• 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

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

It allows for ANY even the smallest of PTSD to be used as a disqualifyer to gun ownership. Enough for me to say Hmmmm. Can't keep looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I think you need to be more situationally aware of just what is happening. It boils down to this, what part of the 2nd Amendment do you NOT understand? If you're not a Veteran sure you don't have a problem with it. If you are then you understand what this bill means.
 

Doug Huffman

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

wrightme wrote:
No, I am most definitely not a troll. I just am realistic. Where in the bill does it disarm vets? In fact, the thread starter does not reference a "disarming." Fearmongering from a brief read and jumping to conclusions on "intent" does nothing to help the cause of either OC, CC, or 2nd amendment.

The information I have read on the bill in question does not disarm vets. It DOES provide remedy paths for anyone who is listed and disarmed falsely.
Please make affirmative statements supporting your conclusions with citations at least of precise URLs or, better, quotes from the cited URL.

Else; TROLL!
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

KansasMustang wrote:
Tomahawk GMAFB man what freedoms are we gonna lose with the ObamaNation? I'm betting we lose most of em. Dubya isn't the best and I'm not a republican, but I am for freedom. And I've not been severely hampered in that yet. But the time will come. Just me sayin it.

I don't know what GMAFB means. I've fallen behind on 733t speak.

This attitude is why we are in such a jam. People think they are "for freedom" when they vote for big government conservatives who spend 8 years installing the apparatus for a police state, and then they feel threatened when a big government liberal gets elected and starts using that apparatus against them. You made your own bed by voting for such losers as Bush and McCain. Now be paranoid in it.
 

wrightme

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
wrightme wrote:
No, I am most definitely not a troll. I just am realistic. Where in the bill does it disarm vets? In fact, the thread starter does not reference a "disarming." Fearmongering from a brief read and jumping to conclusions on "intent" does nothing to help the cause of either OC, CC, or 2nd amendment.

The information I have read on the bill in question does not disarm vets. It DOES provide remedy paths for anyone who is listed and disarmed falsely.
Please make affirmative statements supporting your conclusions with citations at least of precise URLs or, better, quotes from the cited URL.

Else; TROLL!
Frankly, concerning the thread starter, I would appreciate that as a start. Please make affirmative statements as to the veracity of the OP and any actual link to the "veteran's disarmament" legislation. So far, you have stated it is only a local issue. Where is the tie-in from the letter and the bill? Where is the "disarmament?" Who is really trolling? I have already provided links that support my position. Where is yours and Mustangs?


Doug Huffman wrote:
All of us I am sure.

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.
You wrote this. Where is your citation for validity of equating a diagnosis of PTSD and disarmament?
 

1000ydshooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
173
Location
Formerly Kwajalein atoll, and Iraq. Now Zuni Va
imported post

Holy Crap!!! Think about this,not only could they disarm Vets on the idea that PTSD Makes someone mentaly unstable.What about Fire fighters,LEO'S,and medics that all respond to sometimes tragic accidents,and events. In my case they could get me for my service to my country during the first gulf war as a marine, or my 16 years as a fire fighter/medic.I went through CISD (critical incident stress debriefing) after my 6 days at ground zero pulling bodies out of the pile. Now on my 3rd year as a fire fighter /medic working in Iraq. They would defently say i am wacked out of my mind. Guess id better sell all my stuff to my wife.:celebrate
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Search on Thomas Sasz regarding mental illness and the scam it is. He makes the argument that mental illness is a tool of the state that allows them to deprive you of your liberty without having to accuse you of a crime or give you a hearing. It's a wonderful tool for tyrants. Bush wants to screen all American children for metal illness, something I bet his buddies in the pharmaceutical business are no doubt happy to hear, as well as Obama's buddies in the Brady Bunch.
 

wrightme

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

1000ydshooter wrote:
Holy Crap!!! Think about this,not only could they disarm Vets on the idea that PTSD Makes someone mentaly unstable.What about Fire fighters,LEO'S,and medics that all respond to sometimes tragic accidents,and events. In my case they could get me for my service to my country during the first gulf war as a marine, or my 16 years as a fire fighter/medic.I went through CISD (critical incident stress debriefing) after my 6 days at ground zero pulling bodies out of the pile. Now on my 3rd year as a fire fighter /medic working in Iraq. They would defently say i am wacked out of my mind. Guess id better sell all my stuff to my wife.:celebrate
Where does PTSD now prevent firearms ownership? I do not wish that to happen, but nowhere I have read in the bill text does it cause PTSD to be equated with "ajudicated."


Doug Huffman wrote:
TROLL, bite me!

