Second Amendment Eviscerated
Thank you: Sinchi Runa (enemy of tyrannical regimes)
Date: Sep 28, 2007 1:45 PM
www.gunowners.org
Jun 2007
Analysis Of HR 2640
By Mike Hammond, legislative counsel to GOA
June 13, 2007
It can hardly be any surprise that anti-gun House members worked to sneak this bill through before anyone was aware that it was going to be considered. The negotiations have left legislation which is WORSE THAN THE ORGINAL McCARTHY BILL.
The worst aspect is, in section 3(2), that it STATUTORILY FREEZES IN regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 which would make you a “prohibited person” if:
* You were found by any “lawful authority” (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:
1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;
2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or
3. Be incapable of managing your own affairs; or
* Were referred by such “lawful authority” to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.
This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:
– Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;
– Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;
– Seniors diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in connection with Medicare’s home health care assistance; or
– Seniors (perhaps with a gun collection accumulated over a lifetime) who continue to live in their homes, but are put under guardianship by their adult children.
In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist’s finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, mom is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.
The bill, in section 101(c)(2)(A) and section 105, also requires federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and states to set up procedures for prohibited persons with “mental disabilities” to “clear their names.” There are at least four problems with this:
1. First, prior to this bill, vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder were arguably not required to “clear their names.” Ditto, seniors with Alzheimer’s kids on Ritalin, etc. By statutorily codifying 27 CFR 478.11, this bill, for the first time, makes it statutorily mandated that these persons ARE and SHOULD BE prohibited persons under 18 USC 922 (d) & (g). So the bill makes it absolutely clear that vets, seniors, and adults who were problem kids are statutorily prohibited from owning guns (for life), and then graciously opens the possibility that they may apply for relief, in accordance with unspecified standards based wholly on the discretion of the government.
2. Second, there already is a procedure for persons to “clear their names.” It was created by McClure-Volkmer and is contained at 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that, for many years, Congress, on appropriations bills, has barred anyone from using this procedure. So, having blocked procedures allowing people to “clear their names,” the House is now creating redundant procedures to do the same thing. And they expect us to trust them?
3. Third, the bill states that “[r]elief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.” But, since Congress has blocked the implementation of section 925(c), there is at least a question of whether this new, redundant procedure would not be similarly automatically blocked, at least at the federal level.
4. Fourth, there is also a procedure for “clearing one’s name” in subsection (g) of the Statues-at-Large portion of the Brady Law, when the name is erroneously submitted to NICS. The problem is that persons seeking to invoke this procedure to establish that they were incorrectly classified are routinely sent a form letter denying relief.
Ironically, a particularly dangerous person who is actually held in a mental institution may be able to obtain relief after he is “released or discharged,” pursuant to section 101(c)(1)(A). But a person who is found to be suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood behavioral problems, or Alzheimer’s — and who is not held anywhere (or subjected to anything) from which they can be “released or discharged” — could never take advantage of a provision which is available to the criminally insane. And even this limited provision applies only to federal agencies, and not states.
Incidentally, if Congress appropriates NOTHING to implement this bill, the states will still be required to comply with the unfunded mandates or risk loss of DOJ funds under section 104.
All of this is on top of the usual concerns that the McCarthy bill would still require the states to turn over 90% of all information which was “relevant” to whether an individual was a prohibited person by reason of being “an unlawful user of or addicted to” any controlled substance or a mental defective (as that term will now be defined.).
Ironically, given the “tough enforcement” language being used to try to dislodge the “amnesty” bill, the new draft excludes crackdowns on illegal aliens — a category which, more than any other, includes terrorists who have snuck into our country. But the Attorney General, without a court order, can, at his or her unilateral discretion, demand any information held by any state (or its agent) which would be “relevant” in determining who fell into other categories, including Medicare medical records, IDEA medical records, National guard medical records, drug diversion records, records of drug charges not prosecuted, etc. And, unlike the convicted serial killer, the unprosecuted marijuana smoker, veteran, or senior would not be protected merely because his records were not available electronically.
