GOA Alert: URGENT!

[Michael Thomson]

Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran (Military.com)

Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh

Larry Scott | October 02, 2007
There is no such thing as the “Veterans Disarmament Act.” There is no pending legislation that would take firearms away from veterans. There is no pending legislation that would prevent a person with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), veteran or not, from purchasing a firearm or ammo.

But, there is a huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics being forwarded by a small gun owners group who view themselves to be in competition with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Let’s use some common sense instead of nonsense. If veterans were to lose the right to own firearms, you’d have a lot of unemployed cops. If those who have PTSD were to lose that right, there’d be even more unemployed cops and other first responders, as well. The arguments about a “Veterans Disarmament Act” are, quite simply, ridiculous and illogical.

The piece of legislation is question is H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 2640 was carefully-crafted by the NRA and Members of Congress to protect the rights of gun owners, especially those who may have mental health issues such as PTSD.

Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this legislation.

The NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database that contains the names of those not allowed to buy firearms and ammo. There are nine specific groups of persons who are included in the database.

Included is anyone "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." "Any mental institution" would, obviously, include a VA hospital mental ward. And, the government's definition of a "mental defective" is: “A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.”

The confusion over H.R. 2640 and veterans, especially veterans with PTSD, began in 2000 when the VA gave the names of between 83,000 and 89,000 veterans to the NICS database. The names were of veterans who had been committed to VA psychiatric wards or who had been adjudicated as a “mental defective.” This was required of all government agencies.

Some thought that any veteran with a mental health issue ended up on the NICS list. That is an absurd assumption. If a veteran tries to quit smoking and goes to VA smoking cessation classes, they are in a mental health program because nicotine is considered an addictive substance. The same applies for those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. And, we know, these veterans did not end up in the NICS database.

Neither current law nor H.R. 2640 would put any person, including veterans, who have sought psychiatric treatment or voluntarily checked themselves into a psychiatric unit on the NICS list. This includes those with PTSD, those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and those who have voluntarily sought help and been admitted for observation, sometimes termed a “voluntary commitment.”

So, why all the noise about H.R. 2640? Some feel the small gun owners group is just looking for members. Others feel they have some kind of beef with the NRA. Whatever the reason, the misinformation and scare tactics should be considered for exactly what they are.

The NRA, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings that killed over 30 students, realized that current firearms legislation had some real problems. People who should be in the NICS database, like the Virginia Tech shooter, were left out. And, just as important, the NRA knew that some people who shouldn’t be in the database had been included and there was no way for them to get their names of the NICS list. Also, some believe there is wiggle-room in the current regulations that can allow government agencies to “interpret” them incorrectly. The NRA set out to solve those problems, and they did.

The NRA fully supports H.R. 2640. According to the NRA: “Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would ‘prohibit’ thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true…In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.”

H.R. 2640 would require states to provide quarterly information to the NICS database. This information would have to include those who no longer fall into one of the nine categories of “no buy” persons. There would be penalties for states that do not comply. And, the protections, especially for those with mental health issues, assure that a “medical finding of disability” would not put someone in the NICS database. That would include veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD. Here are the protections as stated in H.R. 2640:

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

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

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Please note again that a person cannot be put on the NICS list solely for a "medical finding of disability,” and that would include PTSD.

Also, H.R. 2640 will provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should not be on it, something they cannot do at this time. That provision reads:

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

The bottom line for veterans concerned about H.R. 2640 is to just use some common sense. Read the legislation. You may not agree with it. But, if you’re a veteran or you have been diagnosed with PTSD, don’t worry, they aren’t coming for your firearms. The NRA put it correctly when they said, “H.R. 2640 is NOT gun control legislation.” It IS... legislation designed to end inequities in the current laws that have unfairly prevented many from purchasing firearms and ammo.

 

[Phil Lee]

Response to Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran (Military.com)

It would be useful to explore the discussion to the linked article "Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran" by Larry Scott on the veteran web site. There you'll find veteran opinion pointing to some real problems with HR 2640. Larry Scott's article doesn't receive a lot of respect from them.

For example, one veteran points to the problems of red-tape with a statement "Someone could die before getting off the list. Some medical needs troops are getting on some pretty long lists just to get the medical attention they need."

I think it indicates the potential of real problems with the "appeals" to get off the list.

