Veterans Disarmament Act to Bar Vets from Owning Guns
by Larry Pratt | View comments |
Print This Post
The "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" imperils the gun rights of thousands of Vietnam War vets who have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Hundreds of thousands of veterans — from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom — are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress is enacted.
How? The Veterans Disarmament Act — which has already passed the House — would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.
This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) — prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.
The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away . . . forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names — like the 83,000 records mentioned above — will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.
No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.
The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.
Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.
But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you're talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans' names that are taking place at the federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY).
So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans' gun rights.
One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to himself or others.
The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court — meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).
Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred — for life – from owning guns.
Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.
Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.
If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act — misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act — will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished."
ldpratt@gunowners.org
http://www.gunowners.org
Read more articles by Larry Pratt
I support second amendment rights, but I have to say, I'm not sure it's really that bad an idea to keep guns out of the hands of people suffering from mental illness. Even when they're just a "tiny" danger to themselves or others.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 24, 2007
Everyone can be considered a "tiny" danger to themselves - especially Vets who have seen combat. One moment of depression; one time sitting at home, alone, remember what they saw and did; one session of guilt - any of these would be considered a "tiny" danger, even though more often than not, the moment passes.
Consider how often the average American, when a spouse or child dies, they go through a period where they fill that they do not want to live. It is very common, and most often passes. Yet, that standard reaction would classify them as being a "tiny" danger to themselves.
Like depression, people can suffer from varying degrees of PTSD. Yes, the more severe the condition, the higher the risk of suicide is, generally speaking. Putting someone who tenses up whenever they have to wear a gas mask into the same risk catagory as someone who is truely suicidal is not logical.
We also need to remember the axiom about power and corruption. Putting the ability to keep a person from ever legally owning a firearm into the hands of one person, without the ability for the Vet to challenge the ruling, is asking for trouble. Any anti-military, anti-gun "autorized professional" can push their own agenda, regardless if it is fitting for the Vet to lose their rights or not.
Comment by Rev.Jeanene | September 24, 2007
Patrick, I detect that you may be a tiny danger to yourself or others (probablilty .000001) therefore you should not own a gun. As a veteran of vietnam I am offended that veterans would be singled out. In addition the liberal fringe like laws with no objective standard thus .000001 could be assumed for any person in the general population effectively banning guns for all veterans.
Comment by Mickey G | September 24, 2007
Don't be fooled or mislead. This bill is not about veterans or mental instability. It is just another step in a concerted plan to abridge the 2nd Amendment.
These leftist SOB's don't have the power to summarily remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. So for years they have been working at whittling it away piece by piece.
The most direct assult on the 2nd Amendment was the claim that it applied to state militias and not individuals. On two seperate occasions the U.S. Supreme Ct. rejected their argument.
So the left has been working in all manner of ways to limit or restrict who may or may not own a firearm. They continually attack shooting ranges on enviromental grounds.
They attack hunters and hunting on any grounds. The want to regulate (restrict) the type of firearm a person can have from a list that will ultimately reach zero. They attack ammunition on any grounds they can concoct. They have sued gun manufacturers and now include gun shops on outlandish claims that they are responsible for the criminal acts of others even when the gun has been stolen from a person who lawfully possessed it. In fact they want to make that person liable for the misuse of his firearm after it has been stolen from him.
If there is a ground, real or imagined, to act lawful gun ownership the left will use.
Notice I say LAWFUL GUN OWNERSHIP. The left is not interested in the criminal who misuses a firearm. They not only shy away from imposing severe penalties on criminals who use a firearm in a crime, they will probably find excuses for his conduct and push for lieniency.
The issue is solely about disarming the American public so they can be compliant serfs.
Comment by NHGrouch | September 24, 2007
Mickey, you aren't a clinical psychiatrist and have no information to go on to conclude what probability, if any, that I am a danger to myself or others. I haven't read this legislation, but I would be very surprised if it allowed psychiatrists to randomly evaluate people over the internet and take away their gun ownership rights. Likewise, a PTSD diagnosis does not automatically mean that a person is a danger to himself or others, and the diagnosis in and of itself would be insufficient to prove that a person is a danger to himself or others. All of these examples are NON CLINICAL diagnoses. In a clinical environment, a grieving husband who is suffering from temporary depression and anxiety would not be diagnosed with an illness (unless it was persistent, did not go away, and began interfering with his ability to live his life), and would not be branded a danger to himself or others. A person suffering from PTSD who has anxiety about gas masks would not be considered a danger to himself or others - at least not based on only that symptom and diagnosis. I'll grant you that there should be a functional appeals process for people who find themselves on a ban list, but I still have no problem in principle with taking away gun ownership rights from people who are genuinely mentally ill.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 24, 2007
Patrick…so the tiny grew to a real diagnosis. That is a start, however the government has a place enumerated in the constitution and regulation of who can exercise second amendment rights is not one of them.
You are correct that my doctorate is not in clinical psychology it is in a hard science.
Comment by Mickey G | September 25, 2007
No, the "tiny" IS a diagnosis. In order to be clinically diagnosed as even a "tiny" danger to yourself or others, you have to meet certain criteria. Nobody is in danger of having their second amendment rights rescinded because of an online diagnosis by someone who isn't trained in psychiatry because they cried when they got divorced. That was all I was saying.
Congratulations on your doctorate, by the way. How long have you been waiting to squeeze that into a conversation? I'm not in the psychiatric field either, by the way. Two thumbs up for both of us, I guess.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 26, 2007
I am a combat Vetern and have deployed over 400 soldiers from my Battalion to combat. I am hear to say that if a Bill of this nature passes it will be determental to our Veterans. There is about only 1% of the population serving in the Armed Forces to stand up for the rights of this country in the face of adversity to protect the Constitutional Rights of this country. If a Bill of this nature passes it will not take long for our Soldiers to realize its consequences and from that point forward our Soldiers will not come forward to seek help with PTSD (POST TURMATIS STREES DISORDER) for fear of losing their Constutional Right to Bear Arms. This Bill is singling out Veterans and a trying to take away the very rights they are protecting. This will in turn do more damage to the men and women who put their lives in harms way to protect our freedoms and way of life.
Comment by luke | September 27, 2007