HR 2640 VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT

imported post

Thax, I'm looking it up right now

imported post

Yes, I'm a vet of 8 yrs active duty and 4 years reserve.

imported post

Redox wrote:

Yes, I'm a vet of 8 yrs active duty and 4 years reserve.

Click to expand...

Hooah, thats for your service to my fell B.I.A's, I was in the Army for six, I'd still be in and a lifer in the army but after Iraq things changed severly for me. Thats why I'm hitting this HR 2640 so hardly

imported post

I got a notification from the VA that I would not be able to own firearms. The only adjudication was a disability hearing at which my medical records were sited a number of times. From what I can gather, they are saying that because I have a disability, I am mentally defective. Better take away my car, my baseball bat, my bed sheets, pencils, gum, etc. After all, they are all threats to my life and the lives of others. (Give me a break.)

imported post

Redox wrote:

I got a notification from the VA that I would not be able to own firearms. The only adjudication was a disability hearing at which my medical records were sited a number of times. From what I can gather, they are saying that because I have a disability, I am mentally defective. Better take away my car, my baseball bat, my bed sheets, pencils, gum, etc. After all, they are all threats to my life and the lives of others. (Give me a break.)

Click to expand...

No sh*t right, I haven't got one of those yet from the VA, but it wouldn't suprise me if I did. I tend to like they Rosie shirt on the GOA website under things to buy area.

If guns kill people, then cars cars people to drink and drive, pencils mispel words, and spoons caused Rosie O'Donnell to get fat,

hang in there brother, appeal there decision and keep fighting, and how do they determine if your mentually defective or not to own a firearm, might as well take away my drivers license to be being thats a four wheel thousands of pounds weapon as well

imported post

Last time I checked, I'm not material for being locked up in a mental insane asylum, I have PTSD, I go to groups , see doctors, mental health counselors, etc. Its that public's fear factor involved everyone is scared of people who have mental problems of some sort or fashion, when they might have one or more themselves and just haven't went to seek help yet. If you really think about it , there more dangerous then all of us that go to seek help, cause they have a problem and are not doing anything about it, hell there more dangerous to the public then perhaps any of us who have a mental problem such as sever PTSD

imported post

Text of C from the introduced bill:

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Click to expand...

Now the text of C from the enrolled bill:

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Click to expand...

Text of 922(g)(4) of Title 18, USC:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

Click to expand...

The youtube video is not accurate.


Now, I just found a link that relates the Title 27 Sec 178.11 definition to the statement in 922g. I stand corrected on the specific point. But, the reference is FROM the BATFE, and appears to challenge non-adjudicated commitments. While not specific to military diagnosis, it appears to provide ammunition for removal if the VA specified that a vet was on the list without a court hearing.

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/process2.htm


Now here is the part where I see that I missed the connection to the title 27 definition:
Here is the 1998 USC TItle 27, with 178.11: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=27&PART=178&SECTION=11&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
Here is the 2008 USC Title 27, with 478.11: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr478.11.pdf

I see now the reference at the head of the "mentally adjudicated" definition of "Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44." This appears to be a clear reference to Title 18, Ch 44, which includes Sec 922.

It substantially weakens my "read" of HR2640. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html

imported post

The youtube video is not accurate.


Now the definition in a separate section of code; specifically, the definition that is alleged to cause HR2640 to make PTSD a prohibited person:

Now, I just found a link that relates the Title 27 Sec 178.11 definition to the statement in 922g. I stand corrected on the specific point. But, the reference is FROM the BATFE, and appears to challenge non-adjudicated commitments. While not specific to military diagnosis, it appears to provide ammunition for removal if the VA specified that a vet was on the list without a court hearing.

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/process2.htm

Thanks wrightme for the information you looked up. And to the link, I love the ending to that story, it seems to me the police in that area totally didn't even know what the definition of the 4th amendment was in that story, no warrent, are you kidding me. Legally that guy had the right to protect himself in that situation, for all he could have know, those were just a couple guys dressed up in police outfits, regardless though, they had know right to do what they did regardless of wearing the badge or not, its against the Bill of Rights. But he did do the right thing, and I hope he gets full and complete justice from what that PD did to him, how coldhearted.

imported post

1stfreedom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't see it that way either. Furthermore I find a lot of this PTSD disgusting. I've see soldiers cry about being within 100 meters of an impact just to get disability. Depression used to be something people struggled through on their own, now it's a clinical issue that no one can seem to cure,so it's treated withdrugs... FOREVER, talk about job security. ADD is total BS too. Some kids are just not going to be robotic little book worms, and some of them just need their butts whippped.