Is intelligent discussion with you not possible?
Can you not support the point you attempted to present with the thread starter?
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

I know writeme personally. Although I have more concern over this law than he does, I can tell you for a fact, HE IS VERY MUCH PRO 2A! He is no troll. I would bet that he does more to support us "gun people" in the local area than 90% of the people on this board do in theirs'.

Just because someone disagrees with you, and asks questions about your sources, doesn't make them a troll.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Mr Huffman, et al, I can personally assure you that wrightme is NOT any type of "troll." I know him personally and we serve on the Board of Trustees of a noted Nevada non profit firearms corporation (club). He is a known "voice of reason."

Is the initial post disturbing and worth further investigation? Of course it is.

But there is nothing wrong with asking for additional facts.

And this thread has degenerated into multiple subjects. Everyone should start over and get verifiable facts - or lock this thread altogether.

CPO, USN(RET)

Pres, SFA
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Can anyone provide more information on the individual mentioned in the letter or the case at hand?
 

GumiBear

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
161
Location
Austin, Texas, USA
imported post

Ok I started over as suggested. I read HR 2640 and now my head hurts thank you very much. Do they write these laws like this on purpose so the common folk can't figure out what the hell they are reading? What I get from reading the law is that wrightmeis correct, there is nothing in there that would disarm a Vet or anyone else unless you are proven mentally deficient by court of law. Then your name goes on the list until such time as you can remove it from the list, which the law outlines also.

Here is the problem that I see, after having dealt with government stupidity for 20 years. The letter that started this thread states that renewal of "Rob's" CWP was denied because the VA had reported that he couldn't handle his funds (This alone would strip everyone of their rights) and that he was being treated for PTSD.
So Mr Rob from the letter wound up on the list even though he wasn't deemed mentally deficiant by court of law. He wound up there because a government agency, the VA in this case, wrongfully notified the FBI.

This is what scares me and everyone else and if this is left to slide it is just a matter time when the power will be abused even further.
 

Doug Huffman

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

I am the messenger. I cannot defend the OP. I do not know the person, the Vet or his circumstances. To think that 'Rob' is signatory is sufficient evidence that the note/letter was only seen and reacted to and not understood.

Biteme is just another extreme pro-gun anonymous poster. I might even be acquainted with some of his oeuvre, his body of pro-gun works, but we'll never know.

To claim membership in some organization or another, or retirement from it (CPO Ret) is to disparage others. See the discussion of 'argument from authority/personal attack' at the Wikipedia. Some of the dumbest sailors I ever met were Chief PETTY Officers - and some of the best people I now know are retired Service MCPOs.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 

wrightme

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

I am exactly who I say that I am. I am not an "anti" in any way shape or form. If you wish your thread starter to have any veracity wrt any federal laws, you should support it with facts instead of sheer conjecture.

I am not any anonymous poster. I use this same handle on other websites, including the pro-2nd amendment website of the Stillwater Firearms Association of Fallon, Nevada, of which I am a Trustee and Webmaster. Mr Rhodes IS a Retired Chief of the United States Navy, and I am a Retired Navy Reservist. I really do not care if you believe this or not, but to call me anonymous and discredit what I say due to your ignorance of me, my background, and my actual political leanings (to the Right, thank you very much) is false and dishonest. Should you wish to discuss FACTS of the topic of this thread, please continue to bring some into discussion. Attacks upon me and anyone else who does not think in lockstep with you does nothing to further the cause of pro-2nd Amendment actions.

WRT to the topic of the bill/law in question, if someone DOES get placed upon the "list" due to a non-adjucitated reasoning of PTSD or other, they have "standing" to argue a case in court. The law in question does NOT have a mechanism for placing non-adjucitated persons on any list. The arguments against the law in question hinge upon the fallacy that it creates or legitimizes such non-adjucitated listings. If you or anyone else cannot show where the law does such, you have no position except for fear-mongering. I will welcome FACTUAL evidences that attempt to counter my understanding of the law in question. The thread starter is not about the law in question though....
Doug Huffman wrote:
I am the messenger. I cannot defend the OP. I do not know the person, the Vet or his circumstances. To think that 'Rob' is signatory is sufficient evidence that the note/letter was only seen and reacted to and not understood.
Actually, you ARE the messenger. You posted the letter. Then you allege that the bill that had the support of the NRA caused the problem in the letter, without providing any evidence that the law caused the problem the letter shows. When asked to provide that, you attack me? Why? It seems your main trouble is that you don't like the NRA, so you don't like what they do. :?

It isn't simply that you posted the letter, it is that you dishonestly perpetuate a connection between it and the law in question.
 

wrightme

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
Biteme is just another extreme pro-gun anonymous poster. I might even be acquainted with some of his oeuvre, his body of pro-gun works, but we'll never know.

