Veteran's Disarmament Act

#1
Don't know how many of you hunters are Vets, but you might want to take a look at this wonderful bit of legislation. Basically, if you are a vet and have ever been diagnosed with PTSD you will be restricted from owning a firearm..ever! It's through the House and in the Senate. Makes me proud to be a Vet.

Google the Act and check it out for yourself.

REE
 

chadk

Be the guide...
#2
Not sure how they will stop you from a private sale, or if you already have guns... Are they going to send the secret police to your house to search?

But yes, pretty lame attempt to further diminish the 2nd ammendment...
 

Josh

dead in the water
#3
Don't bother to google "Veteran's Disarmament Act" if you are looking to find news from a mainstream news organization. You will get a collection of alarmist websites who are only trying to stir up opposition to what they think is a bill that will restrict gun rights. The bill is HR-2640 and is correctly named "H.R. 2640: NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007:. NICS being the national instant criminal background check. Without getting into the my personal opinions, I will encourage everyone to read the full text of the bill here or the summaries. I could find no mention of the words "veteran" or "disarmament" in the text of the bill. Nor could I find any mention of it having passed the Senate. This govtrack page just lists it as having been passed in the house and referred to the senate for debate.

Overall, the main purpose of the bill seems to be to force the states and federal govt to work together to make sure that those who should be are on the NICS list (convicted of various crimes) and to make sure that those who shouldn't be on the list are removed from it. The main issue that people are using to try to draw attention to the bill is this phrase in section 102:

"Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons: (1) t 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."
It could be argued that a veteran who had to spend time in a mental institution as a result of PTSD would be denied the right to own a gun. However, "adjudicated" is not an all encompassing term like the alarmist websites would like you to believe. As with all judicial processes in the USA, there is a system of checks and balances. Without getting into the full text of the bill, this phrase from section 101 would seem to assuage these sort of fears by saying "If you are committed to a mental institution, and then judged to have no longer be a threat to yourself, your commitment cannot be reported to the NICS":

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(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.
I am not a lawyer, and not a politician. My general belief on most everything is that the real answer is in the middle of the two positions. I just don't like it when things are distorted to try and make people think one way or the other. Politicians of all stripes are always doing this crap and it just serves to try and split us up even more. the truth is that the war is normal joes against rich politicians and their lobbyists, not "hunting veteran" vs "anti gun guy". We all have much more in common than anyone in Washington DC wants us to realize.
 
#4
Thank you Josh Root. I was about to have my blood pressure go through the roof.
I do have a friend (Vet) that had gotten in a bit of trouble with the law and was charged with misdemeanor assault. The charges were dropped and he went about is life until he went down to buy a new deer rifle only to find out this charge was on his record and was unable to buy this rifle until he had the record expunged.
This kind of thing can happen to anyone.
The law is like a rattle snake, always ready to strike.
 
#5
Josh,

Appreciate your input. I must admit, this info came my way via a veteran's organization. As a Vet with PTSD it did get my blood boiling. Thanks for posting the link to the full version of the bill.

REE
 

Josh

dead in the water
#6
Josh,

Appreciate your input. I must admit, this info came my way via a veteran's organization. As a Vet with PTSD it did get my blood boiling. Thanks for posting the link to the full version of the bill.

REE
I hear you. If I were a vet and it came via a source I trusted, I'd feel exactly the same way.
 
#8
It's a moot point anyway. That law is almost the same letter for letter as the Washington state law that we already have to follow. :beer2: It will make no diference to us whatsoever.