These "mental conditions" were not "mental disorders" until someone decided they could make money from it.

That being said, some folks do really have PTSD, guys that had to light up a truck that breeched security and found it full of pregnant mothers and kids are going to need some council for sure. This shouldn't be a life long struggle though. We had millions of WW2 veterans who saw things just as bad or worse than most can imagine, who eventually got past it and went on with their lives.

The point is, if you are going to go through the government for treatment of things that aren't really issues, be prepared to get screwed. After rotating to the states from OIF 3 it seemed like we were being begged to get on some kind of disability. Those guys who did found out their $100 a month "disability" cost them some really good jobs.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

1stfreedom wrote:

HR2640
You can call it a sellout if you wish, but I know a few veterans that don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

I didn't see it that way either. Furthermore I find a lot of this PTSD disgusting. I've see soldiers cry about being within 100 meters of an impact just to get disability. Depression used to be something people struggled through on their own, now it's a clinical issue that no one can seem to cure,so it's treated withdrugs... FOREVER, talk about job security. ADD is total BS too. Some kids are just not going to be robotic little book worms, and some of them just need their butts whippped.

These "mental conditions" were not "mental disorders" until someone decided they could make money from it.

That being said, some folks do really have PTSD, guys that had to light up a truck that breeched security and found it full of pregnant mothers and kids are going to need some council for sure. This shouldn't be a life long struggle though. We had millions of WW2 veterans who saw things just as bad or worse than most can imagine, who eventually got past it and went on with their lives.

The point is, if you are going to go through the government for treatment of things that aren't really issues, be prepared to get screwed. After rotating to the states from OIF 3 it seemed like we were being begged to get on some kind of disability. Those guys who did found out their $100 a month "disability" cost them some really good jobs.

Click to expand...

imported post

I find a lot of this PTSD disgusting.These "mental conditions" were not "mental disorders" until someone decided they could make money from it.

Click to expand...

That being said, some folks do really have PTSD, guys that had to light up a truck that breached security and found it full of pregnant mothers and kids are going to need some council for sure. This shouldn't be a life long struggle though. We had millions of WW2 veterans who saw things just as bad or worse than most can imagine, who eventually got past it and went on with their lives.

Click to expand...

After rotating to the states from OIF 3 it seemed like we were being begged to get on some kind of disability. Those guys who did found out their $100 a month "disability" cost them some really good jobs.

Click to expand...

Look praying for war I'm:shock:and:?in what you just got finished putting up hear. Are you serious, WWII you actually think they got past it and moved on with there lives. :cuss:They don't move on , we don't move on, and I don't know exactly what you experience over there in OIF3, but what your saying is completely outrageous. You find alot of THIS PTSD DISGUSTING , WELL YOU SHOULD, BUT NOT IN THE WAY YOUR TAKING IT, OR OPINIONATING IT TO BE. AND YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT NO ONE HAD MENTAL DISORDERS UNTIL SOMEONE DECIDED THEY COULD MAKE MONEY ON IT, Man are you way the f**k off on this one. Its clearly obvious you have know mental condition, especially sever PTSD, nor does it seem like you educated yourself on the conditions or symptoms we with ptsd have to deal with on a daily basis. Now I know there are those out there that are just trying to get a free ride from the government, but in know way to you put it that way, you generalized all of us basically, not to mention you actually believe you can eventually get over this, really, how did you stumble onto this miracle cure pill. Don't come on here just posting your opinion and not bring any facts to back your grounds up on it, really, it makes you look ignorant.

And another thing, do you have some sort of PH.d in mental health area, cause I'd would be saying by what you posted that you clearly don't. Do all of us a favor and educate yourself before coming on a post like this just to share your clearly insane opinion of this disorder or any disorder for that matter.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I'll feel better about this when I see something that's not from 2007. :X

imported post

AbNo wrote:

wrightme wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I'll feel better about this when I see something that's not from 2007. :X

Click to expand...

