It begins, Veterans' Disarmament. A letter to GRGRSC El Presidente

[varminter22]

imported post

I agree, Gordie. This issue must be investigated and watched.

I think that is the primary point of this entire thread.

And no one suggested this issue is unworthy of investigation/debate. We just need a factual debate!!!

 

[KansasMustang]

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.

It means give me a F#$%^ing break. I didn't make my own bed thank you very much it was made for all of us. I'm not paranoid just watchful. Please get off your high horse and quit acting holier than thou. If you think that because you didn't vote for Bush and didn't vote for McCain you're somehow *better* because you cast your vote to the wind by voting for a third party that had zero chance of winning more power to ya. WE all have to get through this mess together or surely we will hang seperately. I'm a veteran, and this legislature is a piece of crap. slipped in when most of the ?good? politicians were gone. So now we have to figure out what to do to fight it.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

Mr Doug Huffman, It would appear you're doubting my Navy Retired rank and status. And, no one suggested the subject of the thread is unworthy of debate. Some simply wanted facts and clarification. My offer stands: You're cordially invited to Fallon NV to visit and investigate my credentials. You're also welcome to attend the monthly meeting (and/or events) of Stillwater Firearms Ass'n, a Nevada non profit corporation shooting club, of which I am the President (since 2004). We currently have a membership of over 500. See http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org

Your veteran status is moot as is the number of your acquaintances. I cannot imagine why you would think that I would take any more kindly to a tangential PM than your distractions in this thread.

This is not a debating society and y'all do not know how to debate - certainly not effectively. Note that, for instance, I must address "varminter22" or Anony Mouse.

ETA much later; http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/users/142.html will lead newbies to what I have done here and some hints to my background, an investigation of which I do not regard as stalking, 'cyber' or otherwise. I have almost never used other than my name or the slightest variation of it as required by some silly webster.

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]

imported post

You were the one who questioned his vet status. If it is moot, then you should not have needed to call it into question. I have provided the information to support my point. You have yet to provide any, except to base your belief in the letter only on the veracity of the letter recipient! How is that for argument from authority? If you cannot support the OP with factual data, why do you still feel it applies to HR2640, and why if you CAN support it does all of your ensuing argument only become ad hominem? Attempting to put your opponents lower than you does not support your position. Any stating of my or varminter's backgrounds was in direct counter to YOUR ad hominem.

How about returning to factual discussion instead of ad hominem?

Doug Huffman wrote:

varminter22 wrote:

Mr Doug Huffman, It would appear you're doubting my Navy Retired rank and status. And, no one suggested the subject of the thread is unworthy of debate. Some simply wanted facts and clarification. My offer stands: You're cordially invited to Fallon NV to visit and investigate my credentials. You're also welcome to attend the monthly meeting (and/or events) of Stillwater Firearms Ass'n, a Nevada non profit corporation shooting club, of which I am the President (since 2004). We currently have a membership of over 500. See http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org

Your veteran status is moot as is the number of your acquaintances. I cannot imagine why you would think that I would take any more kindly to a tangential PM than your distractions in this thread.

This is not a debating society and y'all do not know how to debate - certainly not effectively. Note that, for instance, I must address "varminter22" or Anony Mouse.

ETA much later; http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/users/142.html will lead newbies to what I have done here and some hints to my background, an investigation of which I do not regard as stalking, 'cyber' or otherwise. I have almost never used other than my name or the slightest variation of it as required by some silly webster.

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$$

Can you step away from your anger-based tagline long enough to parse the actual bill for yourself without your NRA-bashing stick in hand? What would HR 2640 have read like if the NRA had NOT stepped in?
Hmmmm.... Upon review of your topic starters here, the term "serial copy/paster" comes to mind. Similar to how you started this thread. Post it and sit back and watch the fun.

 

[varminter22]

imported post

Au contraire, Mr Huffman. Your inane contributions to this particular thread accomplish nothing.

Equality? What has "equality" got to do with this thread? And who, pray tell, said anything about unequality?

We can certainly agree on one thing, "Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth."

Enough is enough. Offer still stands.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Your veteran status is moot as is the number of your acquaintances.

When something affects veterans, veteran status is hardly a moot point. If you had served in the armed forces or even read theOPyou would understand just how relevant veterans status is in this debate.

Having people to stand as character witnesses never hurts. I would hope that if someone attacked a friend of yours, you would stand up for them.

Doug Huffman wrote:

TROLL, bite me!