Another commenter points to the fact that "lawful authority", not just judges in courts, can make the adjudication and that is a pretty vague term. He worries, as do I, what loose procedures will be allowed under the "lawful authority" statement.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I think it indicates the potential of real problems with the "appeals" to get off the list.

Currently there is no appeal process. If you are on the list, you are on the list. Period, end of story. Without a measure like this passing, they are going to die without getting off the list. At least this bill, with all the red-tape and waiting, gives them a chance.

Are you saying you prefer no process to a possibly bad process?

 

[Phil Lee]

I have some questions about HR2640 which I haven't seen answered, yet and despite several readings of the bill

According to the bill, adjudication for "committed to a mental institution" may be a result of something other than a court order. Even if adjudication is by court order, it isn't clear what standards are required for the adjudication process and there aren't any standards that I see in the bill for non-court adjudication. So, where in the bill are provisions defining the standards for these adjudications, such as:
1) presumption of sanity (i.e., such as presumption of innocence in a criminal trial),
2) requiring a jury of our peers (if the defendant wishes) for any commitment hearing,
3) requiring any jury's finding to be unanimous,
4) requiring a finding of insanity along with dangerousness beyond reasonable doubt,
5) requiring the adjudication be presided over by a judge,
6) giving the "defendant" other legal rights such as making available a public defender for the indigent, right to a speedy hearing, automatic restoration of seize property if "acquitted".

Will a lifting of these orders and a release from commitment, supervision and treatment automatically result in a restoration of rights to arms, or must an appeal be made? Where are these answers to be obtained in the bill (I've read it several times now and can't find it)?

According to the Legal Community Against Violence web page: ATF regulations (see 27 C.F.R. § 478.11) define "committed to a mental institution" to mean:

A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a
mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental
defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons,
such as drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for
observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.​

This wording suggests that a person committed for non-mental reasons such as treatment for chemical dependency might also disqualify a person from their right to arms. Certainly, it is possible to commit a person in Missouri for chemical dependency if there is a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others.

If a person so committed undergoes a successful drug treatment program and is released from supervision and if he has no record of felony or violence, is his release from treatment to be forwarded automatically to NICS and his name removed from the denied list? Or, must such a person enter the appeal process?

Do you drink too much? It is possible for a "helpful" family member or a treating physician to intervene and commit you to treatment because you represent a danger to yourself or others in Missouri -- see their Department of Mental Health page.

In NY Mayor Koch obtained a court ordered commitment of a homeless woman who was mentally ill. One symptom of that person's illness was verbal abuse which the courts held created a danger to herself since she might be attacked by others who were abused. This case is documented in the NY Times article "Court Backs Treatment of Woman Held Under Koch Homeless Plan", by KIRK JOHNSON.

Is it sound public policy to deny arms to people because their mental illness might result in them being attacked by others or because they drink too much?

Now, I know the NRA might respond by saying these people are already disqualified under the law -- actually, I don't believe they are since the states play a role in determining that by defining what crimes are felonies and by determining what sentences are applied, they determine for criminal matters who is include on the NICS list. If the state refuses to cooperate with the federal government, it appears to me they are exercising their legal rights in making a determination about who appears on the NICS list. Right now, I suspect, many people committed for chemical dependencies or with mild mental illnesses which might result in being committed against their will are not on any disqualified list. So, I think the NRA is being somewhat disingenuous if it says there won't be newly disqualified people as a result of this bill.

But, those of you who have read the bill, please tell me where I can find the answers to my questions.

 

[Phil Lee]

Jorg asks:

Are you saying you prefer no process to a possibly bad process?

But the bill doesn't just implement a possibly bad appeals process. As written, the appeals process is an illusion. Tell me what is to prevent there being be no appeals process? or what is to prevent there being no appeals process for any practical purpose?

And the bill doesn't just give, it takes too. Tell me what justifies improving NICS? Will it truly add to public safety? Will it add to public safety more than spending the money on more cops on the street?

You can't even make the public safety case for the present version of NICS -- and I can give references to a study saying Brady has had no effect on violence. So, why should I support a measure to add names to government lists?

 

[ilbob]

Will it add to public safety more than spending the money on more cops on the street?

