|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 9, 2009, 07:37 AM | #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act
The Brady Campaign is using the Fort Hood incident to muster support for their opposition to a new bill (The “Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act”) which would make it easier for veterans deemed by the VA to be
1) “mentally incapacitated,” 2) “mentally incompetent,” or 3) “experiencing an extended loss of consciousness” to retain possession of their firearms. Quote:
The BC argument is that Quote:
Though I am no fan of the Brady Bunch, the bill seems to me to undermine the VA, to increase bureaucracy, to complicate the law, and to put a burden on the courts. All of which may be completely justified if the end result is a genuine improvement in civil rights. Of that, however, I am unconvinced. I am guessing that this bill was prompted by a real-world situation in which someone actually should have had their right to keep arms restored, but didn't. But that's just a guess. I'm sure some of you know much more about this than I. So, explain to me exactly why the Bradys have got this one wrong. |
||
November 9, 2009, 09:43 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,300
|
I am a vet and have been diagnosed by the VA with PTSD, but luckily I was not a risk to myself or others as my shrink put it down on my records.
anyway, we (vets with issues like PTSD ) need to get as much protection for our 2A rights as possible. Lot of push to keep vets with PTSD or other issues away from their guns . this issue really got attention (in a bad way) when that whack job shot up Virginia Tech (he was not legally supposded to be able to own a gun anyway). now this shooting at Hood puts more negative light on the topic. and the shooter had never even been deployed and was shooting up the place (targeting coworkers) because he was going to be deployed and he had gotten bad evals the last few times. so he was just 'going postal' as a real bad disgruntled employee.
__________________
Lifetime member VFW and NRA "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (when all else fails play dead) -Red Green |
November 9, 2009, 10:08 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
What is the evidence that the current system is not giving enough protection to vets' 2A rights?
|
November 9, 2009, 02:01 PM | #4 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
In 2000, the VA had placed some 83,000-89,000 veterans who were deemed incapable of handling their own affairs; but not "a danger to themselves or others" on the NICS list.
This was one of the issues addressed by the somewhat controversial NICS Improvement Act. It looks like this bill takes this a step further than the NICS Improvement Act by saying that not only must they be found to be "a danger to themselves or others" in an adversarial hearing with due process; but that the hearing must be by a competent judicial authority (i.e. not just a VA medical review board or similar type of hearing). I may be missing something as I just glanced at it; but that is the major difference that jumps out at me. In practical terms though, it strikes me as a fairly minor difference since even the VA medicial review boards would have to meet the standards established for due process before they could deprive a veteran of any rights. It seems the primary purpose of this bill would be to end the debate over whether they met due process standards by making it clear what type of authority is required. |
November 9, 2009, 02:19 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. Last edited by MTT TL; November 9, 2009 at 04:26 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|