GOA Alert: URGENT!

[Lambo]

URGENT ALERT!!!

Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate -- Immediate action required

Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, September 25, 2007


You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.

But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:
* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD

Not to mention the fact that your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.

Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.

This agreement could come about in the next few hours or the next couple of days!

This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the
ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up
the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!

But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to
prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE
single senator can block it.

ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge
them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent
agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous
consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn
McCarthy's anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns
if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;
or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA
program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his
entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the
family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the
first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous
consent agreement to discharge the bill.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________

 

[TexasRifleman]

So here we go again....

GOA says its the end of days, NRA supports the bill in its current form.

I suspect neither group is correct but sheesh, could they be in any more disagreement?

NRAs statement:

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,” by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA’s decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

While the media continues to characterize this bill as a “gun-control” measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and “spinning” the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

CCRKBA can't decide....

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said the
bill “may not go far enough to protect the rights of American gun owners while
apparently making it easier to prevent mentally ill persons from legally buying
guns at retail outlets.”
CCRKBA said the Department of Veterans Affairs should be required to remove
the names of some 83,000 veterans that it entered into the system seven years ago,
for what the media have identified as ‘alleged mental health reasons.’ “Soldiers
should not have to petition or pay for that,” said CCRKBA Public Affairs Director
JOHN SNYDER.

And Gottlieb/SAF seem to be silent on the issue other than writing about what the OTHER groups think of it.....


Lovely

 

[JohnBT]

"and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote."

When? Today? Not according to govtrack.us www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640

"Last Action: Jun 14, 2007: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

 

[JohnBT]

This is from 9/21 - last Friday - in the Wall Street Journal.

"Party leaders are dismayed, and a top Democrat predicts: "That bill is going nowhere.""

John

_________________________________

Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill
Despite Support, Background-Check Measure
Staggers in Senate Amid Infighting
By DAVID ROGERS
September 21, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- After 32 people were shot to death at Virginia Tech in April, the new Democratic House moved quickly to close an administrative gap that allowed the killer to buy two guns despite a history of mental troubles.

It was a rare political alliance between the National Rifle Association and its foes on the left, who together seized the moment to try to make federal background checks on gun purchasers more effective. But with students back on campus the Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to act, and the bill is in jeopardy.

"I'm getting anxious," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. "I get concerned that the longer we are away from Virginia Tech, folks are going to ignore the problem."

For Democrats in Congress, this has been a frustrating year, with numerous presidential veto threats and Republican delaying tactics in a closely divided Senate. A minimum-wage increase took five months to enact; with a new fiscal year starting Oct. 1, spending bills are incomplete and a stalemate continues over policy in Iraq.

But the saga of the gun-records bill is something different: a self-inflicted wound for the new majority.

After the House bill passed in June, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) personally appealed to Democratic senators to pass it without amendments. "I wanted it to be taken up right away," she said. "If it's clean, it's over."

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a turf-conscious Vermonter, insisted that the bill go through his panel and in the process reignited an old fight with his Democratic colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.

For House Democrats, the delays were all the more frustrating because the bill's basic framework was already familiar from past Congresses: a mix of carrots and sticks to encourage states to share their mental-health and felony records with federal authorities.

In the Virginia Tech case, the shooter was able to buy firearms in part because relevant court records weren't forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background System, the data center that helps conduct background checks.

The NRA lent its support to the bill, and to protect its flank against rivals on the right, it also won new language that for the first time allows someone banned from possessing a gun to appeal at the state level to have those rights restored. Some gun-safety advocates criticized this concession, but the bigger problem turned out to be infighting among Democratic senators.

Mr. Leahy, who dislikes federal mandates, complained that his small state would be hard-pressed to meet the House deadlines for sharing information, and therefore risked being penalized.

But it wasn't until August that he advanced his package, which ran almost 50 pages more than the House bill and added provisions that split the law-enforcement community.

Both measures promise new federal money to update records while states face future aid cuts if they don't comply. Mr. Leahy's version has a richer "carrot" and gentler "stick," narrowing the records that must be shared and giving states twice as long before mandatory penalties can be imposed.

But the chairman then also reopened a fight with Mr. Kennedy by including amendments to an existing law that allows retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

Enacted in 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act continues to meet resistance from states and cities, such as New York, as an intrusion on local control.

Mr. Leahy's proposed changes would make it easier for retired officers to get around these obstacles and also lower the years of service needed to qualify to carry concealed weapons from 15 to 10.

Pressing for the changes is the 325,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, a politically influential group that claims close ties to Mr. Leahy and his top staff. The FOP says it is only asking for "tweaks" to the current law. Mr. Leahy's office argues that as a former prosecutor he has a natural alliance with the police organization and has long been active on law-enforcement legislation.