You are making an unwarranted assumption that more cops on the street = less crime. I have seen no evidence that is the case.

It is certainly true that when focus is placed on locking up violent criminals that crime goes down. That does not require additional cops. It only requires the will to prosecute and lockup violent offenders, rather than spending time and money on locking up non-violent offenders, or using the extra cops hired under the guise of crime control to write more traffic tickets.

One would think we could come up with some appropriate penalty for non-violent offenders that would serve as both a punishment and a deterrent to others that does not involve jail time.

 

[Robert Hairless]

You've probably figured out by now that Phil Lee is here to defend the Gun Owners of America's agenda.

Mr. Lee is the administrator of the "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" web site, which links directly to the GOA web site for analyses of pending federal legislation. You could save time and help green the World Wide Web by not wasting bandwidth if you go directly to the Gun Owners of America web site, or you can make a brief stop at Mr. Lee's site and click on the link marked "GOA Analysis of Fed Bills" to get to the same place the scenic way.

The way Mr. Lee and the "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" deal with people who "have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding" is to link them to the Anxiety Disorders Association of America web site: "However, if you have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding, then you might find a better place to visit is here."

For Mr. Lee, "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," and Gun Owners of America anyone who disagrees with them is crazy, which I must admit is a rather nifty approach to conflict resolution and very close to what he claims is being done in this bill.

I doubt that many non gun owners will be persuaded to support gun owners in America with such tactics or such thinking but that's obviously not what they're intended to do. There's probably as much chance of changing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's mind as there is of changing Mr. Lee's mind, unless Gun Owners of America tells him to do it.

It seems that several of these so-called "grassroots organizations" have affiliated with Gun Owners of America and follow their line now. Sad.

 

[outerlimit]

What is wrong with GOA's agenda?


It's alot better than the NRA's, which is collecting donations and helping get anti-gun Bills passed.

 

[Phil Lee]

Reply to the ad hominem attack by Robert Hairless

Mr. Hairless writes "You've probably figured out by now that Phil Lee is here to defend the Gun Owners of America's agenda" and cites a link on one of my pages to "GOA Analysis of Fed Bills". Typical of people who engage in such attacks, he failed to check his evidence. His link is to a 2002 GOA page. He didn't notice that I'm so tightly tied into GOA that I haven't updated that link in nearly 5 years. So, I don't have the link to GOA's analysis of current federal bills.

I don't normally pay attention to federal legislation -- more typically I'm involved in the fight in Maryland. But, while we're talking about my web site, I hope those who visit will pay attention to other links on that page including to the NRA -- seem Mr. Hairless is sufficiently clueless that he didn't understand my dealing with "those looking for advice on what to buy as a first gun for self-defense . . . ."

I'm sure the rest of you will be amused by my construction and see nothing sinister in it beyond a slam at grabbers.

While you are there, you might take a look around at my briefs page, of which I'm particularly proud. On that page, we've developed much hard information of use for our side including work used to defend RKBA in Maryland against an effort to ban AWs (pay particular attention to my work in documenting the deaths of LEOs in Maryland and nationally).

Mr. Hairless states "For Mr. Lee, "Maryland Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," and Gun Owners of America anyone who disagrees with them is crazy, which I must admit is a rather nifty approach to conflict resolution and very close to what he claims is being done in this bill", but I defy him to cite a link which has a statement such as that by me. He simply lies.

I've looked at the HR 2640 bill, and have some questions which I suspect he can't or doesn't want to answer. So, instead of answering, he employs a character assassination approach which I've seen more often from the grabbers.

While you are about examining my RKBA activities, you should note that I'm a moderator of Maryland Alert too. For those of you who want to see what I mostly do, you are welcome to join -- however, if you try, you'll see that you are required to be a member of a national group and the NRA is one of the acceptable ones. So is SAF, Second Amendment Sisters, GOA and others. But, we don't allow character assassination on Maryland Alert -- I think you'd say it isn't "the high road".

 

[Phil Lee]

Reply to ilbob

ilbob says

You are making an unwarranted assumption that more cops on the street = less crime. I have seen no evidence that is the case.

No I didn't. I suggest you read my comment more closely. I ask whether cops on the street or the provisions of the bill would affect public safety more? I would guess the effectiveness of NICS improvement would be about zero to reducing violence. If you are right, both cops and NICS are a waste of money?

