Veterans Disarmament Act!

[GlockMeister]

Sounds as if our veterans are going to be getting screwed out of owning a firearm. I was readin about this and the House and Senate, mainly Democrats of both with a few Republicans, after Congress broke for this past X-Mas break, and most were told there was nothing important that needed anyones immediate attention and they'd only be discussing when to resume from break. Then they went ahead and passed this Bill. WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE!

How can our Government get away with this? It's obvious there are many deceitful politicians within our Government and they need to be ousted and permanently banned from ever running for any kind of office or political position at ANY LEVEL! This my fellow G&G members, friends and gun owners is a CROCK OF SH*T!!!

This one is a good one to read as it explains it pretty good. I thought anyhow.
GOA Alert-- January 08, 2008

Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns

[ArkansasHunter]

I read it all and after I cool off I may make a wiser comment, but at this time I can only say What a bunchs of 2nd amendment crooks we have in Washington.

Thanks GM !

[GlockMeister]

I guess what I don't get is this, how can both the Brady Bill and this new Veterans Disarmament Act be legal? They were done and passed WITHOUT RECORDED VOTES. How does that represent each individual which is the purpose of having senators and representatives from each state.

We, the citizens of this country need to do some thorough House and Senate cleaning.

I don't say this much and there's very little that does this to me. But you know, I'm scared at what I see happening and going on and with what I see coming. As I said, there are very few things that scare me and get me to admit I am scared. But this/ these things my friends truly scares the hell out of me.

[samuel]

The bill is just a bill until ratified by senate and signed by The president.The reason they passed it is because they know it will be voted down by senate or veto,ed by this president but satisfies the far left so they will donate more campain money for congressional reelection.This includes republican congressmen that live in liberal districts.(the rats!)Also,if they do get a veto proof congress and filibuster senate,you can bet your sweet a** it will come back up shortly after the new congress is seated.That is when it will be unstoppable but so will a lot of other bills. sam

[HARDERTR]

Uhhh...YOUR NRA supports it. Maybe we should do a little research before we get all doom-and-gloom again.

NRA-ILA :: Legislation

NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets

[LarryO1970]

Gee, just something a Veteran needs... to avoid seeking help when needed... then because of seeking help, denied their Constitutional rights.

Fuc**ng Politicians...

[Windwalker]

The majority of the voters must like it. They won't vote these lying bummers out. When we had some decent candidates running in the primaries, the majority of the voters would not support them so we end up with Obama and McCain. So, if we are not under Martial Law by then and there is an election in November then you can vote for whichever politician you believe may not completely destroy our great Country.

[USAF_462/2W1X1]

Since I came in, going to public health, mental health, or to anyone at the hospital has been well... downplayed, especially for anyone who directly maintains an Aircraft with a sensitive mission or a Nuclear system because a lot of the misconseption is they will have their clearances taken away because of their trip to seek help. Now that misconception is VERY VERY real, not so much on the clearance side but on the VDA side.

Ok lets say, hypothetically of course, I go to Afghanistan, I work the gate at Base "X" and see a little Afgahni boy and girl trip an old Soviet mine that the ACM (Anti-Coalition Militia) have placed inteded for the U.S. troops. One is hurt, the other killed, that stays with me for years after I come back stateside, sometimes but rarely manifesting in nightmares, so i go to the doc to see if they can do anything to help me get some sleep, they diagnose me with PTSD and give me some sleeping pills and as a "thanks for all you do" they take away my right to bear arms?! HORSE PUCKY!

[Seabee74]

It states in the bill that it will not affect a person unless they are determined a danger to himself or others, not all veterans! Not even vets diagnosed with PTSD. If you are a vet or even a vet with PTSD, don't worry. As long as your not found dangerous to yourself or others by a mental health evaluation your good to go. If you are a vet but you are also unstable you shouldn't own a weapon. No person found to be a danger to themselves or others should have a firearm, IMO.

[GlockMeister]

What bothers me is this was done WITHOUT A recorded vote. It. like the Brady Bill, From what I read, was done while Congress was NOT in session, and neither was done with a recorded vote. That means, not every state was represented when either of these were put into law. How then can this be legal? We vote people into office to represent us, to vote on our behalf. If something is put into law, without those we voted into office present, to vote on our behalf, what's the sense of having them in office then?

Unless the sites I linked are wrong and lying about the fact these were put into law without a recorded majority in favor vote, then they should therefore be deemed as unconstitutional.

Here's the remarks copy and pasted as I read them from one of the sites.

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.

Originally Posted by Seabee74

It states in the bill that it will not affect a person unless they are determined a danger to himself or others, not all veterans! Not even vets diagnosed with PTSD. If you are a vet or even a vet with PTSD, don't worry. As long as your not found dangerous to yourself or others by a mental health evaluation your good to go. If you are a vet but you are also unstable you shouldn't own a weapon. No person found to be a danger to themselves or others should have a firearm, IMO.

This reply is for what's quoted in red above. The reply was taken from the second link down in my original post.

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.

All this will do is prevent someone who needs treatment from seeking it.

[HARDERTR]

You're quoting a finatical gun rights organization...OF COURSE there will be a spin on it. GOA is not exactly "unbiased".


I don't care who you are, if you are a threat to the public because of a mental disorder.....you shouldn't own a gun. This should apply to all people - crack heads, vets, and even people who have lobbied for gun rights. You can't pick and choose who the law should apply to simply because you favor one group over another.

Oh, and by the way, the bill specifically states anyone who goes in for self refered treatement is not automatically stripped of their rights.

[GlockMeister]

And I totally agree. Maybe they should also strip a person of their rights simply because they have a minor learning disorder and has been labeled with a mental disorder/autism simply because there's no other category or section on the form?

Example: A person has a learning disorder when it comes to schooling or tests, whatever. Yet they can fix cars, do break jobs on a car, build and make things, use power tools, are street smart, are mechanically inclined and have never caused harm to another person, never been in jail, doesn't have a record of any kind, yet their only fault is they struggle reading a book. Is that the same as having a mental disorder/autism and a reason one should lose or fear losing their gun rights?

I know people that have been turned down simply because they have a minor learning disorder, yet have the diploma or G.E.D. and can do everything I listed above and doesn't have a record nor has ever been in a mental institution. They can't get a gun simply because instead of being labeled with a learning disorder, minor or otherwise, they have been labeled with a mental disorder/autism, just because there's nothing else on the form being used. Personally, I don't consider a learning disorder, minor or otherwise, the same as a mental disorder or autism. Especially if that person holds a job, or once did or could, is currently unemployed or on disability, has no police record, has never been in a mental institution. Do, should we allow that?

Where do we as a people, as a society, draw the line. Maybe one day we'll be diagnosed with something, and be the next person or have the next illness they'll go after? People who've been diagnosed with cancer can no longer have guns. People who've lost a limb for any reason can't have a gun. Women diagnosed with post pardon depression can't own a gun. Do we just keep letting them add to the list?

I understand many soldiers are committing suicide. That in and of itself is enough reason to prevent them from owning a gun. Will it stop them from committing suicide? Sure, maybe with a gun, but they'll just find another way. But isn't, or shouldn't the underlying concern helping the person or persons? They may tell you it's about helping a person. That's a joke. It's just another back door attempt. And one day you, I or someone we know may be next...And that's why this concerns me.

[nathangdad]

. . . here is yet another situation in which someone possibly needing
even a small amount of help may very well avoid getting needed
help. Then the problem can either improve or worsen on its on.

There should be some common sense dividing lines between the
person who seeks help and finds relief and the person who truly
needs to be institutionalized with perhaps a lifetime of medicaition
in his or her future.

I do sometimes wonder how many private citizens and military
personnel weigh the options, avoid needed psychological assistance,
then turn to a world of anti-depressants, other mood altering drugs,
and/or alcohol.

I also wonder what I will do if someone asks my opinion as to whether they should seek help for a psychological problem. I know it is good in America to say the politically correct/acceptable thing in a public forum but I still have the question of what I will really do one on one.

[mym1a]

makes you wonder???? how about the gang banger that is shooting up the urban streets?? oh thats right, being a minority grants you special rights!!

[Sarge]

Read the entire law as it was passed and signed!
Didn't anyone notice the word "Adjudicated" in the bill??? This mean that you have to have been found unstable/unsafe by a court of law!
The bill specifically returns the rights of some 70K vets who had previously been barred from gun ownership because of medical rekords - Not a court hearing.
How does this take away Veterans gun rights???
The title of this post is a piece of attention getting hysteria by the pro gun group that was fighting this. In this respect they are as screwed up as the anti-gun AHs!
Sarge

[HARDERTR]

Nobody reads the whole story anymore. It's much more fun to run around spewing false information to see how many lemmings follow.

Kinda makes us look like an ignorant, psychotic bunch.....doesn't it? (not name calling....just guessing what it must look like from the "outside")

[TXplt]

This wouldn't bar someone from getting a firearm simply from an encounter with PTSD ? There would have to be something deeper, right ? PTSD is farily common after a significant traumatic life event, and doesn't indicate any type of real mental illness--this can come from anything--battlefield, car crash, airplane crash, shooting, etc. It shouldn't be the basis for denying someone their gun rights vice someone with a real form of psychosis.

[Deersniper]

They are trying to disarm the first ones that would stand against tyranny, same thing with putting all the kids on Ritalin in school, that could keep them from getting guns. That leaves the rest of us to prevent tyranny. This is a communist act.

[mym1a]

and just who gets to ruber stamp you as mentaly unbalanced requiring a visit to the mental ward?