Do you remember this? What evidence do you have to make such an accusation and statement to writeme?:X

This issimply evidence that you have nothing to support your statements. If you had anything, you would have presented it and not resorted to name calling. When you say something against a friend, that has no merit, we will defend that friend.:cuss:

Doug Huffman wrote:

This is not a debating society and y'all do not know how to debate - certainly not effectively. Note that, for instance, I must address "varminter22" or Anony Mouse.

Gee Doug, I thought that one of theprimary reasons to have a forum is to open up debate.:uhoh:

You seem to have a strange understanding of what debate is. Both sides present their arguments backed by facts and the most factually supported side wins. You have presented no facts to back up your argument, while writeme has presented you with facts backed byseveral sources. Instead of facts or sources, you resort to name calling.

Are you saying that anyone that does not use their real name on a web forum is somehow less than honorable? People use handles other than their real names for many reasons, including the simple reason of having a common name. In some cases people fear retribution for online discussions against themselves and their loved ones, especially when you work with the public. And yes, this has happened to my family and me.

Doug Huffman wrote:

Either we are equal or we are not.

It is obvious by your accusations andname callingthat you believe that we are not.:shock: The question begs, what makes you think you are better?

 

[Gordie]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

What would HR 2640 have read like if the NRA had NOT stepped in?

Actually it was GOA who stepped in and managed to get some changes. NRA supported the original bill which is why some say that NRA shares in the blame.

http://www.gunowners.org/a010808.htm

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

wrightme wrote:

What would HR 2640 have read like if the NRA had NOT stepped in?

Actually it was GOA who stepped in and managed to get some changes. NRA supported the original bill which is why some say that NRA shares in the blame.

http://www.gunowners.org/a010808.htm

I will take exception to the conclusions that the GOA draws wrt to 140,000 vets becoming "prohibited persons." According to the text of HR 2640, adjudication or committment are the criteria, not diagnosis. What adjudication or committment have the 140,000 vets received that causes the "prohibited person" listing?

The GOA does not include the quite relevent portion that I bolded and resized below:

"and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective"





Relevent text:

SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

((c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

(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.

 

[1st freedom]

imported post

Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:

• Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
  
  
• Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a “prohibited” list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
  
  
• Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
  
  
• Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
  
  
• Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

• Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
  
  
• Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”
  
  
• In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.



If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3112



And as you have found out once Doug Huffman gets involved with your disscusion, it no longer has value!

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

See who is the OP and STFO

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. National Rifle Association/'members' may da mi fundament basia mille.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

See who is the OP and STFO

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. National Rifle Association/'members' may da mi fundament basia mille.

Who is the OP? Did you write the letter?



Can you address the points of law introduced?



Can you discuss the topic as opposed to resorting to attack?



Is a diagnosis of PTSD an adjudication as listed in the text of the law?


Since you are the OP, why are you the main one who is seemingly unable to discuss the actual topic in question?



As the OP, if you do not wish to actually discuss the topic in question, get it closed.



It seems that while you are NOT actively posting in this thread, we actually CAN discuss to topic in question. Why can you not do so also? Why do you hate the NRA so much?

 

[Gordie]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

See who is the OP and STFO

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. National Rifle Association/'members' may da mi fundament basia mille.

Wow Doug, you are truly the master debater.:shock:

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

See who is the OP and STFO

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. National Rifle Association/'members' may da mi fundament basia mille.

Wow Doug, you are truly the master debater.:shock:

Nope, not any more. My doctoral candidate offspring is with us for Christmas and I'm long enough married that mastering debate is only as attractive as the inspiration.

Like bridge, it's only fun with a good hand or a good partner.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

See who is the OP and STFO

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. National Rifle Association/'members' may da mi fundament basia mille.

Wow Doug, you are truly the master debater.:shock:

Nope, not any more. My doctoral candidate offspring is with us for Christmas and I'm long enough married that mastering debate is only as attractive as the inspiration.

Like bridge, it's only fun with a good hand or a good partner.

Darn, I was looking forward to the time when you would actually debate and discuss the topic.

 

[wrightme]

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.

