list, unless they already were on the list.

It might be enlightening for you to read the text of the 5 versions, including the introduced version, and the final version. Then see if you still agree with those who say that HR2640 allows for inclusion of vets with a doctor's diagnosis on the NICS listing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2640:
 
M

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
imported post

Have you read the text of the actual bill as enrolled, or are you just going off of the reads of others? The text of the bill does not provide for the addition of non-adjudicated persons to the NICS listing. It doesn't add vets with PTSD to the NICS list, unless they already were on the list.
Click to expand...


Yes Wrightme, I have read the text of the actually bill, but I forgot to mark it as favorites or save it so I could get back to it easily
 
W

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Mr.Advocate wrote:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/alerts/2007-hr2640dangerous.shtml
Click to expand...
While the wording of the bill at the time of the NAGR "call to arms" may have allowed the simple doctor declaration, the "as enrolled" text does not.
Click to expand...
yeah , just a doctor could decide, thats it, pretty pathetic, what do you think
Click to expand...
I agree that allowing only a doctor to decide is pathetic. Find the text in the enrolled bill that allows it. The definition of mental adjudication called to by HR2640 does not agree with the "read" of the bill by the GOA.
I have linked it above, and I have also linked my "read" of it in the previous discussion thread I participated in. Where is the wording that causes PTSD to be a "mental adjudication" as defined in HR2640?
 
W

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321,00.html
Click to expand...


Relieved , found something new from militarydotcom, I think your right, but I don't know where I was reading before, I even had it printed out, but I misplaced it.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly DO hope I am right, and I realize that there may be wording that I have not yet fully understood, but I really do not think so.
If the definition of "mentally adjudicated" being used for NICS inclusion allows a simple diagnosis by a physician, I am fairly certain that it should be cause for removal from the NICS list, specifically due to the wording of HR2640.
 
W

wrightme

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

Mr.Advocate wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsdSjde0r18
Click to expand...


I hope your right, go to the Liberary of Congress, thats where I'm going right now, watch this video. You'll learn alot on this HR 2640 and the guy talking about it is reading off the bill HR 2640
Click to expand...
LoC is where I read the bill. That is the "thomas" link I posted above. It links to the text of the bill in its 5 iterations, including the enrolled version.

Watching the video, I see that the pdf version he is reading from has text different than the bill text from the LoC website, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:5:./temp/~c110sfgzTU:e614:

Specifically, the paragraph 101 (c)1C referenced. His is not complete. I see it likely that the youtube video you are seeing is reading a previous version of the bill. He is reading from the introduced version. That specific paragraph is not accurate in that video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top