President signed gun control bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alan

New member
The above was the headline in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the bill signed was a supposedly much amended version of H.R. 2640.

While the Chief Bushy signing this legislation might not be all that much of a surprise to people, the following facts could be viewed otherwise. Both the House and Senate passed this legislation on the basis of UNRECORDED VOICE VOTES. Passage of legislation by voice votes might not be, of and in itself, all that unusual, this process is often used respecting NON-CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION. Was H.R. 2640 NON-CONTROVERSIAL, not that I had noticed, but I've been wrong before.

Well people, the deed is done, and though there is some dispute re the following, I submit that considerable aid and comfort was given the Anti Civil Rights/Anti Self Defense/Anti Gun cabal that we have in this country. Once again, I could be wrong here, however I don't think so.

Given that Congress is in recess, the women and children might be released from the storm cellar and the good whiskery perhaps put back on the table, what to do. What people might do is perhaps the following, assuming that they are less than content with the manner in which this deed was done. Write, e-mail and or phone, perhaps all of the above, your elected things inquiring as to how it was that so unusual an approach was used to obtain passage of this piece of legislation, legislation that was about as far from being NON-CONTFOVERSIAL as it is possible to get, and still be on the planet. Such questions might even elicit an answer, who knows. Even silence, which is most likely what questioners will receive is, of and in itself, an answer of sorts. Whether or not this sort of "answer" is acceptable to the citizenry is another question, the answer to which remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
We have beat this dead horse many times on the forum. It was passed as endorsed by the NRA.

My first question is have you read the bill in its entirety? After having done so it was a victory for the civil rights of some veterans who were wrongly deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

I saw nothing in the bill that deprived anyone of a loss of civil rights due to mental health. It provides for due process and adjudication.

I did write my Representatives and urged them to vote yes on the basis of the bill I read with my own eyes. Not on the basis of some organization's fear mongering.
 
The GOA is the only group actually telling us the truth.To believe otherwise is to be naive.
Click to expand...

No, to believe GOA is telling you the truth is blindly following someone like sheep. Yes, they may be a good organization. However, to take them or anybody as truth without your own research is naive...
 
I too have asked for a refund of my dues paid to the NRA (I am a life member).

I am also a vet and had been considering going to the VA to talk with them about PTSD, but after reading the details of the bill I will not go. I do not want to run the risk of some counselor putting me in the system and taking away my rights (my FFL, CCW and possibly risking my clearance). Of course I can fight the issue if it were presented, but how many years and how much $$$$ would it take to get the issue solved.

bad on the NRA and bad on all those that voted for it. :mad:
 
The GOA is the only group actually telling us the truth.To believe otherwise is to be naive.
Click to expand...

GOA's constant habit of making shrill accusations about NRA "sellouts" that never seem to happen is why I stopped renewing my membership with them.

Even NRA's deluge of junk mail isn't as obnoxiously irritating as GOA's constant shrill sales pitch based on false accusations against the NRA.
 
Yeah, you guys are all part of the neocon conspiracy against guns. Here at GOA, we're looking out for your 2nd Amendment rights. As far as we're concerned, a nutball who has been adjudicated as dangerous to others has an absolute right to buy a firearm, and providing funds so that the states can update their records on which individuals have been adjudicated as being a danger to themselves or others is unconstitutional!

Of course, the nutball might kill a bunch of people after buying a firearm, but that's what body bags and mops are made for, right? Rest assured that the GOA plans on asking Ron Paul to introduce legislation during the next session to provide free guns and ammo to individuals who've been adjudicated as dangerous to themselves or others. The GOA knows best!

And I hear that President Bush is skull & bones, and the Freemason zionists requested the voice-vote when passing the new legislation. :eek: Then again, I could be wrong about that, I've been wrong before....
 