To claim membership in some organization or another, or retirement from it (CPO Ret) is to disparage others. See the discussion of 'argument from authority/personal attack' at the Wikipedia. Some of the dumbest sailors I ever met were Chief PETTY Officers - and some of the best people I now know are retired Service MCPOs.

http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/
Either I or varminter22 ARE the authors of most of the content at http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/

As far as personal attack, you are the one who is evidencing personal attack. The slur you create with "biteme" is exactly that. Your slur upon Retired Chief Petty officers is exactly that. Both of us work through our local state legislature for PRO-Second Amendment changes to laws in Nevada. We HAVE made positive differences as an organization to further positive changes to firearms laws in Nevada. Before you accuse me of personal attack, you should really look for these alleged personal attacks that I have made, but you should also clean your attacks upon me and others from this thread first. Pot/Kettle.

Instead of providing any attempt to refute my points or support yours, you simply attack. That is poor form, and does no good. Do you wish to continue the exchange as is, or are you instead willing to discuss the actual ramifications of the law in question?
 

wrightme

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
wrightme wrote:
No, I am most definitely not a troll. I just am realistic. Where in the bill does it disarm vets? In fact, the thread starter does not reference a "disarming." Fearmongering from a brief read and jumping to conclusions on "intent" does nothing to help the cause of either OC, CC, or 2nd amendment.

The information I have read on the bill in question does not disarm vets. It DOES provide remedy paths for anyone who is listed and disarmed falsely.
Please make affirmative statements supporting your conclusions with citations at least of precise URLs or, better, quotes from the cited URL.

Else; TROLL!
Here you go:


1/8/2008--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

- NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 -

Title I - Transmittal of Records

Section 101 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to:

(1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms;
(2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly;
and
(3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such actions to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date.
Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide the Attorney General, not less than quarterly, information for determining whether a person is disqualified under the federal criminal code from possessing or receiving a firearm for use in NICS background checks.
Requires the Attorney General to:
(1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential;
(2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS;
and
(3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if:
(1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
(2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated;
or
(3) the adjudication or commitment is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing and there has been no adjudication under the federal criminal code of mental defectiveness.
Requires all federal agencies that adjudicate the mental health of individuals or commit such individuals to a mental institution to:
(1) establish a program to allow such individuals to apply for relief from the disabilities to firearms ownership resulting from such adjudications or commitments;
and
(2) provide oral and written notice to any such individuals of the effect of a mental health adjudication or commitment on their ability to purchase or transport a firearm and their right to apply for relief from disabilities.

Section 102 - Grants states a two-year waiver of the matching fund requirement (10%) for criminal justice identification grants if such states provide at least 90% of the information required to be transmitted to the NICS under this Act.
Requires states to provide reasonable estimates of the number of records transmitted to the NICS for purposes of granting such waiver.
Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons:
(1) disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm;
(2) convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence;
and
(3) adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to mental institutions.
Requires states to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS.
Requires the Attorney General to:
(1) establish regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information in the NICS;
and
(2) report annually to the Judiciary Committees of Congress on the progress of states in automating criminal records databases and making such data electronically available to the Attorney General.

Section 103 - Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations.
Allows up to 5% of grant funding for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems. Specifies allowable uses of grant funds.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013.
Prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from charging user fees for NICS background checks.

Section 104
- Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an annual report on the progress of states in automating databases of information for transmittal to the NICS.
Authorizes appropriations.
Provides for discretionary and mandatory penalties for states that fail to provide information required by this Act.
Allows a waiver of such penalties for states that provide substantial evidence of reasonable efforts to comply with requirements for providing information.

Section 105 - Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility.
Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.

Section 106 - Requires that all records obtained by NICS denying firearms licenses to aliens illegally or unlawfully in the United States be made available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Grants the Attorney General discretion to promulgate guidelines as to what records relevant to such aliens shall be provided to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Title II - Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant Records Requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to:
(1) study and evaluate the operations of the NICS;
and
(2) report to Congress annually on state estimates of records transmitted to the NICS and on best practices of states for handling information to be transmitted to the NICS.Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013.

Title III - Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments for use by state and tribal court systems to improve the automation and transmittal of criminal history dispositions and records and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013.

Title IV - GAO Audit Requires the Comptroller General to audit expenditures for criminal records improvement under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to determine if such expenditures were made in accordance with such Act and to report to Congress on the findings of such audit.

GovTrack.us. H.R. 2640--110th Congress (2007): NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640&tab=summary> (accessed Dec 21, 2008)


The full text of the bill/law is at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

I challenge anyone to find a portion of that law that prevents non-adjudicated persons from purchasing a firearm. The law does provide for states to "update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS," thus removing non-adjudicated individuals from the list, and also requires the states to provide mechanisms for relief to those on the list in error.

