Senate "disses" America's veterans' 2A rights
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Senate "disses" America's veterans' 2A rights

This is a discussion on Senate "disses" America's veterans' 2A rights within the Firearm Politics & 2nd Amendment Issues forums, part of the Main Category category; Got this in an e-mail Alert from Gun Owners of America today: Senate "disses" America's veterans For several years, GOA ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,186

    Default Senate "disses" America's veterans' 2A rights

    Got this in an e-mail Alert from Gun Owners of America today:

    Senate "disses" America's veterans

    For several years, GOA has been alerting gun owners to the travesty of justice that has been perpetrated on our veterans.

    After the Brady law went into effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began sending the names of many of its beneficiaries to the FBI so they could be added to the NICS list, denying these individuals their right to purchase a firearm. To date, more than 150,000 military veterans have been denied.

    However, none of these veterans were ever convicted of a crime; none were found to be a danger to anyone; and none were afforded any meaningful due process of law. Under the semblance of being "mental defectives," these veterans were added to the list strictly because a doctor or a bureaucrat in the VA appointed someone to manage their finances.

    The al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo have been given more due process than the American soldiers who fought them!

    To combat this outrage, pro-gun Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) authored S. 669, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, that will safeguard for veterans two of the most fundamental Constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms.

    The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act merely stipulates that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights "without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."

    This very reasonable bill passed out of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee last June, having been approved unanimously.

    Burr's language was offered on the floor of the Senate during the health care debate, but unfortunately, it was defeated 53-45. To see how your Senator voted, go to:
    U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

    GOA will continue fighting for the passage of this very important legislation.
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  2. #2
    theicemanmpls is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    The vote of course mostly followed the party lines. The vote was done during the health care mess. Does anyone in DC think independently?

    I am curious about how a vet is labeled as unsuitable by the VA to purchase a firearm.
    Do you have to say something "bad" to a puzzle doctor?

    Once your record gets in the VA paper mill it stays there forever.

    I have to say, I have known more then person, including veterans, who in my opinion, are unsuitable to own a firearm.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    I have read this before and, being retired military, wonder what caused the denials. I have never been denied a purchase or license and served in the jungles and deserts. The military is a sampling of the the American public and there were those I was uncomfortable with having a gun in the general public. I do believe that an Honorably discharged vet, with no finding of mental instability, should never be denied any rights.

  4. #4
    mojo Guest

    Default

    The al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo have been given more due process than the American soldiers who fought them!

    Aint that the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mid Michigan
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    I can't stand my michigan senators!
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mi
    Posts
    1,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    I can't stand my michigan senators!
    +1, I fail to see how those 2 "People" Stay in office..
    Semper Fi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. Central Indiana
    Posts
    501

    Default

    All due respect folks.... this email has been floating around for some time, and it's bogus

    I'm a VA employee in Health Information.... I work in a psych hospital.... We are not, and have not sent any patients' name to anyone with regard to the NCIS system.

    Please read the ENTIRE text of HR 2640. Remember the bill that everyone slammed the NRA for supporting? That legislation prohibits any second amendment restrictions unless a Veteran has been ADJUDICATED ( that's BY A JUDGE) mentally defective, or a danger to him/her self or others, or unless an emergency detention order has been issued....again BY A JUDGE, or unless the Veteran has been charged with domestic violence.

    From HR-2640

    (c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (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.

    Entire text can be found at.....
    Read The Bill: H.R. 2640 [110th] - GovTrack.us
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

  8. #8
    MNSteve's Avatar
    MNSteve is offline Retired, NRA Life member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Head of the Lakes, MN
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    I can't stand my michigan senators!
    And I can't stand my two Minnesota senators. One was a county attorney, the other a failed comedian. The former county attorney is up for re-election this November. Didn't vote for them originally.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    All due respect folks.... this email has been floating around for some time, and it's bogus

    I'm a VA employee in Health Information.... I work in a psych hospital.... We are not, and have not sent any patients' name to anyone with regard to the NCIS system.

    Please read the ENTIRE text of HR 2640. Remember the bill that everyone slammed the NRA for supporting? That legislation prohibits any second amendment restrictions unless a Veteran has been ADJUDICATED ( that's BY A JUDGE) mentally defective, or a danger to him/her self or others, or unless an emergency detention order has been issued....again BY A JUDGE, or unless the Veteran has been charged with domestic violence.

    From HR-2640

    (c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (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.

    Entire text can be found at.....
    Read The Bill: H.R. 2640 [110th] - GovTrack.us
    Hey Jay, you may want to read the following about the Clinton administration where the names were turned over. They may not do it now but it was once done.

    Protecting Veterans' Second Amendment Rights

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Hey Jay, you may want to read the following about the Clinton administration where the names were turned over. They may not do it now but it was once done.

    Protecting Veterans' Second Amendment Rights
    That did happen but they were all removed. That was one of the main reasons that that HR-2640 was passed.
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NoBamaCare
    By Bohemian in forum Politics
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 05:59 PM
  2. US Govt Spying on 70-80yr old Veterans
    By festus in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 07:18 PM
  3. Veterans information
    By Jay in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 05:35 AM
  4. McCain Bashing
    By harvey13118 in forum Military & Veterans
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 09:02 PM
  5. As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
    By lukem in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •