| The Rhea County Newspaper |
| "Rhea County's REAL Information Source" |
| Ramifications of the Veterans Disarmament Act How the new law will affect you and where we go from here Q&A On The Veterans Disarmament Act http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950828/posts Tuesday, January 8, 2008 |
As most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holidays last month, the U.S.
Congress pulled another fast one when only few people were watching.
It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either at the airport or in
the air returning home. They weren't in Washington, DC, because their party leadership
had told them that all the major votes were over... that the only legislative business left
related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would return from Christmas
break, etc.
But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and Senate passed the
Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote. It was a huge deja vu, as this was the
method that a previous Democratic Congress used -- together with compliant Republicans
-- to pass the original Brady Law in 1993.
WHO IS TO BLAME?
In the fury that resulted from this "fast one," many Americans have wanted to blame the
entire lot of them... all 535 congressmen. And, to be sure, there is an extent to which they all
share some blame.
But to be fair, no one congressmen can camp out on the floor of the House or Senate
chambers, every day, 24/7. It's a physical impossibility, which is why members of each
party rely on their leadership to protect their interests and keep them informed. And
that's where the betrayal occurred.
No Unanimous Consent agreement can pass the House or Senate without the leaders of
both parties signing off. And on December 19, the leaders of each party sent their members
home for the Christmas holidays, while forging Unanimous Consent agreements in each
chamber.
As such, the immediate ire should be directed at the following legislators: Democrats such
as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV); Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Obviously, the backers of the Veterans Disarmament Act should be held to account, as
well. Most of the lead sponsors were Democrats -- such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
But there were a few key Republicans who helped cosponsor the legislation:
Representatives Michael Castle (DE), Christopher Shays (CT) and Lamar Smith (TX). And
dishonorable mention goes to Tom Price of Georgia who was physically present on the
House floor on December 19. It was Rep. Price who asked for the Unanimous Consent
agreement to pass the Veterans Disarmament Act without a vote.
Finally, many of you know that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) held up the bill in the Senate
for several months. His intentions were laudable as he desperately wanted to protect
Second Amendment rights and cut unconstitutional spending.
Unfortunately, not one pro-gun senator chose to stand with Coburn... not one. In fact, GOA
felt just as alone as Coburn did. While two veterans groups (and several pro-gun state
groups) sided with us, GOA was the only pro-gun group at the federal level that actively
fought this legislation week after week, while another and bigger organization was working
behind the scenes to help pass the Veterans Disarmament Act.
Standing alone, Senator Coburn decided to negotiate for a better bill. GOA was asked for
input and made a few contributions to the bill, but not enough to justify support for the
Veterans Disarmament Act.
Add to this fact that GOA was prevented from seeing the final version of the bill before the
brokered Schumer-Coburn compromise was taken to the floor under a Unanimous
Consent agreement.
As a result, Senator Coburn spoke in favor of the compromise bill on the floor of the Senate
-- something that was a huge mistake, for many of the glaring problems with the bill still
remained untouched.
So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer... and for Carolyn McCarthy as well, as she told
CBS News, "This is the best Christmas present I could ever receive."
WHAT DOES THE BILL DO IN GENERAL?
It would be a mistake to under-react -- or over-react -- to the passage of the Veterans
Disarmament Act. On the bad side, this bill statutorily validates BATF regulations which
could potentially disarm millions of Americans. This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of
events which will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.
The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized will be clear only over time
-- and perhaps a long time -- and will depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are
in power. For example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun Control Act to
be used to disarm veterans.
On the other hand, GOA was able to secure a few modest concessions which should
provide some protection to gun owners -- though NOT NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTION
TO JUSTIFY SUPPORT of this bill.
So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation for Americans with
psychiatric diagnoses?
Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of the BATF regulations,
per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new language which could make you a "prohibited
person" (unable to own a gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or
psychologist), provided:
* That you had "an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or other lawful
authority"; and
* In the future, that you had notice that you would be made a "prohibited person" as a
result of the agency action (section 101 (c) (3)). [NOTE: This was added pursuant to
negotiations over GOA's objections to the bill.]
However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to 140,000 veterans had
their gun rights taken away as a result of a diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things
forthose 140,000 people:
1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any knowledge of the
ramifications of the "diagnosis" in the past -- and the fact that this diagnosis could disarm
him or her for life. How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs,
hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?
2. Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew they had a right to
appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000 Americans who have now lost their Second
Amendment rights first received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to
their diagnosis, a "guardian" was being appointed for them to handle their affairs. As
stated above, how many vets realized that this action would deem them as "mental
defective" under the 1968 Gun Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?
Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by appealing the
diagnosis? If they didn't realize the significance of this VA letter, most likely, the vets did
nothing, as they were moreconcerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a
diagnosis would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new law would still
validate the removal of their Second Amendment rights.
HOW WILL THE BILL AFFECT ME?
If you have been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis, the following may be
helpful:
* A diagnosis by your private doctor -- with no government involvement -- will probably
cause you no problems.
* The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans. Although the language of this bill
could conceivably disarm adults who were diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection
with the IDEA program,
seniors on Medicare with Alzheimers, etc., we know of no active efforts to disarm persons
in these cases -- yet.
* The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be directly related to the
ease of accomplishing this though a computer keyboard. If your file exists only on
microfiche in a dusty basement cabinet, you are relatively safe for now -- although, keep in
mind, the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating records like this.
* Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment supporter is in the
White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot to do with how vigorously this new statute
is enforced.
WHAT CAN I DO IF I'M ILLEGITIMATELY PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN?
In the unlikely event that you can get your diagnosis "set aside," "expunged," or found to
no longer exist, you can regain your rights. [See section 101(c)(1)(A)&(B).]
The McClure-Volkmer "relief from disabilities" provisions which have been blocked by
sponsor Schumer for 15 years have been reinstated and expanded -- so that they will now
exist in the broader range of state and federal agencies which this bill will allow to make
you a prohibited person. Pursuant to negotiations over GOA's objections, we were able to
secure very modest improvements which:
* Would allow you to sue to get your rights restored if the agency sat on your appeal for
365 days;
* Would allow you to get your legal fees if you prevail against the agency in court;
* Would prevent Schumer from defunding these efforts in the same way he defunded
McClure-Volkmer -- by requiring the 3% of state funds under this bill be used for these
"relief from disabilities" programs.
But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans
diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where
they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if
"the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the
GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."
(Emphasis added.)
This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue"
concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law
only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those
sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!
As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's
rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger
to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
GOA is devising strategies with House and Senate members to restore veterans' rights.
Please stay tuned.
US Capitol Switchboard Toll-free Numbers
1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530
Congress pulled another fast one when only few people were watching.
It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either at the airport or in
the air returning home. They weren't in Washington, DC, because their party leadership
had told them that all the major votes were over... that the only legislative business left
related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would return from Christmas
break, etc.
But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and Senate passed the
Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote. It was a huge deja vu, as this was the
method that a previous Democratic Congress used -- together with compliant Republicans
-- to pass the original Brady Law in 1993.
WHO IS TO BLAME?
In the fury that resulted from this "fast one," many Americans have wanted to blame the
entire lot of them... all 535 congressmen. And, to be sure, there is an extent to which they all
share some blame.
But to be fair, no one congressmen can camp out on the floor of the House or Senate
chambers, every day, 24/7. It's a physical impossibility, which is why members of each
party rely on their leadership to protect their interests and keep them informed. And
that's where the betrayal occurred.
No Unanimous Consent agreement can pass the House or Senate without the leaders of
both parties signing off. And on December 19, the leaders of each party sent their members
home for the Christmas holidays, while forging Unanimous Consent agreements in each
chamber.
As such, the immediate ire should be directed at the following legislators: Democrats such
as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV); Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Obviously, the backers of the Veterans Disarmament Act should be held to account, as
well. Most of the lead sponsors were Democrats -- such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
But there were a few key Republicans who helped cosponsor the legislation:
Representatives Michael Castle (DE), Christopher Shays (CT) and Lamar Smith (TX). And
dishonorable mention goes to Tom Price of Georgia who was physically present on the
House floor on December 19. It was Rep. Price who asked for the Unanimous Consent
agreement to pass the Veterans Disarmament Act without a vote.
Finally, many of you know that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) held up the bill in the Senate
for several months. His intentions were laudable as he desperately wanted to protect
Second Amendment rights and cut unconstitutional spending.
Unfortunately, not one pro-gun senator chose to stand with Coburn... not one. In fact, GOA
felt just as alone as Coburn did. While two veterans groups (and several pro-gun state
groups) sided with us, GOA was the only pro-gun group at the federal level that actively
fought this legislation week after week, while another and bigger organization was working
behind the scenes to help pass the Veterans Disarmament Act.