Hold on a minute or two let me see if I can find something more current Abno

imported post

http://www.ohioccw.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3929

heres something from 08 but I'm not done looking yet, if I don't find what I'm looking for I'll keep looking.
http://gunlaws.com/gloaup6.htm

http://www.ncids.org/CivilCommitment/TrainingMaterials/CollateralConseq_Turnage.pdf

this is all I could find on it right now Abno

imported post

Its looks to be as if the damn bill passed sometime late 07 to early 08, but if we were placed on the (NICS) list we do have a right to regain our 2nd Amendment Rights from what I've read. But if this bill really went through all the way like it says, I haven't found any new revised later08 early 09 edition, then there shouldn't be a problem, I just got finished purchasing a firearm not more than three weeks ago and everything came back fine. I also read both it would not place vets with PTSD on the list, but on other sites I read it would, and that we would have to regain our rights by applying for them, talk about some bs, I'll be going for my 5th consecutive ccw permit here in the next couple days, I'll tell you how it goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y32vseP7T58&NR=1
this video from your tube with Larry Pratt from the GOA talks a bit about the Veterans Disarament Act-not what you will hear if your a veteran might just make you feel like a second class citizen, The GOA is for us, but not those who made the decision about 2640, the GOA is in the process from what I hear about getting a repeal on the part that hits all service men and woman.

imported post

Redox wrote:

I got a notification from the VA that I would not be able to own firearms. The only adjudication was a disability hearing at which my medical records were sited a number of times. From what I can gather, they are saying that because I have a disability, I am mentally defective. Better take away my car, my baseball bat, my bed sheets, pencils, gum, etc. After all, they are all threats to my life and the lives of others. (Give me a break.)

Click to expand...

And when did you recieve that notice? I'm 30% disabled myself, after serving 25 years, never been diagnosed with PTSD tho'. Fight it Bro' and good luck!!
Keep your powder dry!

imported post

Yes, this is a bill that passed in the last session. It is also a bill that added no new definitions to NICS inclusion. If a person shows up on the NICS list as a prohibited person, the only thing that HR2640 did was to force the states to provide accurate inclusion information in a timely manner, and to provide means for relief.
The definition was already in place, but the list was not accurate with information that was already valid. It created no new list.

In other words, either a person who fit the description was on the list prior to HR2640, was not on the list prior to HR2640 due to records transmittal failures, or is now on the list in error.
I do not see any wording of HR2640 that causes a person who previously did not fit the description to NOW fit a description that provides for list inclusion.

According to the definitions in place prior to HR2640, an analogy would be as follows:

"Unpaid traffic tickets provides for inclusion on a 'wants/warrants' list in a local jurisdiction, and also for inclusion on a statewide list." Prior to a new records transmittal bill, no locality transmitted the list to neighboring counties, thus preventing other counties from realizing they stopped someone on the list.
After the new records transmittal bill passed, people stopped in other counties began showing up on the list......"
They already fit the definition that leads to arrest, but they were not placed on the list where they already should have been.

HR 2640 did not cause PTSD vets to be newly banned, but it does provide for accurate and timely records transmittal. No new class of prohibited persons was created by HR2640.

Mr.Advocate wrote:

Its looks to be as if the damn bill passed sometime late 07 to early 08, but if we were placed on the (NICS) list we do have a right to regain our 2nd Amendment Rights from what I've read. But if this bill really went through all the way like it says, I haven't found any new revised later08 early 09 edition, then there shouldn't be a problem, I just got finished purchasing a firearm not more than three weeks ago and everything came back fine. I also read both it would not place vets with PTSD on the list, but on other sites I read it would, and that we would have to regain our rights by applying for them, talk about some bs, I'll be going for my 5th consecutive ccw permit here in the next couple days, I'll tell you how it goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y32vseP7T58&NR=1
this video from your tube with Larry Pratt from the GOA talks a bit about the Veterans Disarament Act-not what you will hear if your a veteran might just make you feel like a second class citizen, The GOA is for us, but not those who made the decision about 2640, the GOA is in the process from what I hear about getting a repeal on the part that hits all service men and woman.

Click to expand...

imported post

HR 2640 did not cause PTSD vets to be newly banned, but it does provide for accurate and timely records transmittal. No new class of prohibited persons was created by HR2640.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness, what a freakin relief, I don't know exactly what all the extra stuff is, except basically I'm not going to be included in this bill, and if perhaps I get mentally diagnoised with something else as well, then I'm still I'm still good right. And all other veterans would be covered as well to right, so what your saying is after all, there not going after us.

imported post

July 2008

imported post

so it's mid 2008 when this all went down then, it's crazy how none of this really made it on the mainstream news,lol,not, thats the way originally I guess they meant for it to happen. So it wouldn't catch a bunch a big flack from all of us.