If you believe otherwise about NICS, give us some evidence.

 

[jamz]

Well, I'm certainly ready with some popcorn!

F5-F5-F5

 

[TexasRifleman]

"However, if you have never fired a gun, don't want to have guns, and want more more controls on the law-abiding, then you might find a better place to visit is here."

They should change that and send them here:


http://www.a-human-right.com/

 

[JohnKSa]

It's obvious, I think, that Gun Owners of America is more concerned with fighting against the NRA...

They HAVE to. Their existence is predicated on a well-defined difference between them and the NRA.

If they don't come across as opposed to the NRA on signficant issues there's no reason for them to exist or for people to become members.

 

[olhippie]

....For me this proposed law is not all that complicated. It is nothing more than handing over EXPANDED authority to our federal gov't to decide who may , and who may not exercise thier "Inalienable" 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. When gov't chooses between more power to the people or more power and authority to gov't over the people, it NEARLY ALWAYS chooses the latter! Gov't also always tries to sell it's plans for freedoms reductions in the cloak of some promised greater security. One only needs to carefully study our past history to see that today, after having bought into so many of these gov't 'soap sales', we're not safer, on the contrary we're less safe,and less free as well.
.....The truth is these gun control schemes just don't work, history's stats prove it. Criminals will not obey laws,they'll get thier guns anyway. The poor law abiding subject just becomes more the pawn and victim of criminals, AND big brother tyrannical gov't..

....ENFORCE existing law,and go no further with the destruction of our 2nd amendment. Look at England and Australia, and to a lesser extent Canada. In the case of the first two mentioned countries, the abolition of free possession of forearms has INCREASED the incidence of crimes of violence WITH FIREARMS! Canada's restrictive gun laws haven't been effective either, save in thier effect of costing the tax payers billions more loonies ($)without adding to thier security in a statistically measurable way. It all adds up to a hoax so far as better security goes, but a reality of greater loss of freedom!

 

[orionengnr]

Read the proposed legislation.

Not the press releases.

Please.

 

[camacho]

It is nothing more than handing over EXPANDED authority to our federal gov't to decide who may , and who may not exercise thier "Inalienable" 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

It does not expand authority, the only thing it does is improve sharing of information that prevents people who are already barred (under current law) from possessing firearms. Read the bill:

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

If any of you who are crying bloody murder about this bill are against certain regulation(s) in the current law, then just say it. However, presenting this bill as something that it isn't, means you either have not read and understood this bill, or you have some ulterior motives. In the case of GOA, it is definitely the latter.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Veterans rights with NICS and what they can do

Actually, Phil Lee, you're correct that I didn't spend much time on your web site. My own opinion is that it's not very good and isn't of interest to people who want to pursue positive steps forward for gun owners. Like Gun Owners of America it destroys instead of creates. Instead of trying to persuade people who don't own guns that people who do own them are okay, and that those non gun owners might benefit from learning about firearms and the people who own them, you send them off to a mental health site. Your contempt is obvious.

So I'm not surprised that your link the Gun Owners of America page hasn't been updated since 2002 but I am surprised that you see your failings as something I've done wrong. It's not my fault that you're spreading and defending the destructive nonsense emanating from Gun Owners of America, and I'm even more surprised that you say I've assassinated your character by saying so. Perhaps if your character were stronger it would not be so easily assassinated.

All I did was click on the link in your signature block on messages you posted here. That took me from The High Road to the home page of your web site. At your home page I clicked on your link to the Gun Owners of America "analyses" and was taken to the page I identified here. Since you think it's unfair that my comment revealed that you're five years behind on updating that link, I'll amend my comment to withdraw the suggestion that people take the scenic route through your site. I'm easy.

You're a little behind in other ways too, or maybe you're less interested in veterans than in attacking a bill that will help them, because you've ignored the notice published by Larry Scott on VA Watchdog.org on October 3, 2007:

I have yet to hear from a single veteran who ended up on the NICS list in error. I have heard from a veteran who has a diagnosis of PTSD and was voluntarily committed for observation. He purchased a handgun with no trouble.

In the full article on that independent site concerned with protecting veterans rights, Mr. Scott published the text of a Veterans Administration document that explains how some veterans got on the NICS list, details their rights, and explains how those on the list wrongly could get off it.