Critics of the safety Act in the law-enforcement community point to the fact that Mr. Leahy's involvement in the issue grew after a brouhaha with the New York Post over whether the Democrat was obstructing the awarding of medals of valor to police and firemen killed on Sept. 11. Sen. Leahy angrily denied the charges, and after the FOP came to his aid, he took a higher profile role in support of the bill.


Today, sheriff and police-chief lobbies oppose reopening the issue. "We warned the senators that it was something we had a lot of heartburn with," says Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

In crowded cities, the prospect of out-of-state retired officers, unknown to the local force and not subject to the same training, is a worry. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly is a critic, for example, and Mr. Kennedy vowed a fight on the Senate floor. "It's outrageous. This makes no sense," Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.

Mr. Leahy's relations with Mr. Kennedy, a former Judiciary chairman, have long been strained. Friction has risen in recent years because of the Massachusetts liberal's lead role on immigration legislation, a topic within the judiciary committee's purview. Mr. Leahy's office says it is "baseless" to suggest he was retaliating by adding safety-act provisions to the gun bill.

Party leaders are dismayed, and a top Democrat predicts: "That bill is going nowhere."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) will be reluctant to devote floor time to a messy fight.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), an early proponent of the House bill, has begun planning for a back-up strategy: If Sen. Leahy's package stalls, Mr. Schumer said -- and the chairman's office agrees -- that the chairman has promised the gun records bill will move as a standalone piece of legislation.

Mr. Leahy says he is the wronged party. If House Democrats had consulted with him more in advance, "the bill could be on the president's desk right now," Mr. Leahy says.

"I think we have made the bill much better and provided far more reasons for the states to comply," he says. "I don't see how we have it delayed it at all. We're ready to go."

Write to David Rogers at [email protected]

 

[camacho]

For those who get on the GOA bandwagon of the sky is falling, please read the summary of this bill below. This whole thing about the ailing grandfather (from the GOA "alert") is a pure twisting of facts and to the best of my knowledge nothing in this bill has anything to do with that. You have to be adjudicated in order to be disqualified. Period, end of story!

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
6/13/2007--Passed House without amendment.
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 -
Title I - Transmittal of Records
Section 101 -
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms; (2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly; and (3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such action to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date. Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide the Attorney General, not less than quarterly, information for determining whether a person is disqualified under the federal criminal code from possessing or receiving a firearm for use in NICS background checks.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
Section 102 -
Grants states a two-year waiver of the matching fund requirement (10%) for criminal justice identification grants if such states provide at least 90% of the information required to be transmitted to the NICS under this Act. Requires states to provide reasonable estimates of the number of records transmitted to the NICS for purposes of granting such waiver.
Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons: (1) t disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm; (2) convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and (3) adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to mental institutions. Requires states to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) establish regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information in the NICS; and (2) report annually to the Judiciary Committees of Congress on the progress of states in automating criminal records databases and making such data available to the Attorney General.
Section 103 -
Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations. Allows up to 5% of grant funding for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems. Specifies allowable uses of grant funds. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from charging user fees for NICS background checks.
Section 104 -
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an annual report on the progress of states in automating databases of information for transmittal to the NICS. Authorizes appropriations.
Provides for discretionary and mandatory penalties for states that fail to provide information required by this Act. Allows a waiver of such penalties for states that provide substantial evidence of reasonable efforts to comply with requirements for providing information.
Section 105 -
Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.
Title II - Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant Records
Requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to: (1) study and evaluate the operations of the NICS; and (2) report to Congress annually on state estimates of records transmitted to the NICS and on best practices of states for handling information to be transmitted to the NICS.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title III - Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records
Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments for use by state and tribal court systems to improve the automation and transmittal of criminal history dispositions and records and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title IV - GAO Audit
Requires the Comptroller General to audit expenditures for criminal records improvement under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to determine if such expenditures were made in accordance with such Act and to report to Congress on the findings of such audit.

 

[Roccobro]

Sounds like a good bill being subjected to "poison pill" additions by the opposition.

Justin

 

[Robert Hairless]

Camacho, okay, so the facts don't support the Gun Owners of America. And, okay, so the bill probably helps some gun owners.

But where is your sense of drama, man? Get into the swing of things. It's an "URGENT ALERT!!!" A mere "Alert" from GOA is a snoozer, an "Urgent Alert" is a mild yawn, and a GOA "URGENT ALERT" is a transistor radio at the end of its battery life playing Taps.

