As Senate Reconvenes… Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
Of Relief For Gun Owners
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
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but
by the past. — Patrick Henry, in his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death” speech of March 23, 1775
Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you’re destined to
make the same mistakes in the future.
Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it’s a total gun
ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals.
But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even
when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics
who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that
millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy
guns.
For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy
bill — named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce
a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of
thousands of combat veterans — and other Americans. (While McCarthy
and Leahy are this year’s primary sponsors, the notorious Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years
past.)
Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun
owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun
owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners
(and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill
that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament
Bill now.
Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of
goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to
screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their
constitutionally protected rights — and that has opened the door to
all kinds of abuses.
The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses.
After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like
McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when
they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question
answers itself.
TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS
Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun
owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially
millions of new prohibited persons — under this legislation — and
then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain
the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?
Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don’t stop
criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding
folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue
that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament
Bill) to fix the problem!!!
So more people lose their rights, even while they’re promised a very
limited recourse for restoring those rights — rights which they
never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners
who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:
* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be
prohibited from owning firearms — based solely on a diagnosis of
post-traumatic stress disorder;
* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection
seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s (and there goes the
family inheritance);
* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a
diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Patrick Henry said he knew of “no way of judging of the future but by
the past.” The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and
bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny
guns to as many people as possible.
GUN CONTROL’S ABOMINABLE RECORD
A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a
significant number of Americans from buying guns because of
outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting
Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were
for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than
felony convictions.
Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners
inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes — especially when
those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).
Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms
because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of
their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season
this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days — which
is illegal.
And then there’s the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of
Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after
legislators figured out a way to restore people’s ability to buy
firearms — people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of
1996.
Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has
seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court
opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v.
United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction
which has been set aside or expunged at the state level “shall not be
considered a conviction,” under federal law, for the purposes of
owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling,
and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people’s
gun rights.
Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the
McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been
enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions
of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.
The new language on the 4473 form asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are
incompetent to manage your own affairs)….
Notice the words “determination” and “other lawful
authority.”
Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court
“ruling,” and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to
judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA
psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.
This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the
BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This
means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying
a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome because a “lawful authority” has decreed that they are a
potential danger to themselves or others.
No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the
McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, “For
the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.”
MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF
Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises
from the Dark Side — compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does
the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored —
even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that’s
VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy
piece entitled, “Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640,”
which can be read at http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm on the GOA
website.
In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability
to get “relief from disabilities” under section 925(c) was
always an
expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans
Disarmament Act will be the same.
Isn’t that always the record from Washington? You compromise with
the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at
the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have
provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security.
The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.
If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don’t hold your breath
waiting for the promised relief.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. 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:
While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick
Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).
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.” Gun owners don’t want
to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is
simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no
due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens
who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I
don’t believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters
are promising.
After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it
tells me you don’t care about a little thing known as the
Constitution.
Sincerely,
On March 9, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, in Parker v. District of Columbia, that D.C.’s prohibition on the possession of a handgun, and keeping any gun assembled and loaded in the home (the condition required for self-defense), are unconstitutional. The court agreed that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right of individuals, not a so-called “right” of a state to maintain a select militia, or a privilege to have guns only when serving in a select militia. The court also ruled that individuals have a right to possess handguns. 
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 