If you really are concerned about veterans, why not use your time directing them to that useful document on VA Watchdog instead of attacking the NRA and the bill that gives veterans even greater protection: H.R. 2069.

It's much more satisfying to help people who served our country than to prey on their fears, although such a constructive activity probably isn't as much fun as attacking me for joining those who object to what you're doing. So I don't expect you to stop doing it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Just in case anyone is interested, here's a sequel to the story of that homeless woman Ed Koch and the City of New York tried to commit involuntarily for treatment as a danger to herself and others. Her name was Joyce Brown. On March 31, 1988, Time Magazine reported that she won the right not to be treated, was released in January, appeared on the Phil Donahue show and lectured at Harvard on homelessness, and was back on the streets by mid March begging and shouting obscenities at passersby.

She was represented against Koch and the City by the New York Civil Liberties Union who won her freedom to return to the streets. That was years before the Brady Law and NICS, of course, so she probably also would have had the right to possess a gun while she lived over a hot air grate on Second Avenue--if she lived somewhere other than New York City, of course, where most citizens including the homeless aren't able to own one legally. I understand that she admitted to using cocaine and heroin, and that she was arrested for assault a few years before. It might be interesting to wonder who would want Joyce Brown (aka Billie Boggs and Anne Smith) armed and free on their city streets, but speculation about the unknown and perhaps unknowable is unprofitable even while it is an interesting diversion.

After her release from a mental hospital in January, Joyce Brown seemed to have a new start in life. As one of the first homeless people picked up in Mayor Ed Koch's program to take people suspected of being mentally ill off the street, Brown won a controversial test case when a judge ruled that she could not be forced to submit to treatment. The former "Billie Boggs," as she called herself, appeared on Donahue and lectured to Harvard Law School students on the plight of the homeless. She found housing in a somewhat seedy hotel in Times Square.

Last week, however, there were signs that Brown's newfound status had not cured her deeper problems. She was spotted back on the street, begging for money and shouting obscenities at passersby. The next day Brown claimed that she had needed cash for cigarettes and food. "I'm not insane," she insisted. It remains to be seen whether Brown has sacrificed her well-being by standing up for her rights.

 

[Phil Lee]

Mr. Hairless continues with the Ad Hominem and deceptions

Mr. Hairless continues with ad hominem attack and avoidance of the questions (at least most of them) that I raised.

Actually, my concern is less with veterans than due process of law which is completely inadequate to protect the "innocent" in the mental health arena. But his pointing to the Scott article update showing the complex procedure for veterans to appeal being placed for whatever reason on the NICS list and denied their right to arms is interesting. Does that process exist today? If it does, tell me again why we need to address veterans in HR2640 in order to have their rights restored? If it doesn't exist, it is just one more illustration of how the government giveth and taketh away -- but the appeal process established in HR2640 will be different won't it?

Mr. Hairless sees no alarm that courts would agree to mental health commitment of a woman as a danger to herself (just the finding needed to deny right to arms) on the basis that her behavior created a risk of attack from others -- that happened. The other issues Mr. Hairless raised were not raised in the commitment hearing. Mr. Hairless appears to believe that the issue is essentially whether this woman is "good people", since he reports she had been previously arrested for assault (and not convicted) or may have used drugs (but not convicted) or whether my opinion is she should have arms or even whether having no address in NYC qualified her to have arms. These are not relevant at all to the legal issue in the commitment hearing or the legal issue of concern today. The legal issue is whether this case points to a problem in the law that puts us at risk of losing rights and being imprisoned contrary to the Constitution.

It seems that Mr. Hairless thinks that the government can tell who is "good people" and is perfectly happy that the government can make those decisions about people based on their drinking behavior (as illustrated by Missouri) or obnoxiousness (as the courts of NY have held) or that Scott knows of no errors made by the VA (really that is too absurd).

Mr. Hairless seems to be quite happy that due process was not adequate in the past for mental health cases, is not adequate today and that HR2640 provides no useful standard for the future to protect the rights of the people. It is illustrative of his attitude that he quotes Time Magazine(?) as saying:

It remains to be seen whether Brown has sacrificed her well-being by standing up for her rights.