I do not see this in the bill anywhere, nor in actual readings and interpretations that actually include all of the text in context. For instance, according to the NRA:

[size=-1]How does the bill affect veterans?[/size]

[size=-1]Some have asked if H.R. 2640 would prohibit gun ownership by veterans--for instance, those who return from war with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder.[/size]

[size=-1]The answer, fortunately, is "No." For all the same reasons a psychiatrist’s diagnosis can’t ban gun ownership, an evaluation by Veterans’ Administration (VA) or other doctors isn’t an "adjudication" or "commitment" under federal law.[/size]

[size=-1]In fact, H.R. 2640 aims to fix problems for veterans and their families. During the Clinton administration, the VA started sending information to NICS on veterans (and veterans’ family members) who had representatives appointed to handle their benefit checks.[/size]

[size=-1]The VA treated these records as "adjudications," but supporters of H.R. 2640 disagree. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.) denounced the VA’s "overreach" and pointed out that H.R. 2640 would allow wrongly listed veterans to seek restoration of their rights. [Note: If you are a veteran and have been denied a gun purchase due to the VA’s actions, please call NRA-ILA’s Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1160.][/size]

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=246

This position and information matches the "read" I have from the actual text of the bill. If there is a continued problem for Veterans diagnosed with PTSD, it isn't HR2640 that caused the problem, it is the VA. Call the listed number for the NRA-ILA's Legislative Counsel above if you have been denied.



The bill did not create a new class of "prohibited persons." It does provide means to accomplish removal from the list, a means that appears to have not been available prior to passage of HR 2640.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

This is not a debating society and y'all do not know how to debate - certainly not effectively. Note that, for instance, I must address "varminter22" or Anony Mouse.

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$$

Darn, I was looking forward to you actually reading and understanding what I wrote that is copied above.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

This is not a debating society and y'all do not know how to debate - certainly not effectively. Note that, for instance, I must address "varminter22" or Anony Mouse.

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$$

Darn, I was looking forward to you actually reading and understanding what I wrote that is copied above.

I read it. So what.



Can you support your point of view, or are you simply resorting to bashing that which you do not understand? How about actually discussing the topic for once....... You cry that I didn't provide citations and quotes, yet you fail to provide such for support of your position.



See my questions above. You have failed to address any of the items I present in refutation of your position.




I am not under any onus to provide my real name, nor were you under any onus to do such to enter into discussions here. Contrary to what you appear to believe, this isn't some "bully pulpit" where you can freely provide only your specific viewpoint without accompanying discussion and dissent. My choice to not provide my real name does not automatically make me someone who can be discounted for that omission of name, nor does it automatically make you more believable for your inclusion of yours.



I welcome discussion of this topic. I thought you did too.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

An affirmative statement of your disagreement will be more effective than snarking, or even the relevant text of the Act.

I provided the relevent text of the act. You have failed to point to any portion of it and my comments that are in error. The Act does not "disarm" veterans. How do you feel it does such?



I would state that "I await your response to my point," but that would be false. I expect nothing from you except more vitriol and attacks upon me. It would be refreshing if you would actually respond to the TOPIC. Can you?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

I have had several exchanges with a representative of the GOA, and I think I am getting my head around their stated position and their basis for their stated position.

It seems to boil down to "the NRA got changes approved, and we didn't, and the changes aren't the ones the GOA wanted to see."

The substance of their stated position is showing to be very tenuous, and after a few more exchanges, I intend to post an accurate assessment of the conversation.

To "brass tack" the current info:

A definition of "mental adjudication" in BATFE Title 27 is broad, and could be read to include a VA adjudication.
A definition of "mental adjudication" in Brady Law Title 18 is not similarly broad, and does not read to include such non-court proceedings.

HR2640 specifically states to use the Title 18 definition, so the conclusion that a PTSD diagnosis allows NICS list inclusion appears to be false.



The response from the GOAto this point presentation was simply that "The BATFE and the antis say it is the Title 27 definition that is relevant, and HR2640 is a "VERY BAD LAW."

The GOArep presented no real information to support the position of the GOA. I will provide links to the relevant CFR Title sections later this afternoon.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

I agree, Gordie. This issue must be investigated and watched.

I think that is the primary point of this entire thread.

And no one suggested this issue is unworthy of investigation/debate. We just need a factual debate!!!

I attempted a factual debate in this thread, and was limited to a one-sided presentation of facts. I encountered a similar one-sided presentation in discussion directly with the GOA.

The gist of it seems to be "the NRA got some stuff changed prior to the passage of HR2640. The GOA doesn't think the NRA got enough stuff changed, so we will badmouth the NRA and call it a bad bill."

I still welcome factual accounts from persons who have been disadvantaged without remedy by HR2640. I would encourage anyone who feels that they have been disadvantaged by the VA, BATFE, and HR2640 to call NRA counsel as the NRA specifically desires, so remedy can be sought.