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 onthe 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 to140,000 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 for those 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 more concerned 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.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
 
Last edited:
Yah,you people are right.The NRA walks on water-always has...always will.
LONG LIVE THE NRA!!!
:barf::barf::barf:
 
Fremmer writes, quoting a portion of my original post:
I've been wrong before

Yeah, well, I think you're wrong again. There is no conspiracy. +1 on Eghad's post.

-----------------

Perhaps he is right, re his "I think you're wrong again", perhaps it's he who is wrong. Possibly, as others have noted, exactly how this cookie crumbles will not become clear for some number of years, and even that might depend on who is in power.

The foregoing aside, I've examined what I posted, and re his reference to conspiracy, my post made no mention thereof. Fremmer, where do you get this "conspiracy" bit from. Not from what I wrote, though you could get from that the following. I submit that the way this legislation was enacted was the very poorest example of legislative practice, in that the proposal was most certainly not non-controversial. You might agree with the proposal, but that is another matter entirely, for the thing was hardly NON-cONTROVERSIAL, ergo unrecorded voice votes appear questionable, to say the very least.
 
Hey Te Anau...I have a request for you.

Without copying and pasting this time, tell us, in your own words, what the bill does. I am absolutely positive that you haven't read the actual Bill.

This ought to be good.
 
The bill is a turd polishing law. My advice to all, never try to wax a turd.

The NRA, of which I'm a Life Member, should be ashamed of the company it kept in support of the legislation.
 
So would you folks who think the GOA's assessment of the bill is correct please refer me to parts in the actual legislation that supports its position. I couldn't find any. There is no such bill as the Veterans Disarmament Act. Please publish the part of the bill where you can be found mentally incompetent without adjudication or the part that clearly states Veterans with a diagnosis only of PTSD can be stripped of thier gun rights on the basis of a diagnosis? I am a Veteran and suffer from depression for which I recieve medication and I found nothing in the bill that would strip my gun rights away on the basis of a diagnosis.

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

(A) the adjudication 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 or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Click to expand...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

Last time I looked the VA was part of the federal government.
 
I did a search trying to find an actual copy of the bill. The first 10 pages were just blogs trying to lead their weak minded followers in one direction or the other. Hell, they probably haven't read it either.
 
ZeroJunk? Did you miss the post by Eghad, immediately above yours? At the bottom of his post, is the link to the text of the bill that was just signed into law. sigh. Of course, a simple search on HR 2640 would have provided you with the text.

Te Anau, Thanks for putting up that email alert from the GOA, without identifying it as such and without giving the proper link to it. It is merely common curtesy to all the members to post the link and to identify your material as coming from someone else.

Now, instead of commenting upon what the GOA says the law will do, how about pointing to the exact section, of the bill, that says what you are saying? Or is it too hard to back up your words with facts?
 
Antipitas?

Yes, I did miss Eghad's link.

Yes, I did do a simple Google search on HR2640 and ran in to 10 pages of blogs, NRA, GOA, Veterans groups, Gunbroker's forum, this forum, etc. and no actual bill. I guess I am not smart enough to wade through all of that, so, thanks for pointing me to the link.
 
To be blunt about it, if the bill was really that easy to defend, they wouldn't have felt the need to pass it anonymously. It's as simple as that. It really is.

As anyone who has followed the functioning of Congress closely enough to shed the nonsense they feed you in high school civics knows, voice votes in general have only two functions:

1. To allow members to lie to their constituents about how they voted.

And, far more often,

2. To hide the fact that the vote took place without the constitutionally mandated quorum present, meaning that the supposed 'law' wasn't actually legitimately enacted.

I'd guess that they scheduled the vote on this sucker without warning any opponents, to prevent any nasty floor fight over it, and as a result had to resort to a voice vote to hide the fact that there weren't enough members voting to have the right to enact diddly squat.

Meaning the law wasn't really passed in compliance with the Constitution, not that that scrap of parchment means anything anymore.

At least, that's the most reasonable conclusion whenever a controversial measure passes on a voice vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top