Some people make sacrifices of their well-being by standing up for our rights. It is a trade-off that Time won't ever understand and neither does Mr. Hairless. Some of us admire the willingness to make those sacrifices.

I'll have to live with Mr. Hairless' opinion of my web site -- differences of opinion make for horse races and other contests. Perhaps, Mr. Hairless might point to his accomplishments in building web sites or other pro-RKBA activities so that we can share in the magnificence of his contributions. I would be happy to learn from his example.

I hesitate to point to Mr. Hairless' opinion since it isn't relevant to the questions I raised, but it would be interesting if he would give specific answers (and actually do some work on the issue of HR2640) instead of trying to explain objections to the bill in terms of choosing up sides. We're not playing a child's game of a team sport such as football and I haven't been chosen by a side for a game. Especially, I'm not on the GOA team and against the NRA team.

I have serious questions which some would rather not answer -- it appears. Anyone caring about the issue and reading this interchange can certainly judge for them self whether Mr. Hairless is interested in the issue or interested in just winning.

 

[swifteagle]

I am a current NRA & GOA member. When I got the first GOA alert I was very concerned which led me to do lots of research since I knew the information was the opposite of what I had heard from the NRA. After much research I've concluded that their claims related to the bill are false - its like they just made stuff up that isn't even in the bill. I don't know why they are making false claims. It could be that they are hoping to cause current NRA members to not renew with the NRA & join GOA instead. Perhaps that may work for some NRA members. I think however that GOA may have overlooked people like myself that support multiple gun rights organizations for the greater good. I've decided not to renew my GOA membership once it expires, and there may be other folks like me who will do the same. I've even removed GOA from my signature list of memberships because the recent alert frenzy has made it embarrassing to even admit to being a GOA member. Will the net result of this attack against the NRA be positive or negative for GOA? I don't know, but I think it was a bad tactic that hurts all gun owners overall which is why I'm opposed to it. If they want to be opposed to a bill that is fine, just give out correct information in the alerts & don't include attacks on other good gun rights organizations.

Gun owners need to work together for the greater cause. We can either all hang together, or we will hang separately. I bet that the not nearly a million mom marchers, the violence policy folks, & the Brady folks rejoice when gun rights groups attack each other. Lets not give them any reason to rejoice.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Phil, you do have a lot of questions--a whole lot of questions. But they're not real questions and you don't want real answers. You're asking rhetorical questions calculated to make your point and to further your agenda. What you're doing is transparent, Phil, which probably explains why most people are ignoring your tedious list of rhetorical questions and the points you're trying to score with them. The points fall flat.

Oddly enough Mr. Hairless remembered Joyce Brown from the time of her case. But you didn't have to be there to know that the case of Joyce Brown or Billie Boggs or Anne Smith--any of the names she used--was adjudicated in the courts and she won.

So all that stuff you've said about courts agreeing "to mental health commitment of a woman as a danger to herself (just the finding needed to deny right to arms) on the basis that her behavior created a risk of attack from others -- that happened" is a distortion.

Her case was adjudicated and, as I said, "Brown won a controversial test case when a judge ruled that she could not be forced to submit to treatment." She won and she was back on the streets. You pick and choose what supports the argument behind your "questions" and ignore the rest, like a little kid picking mushrooms out of a salad. Your methods are transparent, Phil.

Comments about what I "appear to believe" are amusing coming from a man who now casts his argument as indignation about "character assassination " and "ad hominem attacks." That's what you've been doing since I pointed out your defense of the Gun Owners of America line, and that's what you do in statements like this:

Mr. Hairless seems to be quite happy that due process was not adequate in the past for mental health cases, is not adequate today and that HR2640 provides no useful standard for the future to protect the rights of the people.

In fact Mr. Hairless has pointed out several times that Joyce Brown did receive due process, that it was adequate, and that its adequacy is demonstrated by the fact that she prevailed ... she won ... she beat it ... she was turned loose ... she was vindicated ... What form of the English language do you understand, Phil? Or is it less a matter of not understanding plain English than not caring about anything that doesn't confirm your assertions. Who knows. Who cares.

Your arguments are circular. You don't need anyone to "answer" your "questions." Your questions are your answers. You're in an extended monologue cast as a dialogue. Enjoy your indignation.

