HR 2640 VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT

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

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

:cuss:

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?

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....

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.

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.

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....

Click to expand...

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.

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"

Click to expand...

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...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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"

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...)

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.

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.

Click to expand...

Hmmm I was thinking the same thing.

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.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.

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.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.

Click to expand...

Parse it. The final clause excuses the invincibly ignorant. It is not mine and it is not a trap.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that as your sigline. You would do well to follow it yourself.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Which doesn't change that you frequently fall into the trap you point out in your sigline.

Click to expand...

Parse it. The final clause excuses the invincibly ignorant. It is not mine and it is not a trap.

Click to expand...

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.