Standing alone, Senator Coburn decided to negotiate for a better bill. GOA was asked for
input and made a few contributions to the bill, but not enough to justify support for the
Veterans Disarmament Act.
Add to this fact that GOA was prevented from seeing the final version of the bill before the
brokered Schumer-Coburn compromise was taken to the floor under a Unanimous
Consent agreement.
As a result, Senator Coburn spoke in favor of the compromise bill on the floor of the Senate
-- something that was a huge mistake, for many of the glaring problems with the bill still
remained untouched.
So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer... and for Carolyn McCarthy as well, as she told
CBS News, "This is the best Christmas present I could ever receive."
WHAT DOES THE BILL DO IN GENERAL?
It would be a mistake to under-react -- or over-react -- to the passage of the Veterans
Disarmament Act. On the bad side, this bill statutorily validates BATF regulations which
could potentially disarm millions of Americans. This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of
events which will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.
The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized will be clear only over time
-- and perhaps a long time -- and will depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are
in power. For example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun Control Act to
be used to disarm veterans.
On the other hand, GOA was able to secure a few modest concessions which should
provide some protection to gun owners -- though NOT NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTION
TO JUSTIFY SUPPORT of this bill.
So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation for Americans with
psychiatric diagnoses?
Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of the BATF regulations,
per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new language which could make you a "prohibited
person" (unable to own a gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or
psychologist), provided:
* That you had "an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or other lawful
authority"; and
* In the future, that you had notice that you would be made a "prohibited person" as a
result of the agency action (section 101 (c) (3)). [NOTE: This was added pursuant to
negotiations over GOA's objections to the bill.]
However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to 140,000 veterans had
their gun rights taken away as a result of a diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things
forthose 140,000 people:
1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any knowledge of the
ramifications of the "diagnosis" in the past -- and the fact that this diagnosis could disarm
him or her for life. How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs,
hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?
2. Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew they had a right to
appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000 Americans who have now lost their Second
Amendment rights first received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to
their diagnosis, a "guardian" was being appointed for them to handle their affairs. As
stated above, how many vets realized that this action would deem them as "mental
defective" under the 1968 Gun Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?
Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by appealing the
diagnosis? If they didn't realize the significance of this VA letter, most likely, the vets did
nothing, as they were moreconcerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a
diagnosis would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new law would still
validate the removal of their Second Amendment rights.
HOW WILL THE BILL AFFECT ME?
If you have been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis, the following may be
helpful:
* A diagnosis by your private doctor -- with no government involvement -- will probably
cause you no problems.
* The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans. Although the language of this bill
could conceivably disarm adults who were diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection
with the IDEA program,
seniors on Medicare with Alzheimers, etc., we know of no active efforts to disarm persons
in these cases -- yet.
* The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be directly related to the
ease of accomplishing this though a computer keyboard. If your file exists only on
microfiche in a dusty basement cabinet, you are relatively safe for now -- although, keep in
mind, the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating records like this.
* Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment supporter is in the
White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot to do with how vigorously this new statute
is enforced.
WHAT CAN I DO IF I'M ILLEGITIMATELY PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN?
In the unlikely event that you can get your diagnosis "set aside," "expunged," or found to
no longer exist, you can regain your rights. [See section 101(c)(1)(A)&(B).]
The McClure-Volkmer "relief from disabilities" provisions which have been blocked by
sponsor Schumer for 15 years have been reinstated and expanded -- so that they will now
exist in the broader range of state and federal agencies which this bill will allow to make
you a prohibited person. Pursuant to negotiations over GOA's objections, we were able to
secure very modest improvements which:
* Would allow you to sue to get your rights restored if the agency sat on your appeal for
365 days;
* Would allow you to get your legal fees if you prevail against the agency in court;
* Would prevent Schumer from defunding these efforts in the same way he defunded
McClure-Volkmer -- by requiring the 3% of state funds under this bill be used for these
"relief from disabilities" programs.
But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans
diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where
they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if
"the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the
GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."
(Emphasis added.)
This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue"
concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law
only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those
sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!
As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's
rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger
to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
GOA is devising strategies with House and Senate members to restore veterans' rights.
Please stay tuned.
US Capitol Switchboard Toll-free Numbers
1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530