It's when the GOA "URGENT ALERT" has begun to deserve at least one exclamation point that we're talking seriousness something like the annoyance a fairly stable person feels at seeing a finger smudge on a restaurant water glass. A GOA "URGENT ALERT!!" is getting to the point of being fairly hot stuff: Larry Pratt hasn't debated Paul Helmke on television for a few days or something equally significant.

The unalloyed triple banger with full caps and dress boldface, though, is important. It means that GOA is going after the real enemy--the NRA--with both guns ablazing and the horse asnorting fahr and breamstones. Here's where the shootout gets warm and the cameras start rolling. This is an "URGENT ALERT!!!"

Me, I wait for the sound of at least five exclamation points from GOA before I even rouse myself enough to turn down the volume a little. It's probably going to take twenty-five or thirty exclamation points now before I get even mildly annoyed.

Have you ever noticed that the commercials on television are broadcast at a higher volume than the programs that interrupt them? The rule is that if it's really loud and really hysterical it's going to be a sales pitch that is really stupid and untrue.

Rats. I meant to write "STUPID AND UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Sometimes it's hard to get into the spirit of these things. Dumb, in other words, and dumber.

The Brady Law doesn't prevent crime. In a sane world it would not exist. But it's here and it's not going away in the near future so it makes sense to fix problems in it. The Congress will tinker one way or another. Better to have the NRA involved to try to help get some rationality at work instead of standing on the outside yelling stuff with exclamation points.

 

[Noxx]

Can we just not post GOA stuff until / if they get their act together? That would be great, mmmkay?

 

[Samuraigg]

Getting so sick of people posting this GOA "the sky is falling" crap. They must be pulling facts out of their behinds because they sure as hell aren't reading the bill.

 

[camacho]

Robert Hairless: You are absolutely right about my sense of drama; beginning immediately I am starting diligently to work on it

Noxx: I am with you on that. I am never an advocate of excluding any group let alone a gun-rights group, but I really wonder about those guys. They are just liars!

 

[W.E.G.]

If some people spent half as much time communicating with their own representatives in whatever manner they deem appropriate, accurate and logical, as they spend analyzing and criticizing those who are engaging in real activism, those people might actually achieve some good for gun owners.

 

[JohnBT]

And what makes you think we aren't?

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron

(And FWIW, holder of one $50 ticket to the New Market FD gun raffle this Saturday. Guns, cash & atv's every 5 minutes from 11 to 5. And a Chevy 4x4, I'm getting excited.)

 

[pdowg881]

If it truly does bar people who were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood that's rediculous. Anybody who acts like a normal kid and likes to run around is diagnosed with ADHD these days.

 

[Blackfork]

un-needed bill

This doesn't sound like a needed bill and might be dangerous. If Schumer likes it and is trying to get it passed without recorded votes, that's enough to get your attention, or should be.

I'm calling my Senators.

 

[Dave Workman]

TexasRifleman wrote:

And Gottlieb/SAF seem to be silent on the issue other than writing about what the OTHER groups think of it.....

The reason SAF has not taken a position is because SAF, as a non-profit educational and legal foundation, cannot legally take positions such as what you are looking for. SAF can report what others are doing because that's merely educating the public.

SAF also cannot endorse political candidates.

CCRKBA's position is now being repeated by others who are unhappy that funding is not present to pay for all of these investigations and appeals. I believe you will find Gottlieb's name in that press release.

 

[Robert Hairless]

If some people spent half as much time communicating with their own representatives in whatever manner they deem appropriate, accurate and logical, as they spend analyzing and criticizing those who are engaging in real activism, those people might actually achieve some good for gun owners.

That depends on who you mean by "some people" and what you mean by "real activism." I suppose that it's real activism to distort and ignore truth as long as it's done frequently, often, and stridently, but anyone who believes that it's achieving any good for gun owners is deluded and self deluded. That kind of real activism is certainly real and it is activism but it is always harmful because it is counterproductive. It lends support to the belief that gun owners are untrustworthy and whacko and don't read good, and it alienates people who can read and think rationally about what they read. In the case of this bill, for example, it simply does not say what GOA says it says. This GOA alert is one of many examples of real activism that hurts.

Unless you either are truly omniscient or Gun Owners of America, you can't possibly be justified in making a blanket condemnation of the kind you made of people you know only from messages they post in response to other people's messages. Your point seems to be that people who criticize others' real activism should spend at least half that amount of time contacting their representatives. Nonsense. If you're contacting your representatives to say that rational gun owners support the claptrap in the GOA "URGENT ALERT!!!!" at the head of this thread, I beg you not to do it. As for those of us who resent what GOA is doing with such distortion, what gives you the belief that we aren't doing quite a lot with our legislators and in other ways too--possibly much more than you?