Swifteagle, newer to this forum than even you, speaks wisely. He read the bill, read what Gun Owners of America said about it, and came to his own conclusions. That's the action that I and many others here have been advocating.

 

[JohnBT]

"Right now, I suspect, many people committed for chemical dependencies or with mild mental illnesses which might result in being committed against their will are not on any disqualified list."

I've worked with individuals with disabilities - physical, mental, emotional, drug, alcohol. etc. - for more than 33 years in Virginia and I've never seen anyone who was involuntarily committed for a chemical dependency or mild mental illness. I'm not just relying on what I've heard either, I get to see the medical, psychiatric, court, welfare, community service board, school, etc. records.

I have seen convicted felons sent to halfway houses where some sort of drug/alcohol therapy is a part of the program, but like I said, they were already felons.

I'll ask around the office Tuesday. Maybe one of the oldtimers has heard of it happening.

John

P.S. - Note that I said involuntarily committed. Lots of people get sent for the 72-hour evaluation (green warrant), but are never committed.

 

[RealGun]

These provisions may seem innocuous to read them, but let's wait and see what gets tacked on and passed with this McCarthy/Schumer thing. The best gun control measure is no gun control measure. Note that when you pass a measure to improve or clarify, you validate the original law.

Bringing the Trojan Horse inside the gates seemed like a good idea at the time. Look back and find how many laws are being used differently than they were represented when passed or how they actually read. RICO is just one example.

I am with those who feel like they need a shower when asked to support a McCarthy or Schumer initiative. The ONLY initiative I would truly feel good about is some repeal.

 

[Phil Lee]

When Mr. Hairless says of the NY case instigated by Mayor Koch

she [Joyce Brown] won ... she beat it ... she was turned loose ... she was vindicated ... What form of the English language do you understand

he is either not telling the truth, or more likely, not paying attention (he seems to do that a lot). Joyce Brown was adjudicated and lost her case in Court and the basis of that loss is what was important. She was committed for 80+ days on the basis that she was a risk to herself and the court cited her verbal abuse of others created a danger she'd be attacked.

I gave the link to the NY Times article. Check it out to see if Mr. Hairless has it right or I do. Subsequently, Ms. Brown refused to take medication and she was released by city doctors (ref. NY Times article "Joyce Brown Panhandles Again", March 10, 1988) after they were barred by the courts from forcing medication on her. Doctors released her not the courts.

Released or not, she still has the "adjudication" against her. And the point is whether we want to encourage action against gun owners caught in similar circumstances?

I wouldn't accuse Mr. Hairless of being unable to read English, but he does seem very careless of facts. I wonder why?

In NY it is possible for a mildly disturbed person to be committed involuntarily to mental treatment with a finding of dangerousness to self but not, as we all might think, because that person is believed likely to physically do harm. I expect that is true in other states. There appears to be a danger to gun owners from "adjudications" that proceed on such vague and nebulous grounds even if they are in courts -- and the Joyce Brown seems a good one to illustrate the case since she never threatened people with physical harm nor did medical professionals assert that Ms. Brown was likely to physically attack someone. The Courts of NY committed her to treatment with a holding that she created a danger to herself because others might attack her. So, what does HR2640 do to fix that danger? Don't tell me that it gives a right of appeal -- tell me what national standards does it impose on hearings to protect rights.

The image many maintain is that a person accused of mental illness and undergoing a commitment process lacks the necessary moral capacity to maintain his/her “right to liberty” and that is frequently wrong. The case of Joyce Brown demonstrated no lack of moral understanding on her part -- no one established that Ms. Brown lacked the ability to distinguish right from wrong. What this case demonstrates is an all too often situation in which people accused of being mentally ill are often deprived of their rights unjustly and based on incapacities not related to the right in question.

The basic question for me is whether our legal commitment processes (so call "adjudications") do a good enough job to protect the rights of those accused. We're talking about civil commitment processes, not criminal, and the civil standards do not protect rights as well as criminal processes.

BTW, in Maryland the first step in a commitment process doesn't even involve courts. For most, it isn't until the adjudication is appealed that the accused gets to see a real judge. Is that an acceptable standard for denying the right to arms?

Mr. Hairless asserts that my questions answer themselves. It is an admission that Mr. Hairless has no answer. It is just as well, he is so careless with his facts that his answers aren't to be believed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Duplicate.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=307220