And, finally, having compiled, potentially, the biggest list of dangerous persons in existence, the records could not be used to go after terrorists or other criminals.
SUMMARY: It was not the intention of 18 USC 922 (d) & (g) to make veterans, seniors, and misbehaved kids “prohibited persons” with an FBI dossier. Any provision in 27 CFR 478.11 to the contrary is just plain wrong, and should be changed. To freeze these regulations into statutory law is simply evil.
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0701.htm
Click image for source
Rocket said,
October 3, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Hey Diana, Isn’t it amazing how the democrats work? It only took an incident like the Virginia Tech shooting by an unbalanced individual to cause democrats to immediately start disarming America. Yet another step toward democrats trying to protect us from ourselves and preventing the need for any of us taking responsibility for our own actions. Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of this during the Kent State incident? Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of this during the Columbine Incident? Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of this when a bomb was exploded in the parking deck of the world trade center and passing laws to prevent unstable people from buying any product that could be used to build a bomb. Gosh, how come this idea was used during the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing?
Something just came to mind, with as many illegals coming across our borders from the south, you would have to be crazy to join the border patrol and try and stop the army of illegal immigrants where you are outnumbered 500 to 1. Does that mean the border patrol will be permanently and forever disarmed? Also, I joined the military in 1981 with the implicit desire to “give my life” in defense of this country and what we stand for. I fully expected to die in service of this country, and I joined voluntarily , believing this. Does this constitute suicidal tendencies? Does this constitute mentally imbalanced because I knew I was going to give my life to defend us? Sure sounds crazy to me, and if I recall, just about 100% of my fellow armed forces buddies all felt they were in the military to give their life for something they believed in…freedom, liberty and justice for all. We should start disarming the military right away don’t ya think?
I hope my sarcasm was evident. I really think this HR and most of the requirements for obtaining and owning a gun are ridiculous since they don’t stop criminals in any way, shape or form. It only inhibits people with good judgment and responsible people from arming themselves. In reaction to this new HR, how many mentally unstable people actually go to a professional to get diagnosed as mentally unstable or suicidal? Once again, the law will only inhibit and affect good people. What’s that old cliche, locks only keep honest people out.
dianarn said,
October 4, 2007 at 1:02 am
I agree with you on everything except the blame on the democrats. Democrats and Republicans are like two cheeks on the same ass. Everyone in Congress who voted for this act, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Amnesty bill, etc. should be tried for treason. Many people, including my boyfriend joined the military to “give their life for freedom, liberty, and justice.” Now, we have to realize our enemies are not outside of this country (except for the Rothchilds, but that’s beside the point). Our enemies are these people who are systematically destroying our Constitutional Republic and everything it stands for. And no, all these laws are not meant to stop criminals–they are meant to stop the good, honest people who truly love their country and are willing to die fighting for it, rather than watching it turn into a fascist police state.
Rocket said,
October 4, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I stand corrected
however, its only to scratch the Democratic rash on my ass cheek 
The Republican rash is only slightly less irritating which is why I am a registered Independent.
We voted (hired) our politicians, why don’t we just fire them all since we hired them believing they were as qualified as they claimed. Sadly, they lied on their resumes and have not earned a penny of their wages.
I’m truly tired of them “faking it” until payday. If a business owner allowed the employees to get away with doing nothing until payday all the time, the owner of the business would eventually go broke, FAST! Why are “We the People” any different than a good business owner/employer?
Great Blog Diana
dianarn said,
October 4, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I think that we are daily dumbed down and bombarded with useless “programming.” They don’t call it “TV programming” for nothing. I bet most people have no clue how many Reps are in the House or even how many Senators, much less name the ones representing their state. I blame the education system just as much as I blame ourselves for being so apathetic and caring more about Britney Spears’ daily drama than our own REAL current state of affairs. But it’s all right, I’m sure they have cable TV in the 800 concentration camps in the US.