 

[JLStorm]

It is bad enough that the Democrats, republicans, and antigunners treat me as though I am an idiot and use scare tactics to twist the truth. The fact that the GOA and JPFO do it much more often makes my blood boil, which is why I no longer support them. The NRA may not be as grassroot, but at least they dont sound like the boy who cried wolf every time I read a letter, they also seem to realize that I am an educated member of society and treat me as such. The GOA has some good ideas that the NRA doesnt, but they sure have a lot to learn about conveying them.

 

[Joshua C]

Does, or does not the bill prohibit people diagnosed with ADHD as a child, I.E.ME! from owing a firearm?

 

[Car Knocker]

No, it does not.

 

[Joshua C]

right...... well, at least I know how to classify GOA....

 

[CaesarI]

Joshua

I like you're cutting directly to the point.

The answer is unfortunately not very direct, to the point, easy to comprehend, or entertaining to hear.

I am not a lawyer, but a lawyer can't really say for sure either, so that doesn't much matter does it? My *interpretation* of this bill causes me to answer your simple question with "probably not, but it's possible it could be interpreted that way, more likely if your ADHD was put down on paper somewhere."

The problem is that in the present sorry state of the law, particularly law as it applies to your right to keep and bear arms, some no-goodnick attorney could try and make a case interpreting the law in a manner hostile to you.

Quoting Cicero, who was quoting a proverb himself, summum ius summa iniuria "more law, more injustice". The formula makes sense, since the more lines of law someone has to read through to determine just what is and what is not legal, the more apt one is to come to an incorrect conclusion. The more laws, the more difficult intimidating it becomes for someone else to attempt to determine what is and isn't legal on their own. Further the more likely there will be rotten loopholes of one sort or another. The present state of legal muck that constitutes the US Code is akin to an undocumented 120MB text editor written in COBOL. I won't even attempt to discuss "legal precedent".

The criticism offered here that the GOA throws out entirely too many alerts, all of which are "urgent" is probably warranted. Perhaps there is a good reason for it, and perhaps there is not. Nonetheless in this situation I am apt to agree with the GOA, and not the NRA on this issue, as I find it unlikely that *more* laws are going to in any way shape or form improve our situation.

Real progress happens when bad laws are repealed outright, not when we add new bandaids to a corpse full of maggots. The death of the AWB was a rare taste of victory. This bill may not quite be arsenic, but it certainly isn't going to improve things.

Just my silly opinion.

-Morgan

 

[Robert Hairless]

CaesarI, this bill is entitled the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007." As the title indicates, it is not an additional law. It amends an existing law. So the bill does not add more laws. It revises a law currently on the books. The fate of this bill would neither increase nor reduce the number of laws.

Who would disagree with you that "Real progress happens when bad laws are repealed outright, not when we add new bandaids to a corpse full of maggots." Now let's roll. If gun owners were to unite behind your idea of demanding the immediate repeal of NICS, I bet that they could achieve the deathblow to private gun ownership in the United States.

Many--perhaps most--gun owners would be horrified at the thought of supporting the sale of guns to people who have been judged in a court of law to be a danger to themselves or to other people. A large number of gun owners are likely to think it's also not a good idea to give gangs the legal right to stop off at their local gunshops to arm themselves on the way to a shootout. At least some gun owners won't favor giving Al Qaeda cells the okay to order firearms by mail or from the web.

Those are the gun owners. People who do not own guns and don't want to own them and are uncomfortable around them will take a millisecond to think about the idea that gun owners not only don't want any checks on gun buyers but also believe that adjudicated crazies, criminals, and terrorists should be able to get them because they have Second Amendment rights too. There should be no need to explain how the dedicated anti gun people will react.

I am not arguing here in support of this bill but I am trying to point out, as patiently as I know how, that it might be a reasonably good idea to read the bill and think about it in context of reality today instead of arguing against what the bill doesn't say or do, or about a world that doesn't exist.

If you're going to argue for repeal of NICS, please at least set your sights higher and argue for something really good such as energy tax credits for shooting firearms during the winter as a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

 

[camacho]

"probably not, but it's possible it could be interpreted that way, more likely if your ADHD was put down on paper somewhere."

Can you point us to the specific section of H.R.2640 which according to your interpretation might be construed as "it could be interpreted that way"? I am really curios!

Also, as RobertHairless pointed out this, no new provision are added with H.R. 2640.

 

[LAR-15]

Word is Tom Coburn has blocked this bill for now.

 

[BAT1]

Hr 2640

This info is timely, and should be forwarded to all Veteran groups. I mentioned this yesterday to a veteran who had not heard about it and was pretty dismayed. Thanks to all the veterans who have served, you more than anybody should have right to have a gun! The govt should not force kids on drugs because they look out the window, and they should not make solders into tour after tour which brings this condition on.