The "classes" of persons that this affects were already either prohibited due to legitimate status as felons or adjudicated and/or committed, or on the list in error. Where is the portion of this law that increases the list to include those who were not already prohibited?
 

wrightme

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

KansasMustang wrote:
It allows for ANY even the smallest of PTSD to be used as a disqualifyer to gun ownership. Enough for me to say Hmmmm. Can't keep looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I think you need to be more situationally aware of just what is happening. It boils down to this, what part of the 2nd Amendment do you NOT understand? If you're not a Veteran sure you don't have a problem with it. If you are then you understand what this bill means.
Where does HR 2640 do such? It doesn't even mention veterans or PTSD.


I am a Veteran. I am thankful that I did not see combat, and thank those who did for their service.

Until someone can definitively point to text in the bill that places veterans or those who suffer PTSD on the NICS list, the bill isn't the problem. For the bill to be the problem, the agencies and states involved need to NOT follow HR 2640 as passed.

It is not "rose colored glasses" that I use, but I use regular ones that make the text not fuzzy. I understand and support the 2nd amendment.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
KansasMustang wrote:
Tomahawk GMAFB man what freedoms are we gonna lose with the ObamaNation? I'm betting we lose most of em. Dubya isn't the best and I'm not a republican, but I am for freedom. And I've not been severely hampered in that yet. But the time will come. Just me sayin it.

I don't know what GMAFB means. I've fallen behind on 733t speak.

This attitude is why we are in such a jam. People think they are "for freedom" when they vote for big government conservatives who spend 8 years installing the apparatus for a police state, and then they feel threatened when a big government liberal gets elected and starts using that apparatus against them. You made your own bed by voting for such losers as Bush and McCain. Now be paranoid in it.
Q.E.D.

:p
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
To claim membership in some organization or another, or retirement from it (CPO Ret) is to disparage others. See the discussion of 'argument from authority/personal attack' at the Wikipedia. Some of the dumbest sailors I ever met were Chief PETTY Officers - and some of the best people I now know are retired Service MCPOs.
Mr Doug Huffman,

This is getting ridiculous. One cannot reasonably debate with you.

You "accuse" me of "claiming membership" - well, I can most certainly assure you I am a retired U. S. Navy Chief.

Does that matter? Perhaps not to you. But I am damned sure authorized to use the title. If you had any military service to your credit, you would know that.

I/we (SFA) also have experience in legislative matters and can safely say we've made a positive difference in firearms and CCW law in Nevada.

You purport to be a man of vast knowledge, but it would appear you are only half vast.

I would encourage you to endeavor todebate logically and reasonably.

If you insist upon impugning my integrity, Naval service, character, credentials, etc, I invite you to come to Fallon NV and see for yourself. I realize it is quite a distance, but you (or anyone else) can come see for yourself.

In lieu of that, I can provide a plethora of references which you can contact - some of which are members of this website forum.

I tire quickly of this crap.

CPO J. L. Rhodes, USN(RET)
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Although it appears that this case is not falling under the law in question, I still have a great deal of fear about this law and potential abuses in the future. We definitely need to investigate any reports of abuse in regards to this law.

There are many laws which were well intentioned but open to abuse by the wrong people. Knowing many people in education I can tell you about a couple.

No Child Left Behind: Good intention, bad implementation. How do you get a severelyautistic child to perform at grade level in reading and math? This is not the problem of the lawmakers, but if a school fails to do so, that school will have a lower rating. Do you have an unusually high population of non-English speaking students? Too bad, teach them English and reading and math at grade level or you lose. There is no leeway given for any circumstance.

Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA):Once again, good intention, bad implementation. This law was intended to let "Forest Gump" type students go to school with all of the other kids. It has been used to put kids that are in a permanent vegetative state on a ventilator in classrooms with every body else. What are they learning? Nothing, but the school district is still paying for their care while they are at school. This law has also been used to keep Tier 3 sex offenders who have been ruled "mentally disabled"in school until they are 20 years old costing the district$35,000 to $50,000perstudent involved per year,instead of in prison where they belong. The average cost per student in this same district was $4,500 to $5,000 per student.

I think that we all agree that mentally ill people should not be allowed access to guns, but who decides what mental illness is? I have read reportsfrom prominent psychologists that have said that the desire to own a gun or even the belief in Godis a sign of mental illness. If mental illness disqualifies you from gun ownership, and the desire to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, you have a nasty Catch-22.

I think the only way to protect ourselves from abuse is to avoid making laws which allow the loss of rights without an actual trial and the chance to defend ourselves.
 
Top