Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act - Guns for Emotionally Unstable Veterans...

[Junkdrawer]

What a GREAT idea...

...

In addition, our lawmakers must recognize that soldiers with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and who suffer high rates of combat fatigue, PTSD, substance abuse and other mental health concerns, are at greater risk due to the easy access to guns. Despite this fact, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is pushing a gun lobby backed bill, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (S. 669), that would limit the circumstances in which a veteran’s name could be added to a federal database used to do instant background checks for gun purchases.

Sen. Burr’s legislation would prohibit the Veteran’s Administration from submitting soldiers’ names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judge determines the veterans to be a danger to themselves or to others. Such a high standard ensures that soldiers will gain easier access to firearms regardless of their emotional state or mental health and will put themselves and others at greater risk of violence.

“This tragic shooting highlights the need for our policymakers to courageously stand up to the gun lobby to pass stronger gun laws and provide solutions to the 280 million guns in private hands that put us all at risk. Afterall, if the good men and women on our nation’s largest army base are vulnerable to a mass shooting, then clearly we have a national gun crisis that demands our attention,” said Sally Slovenski, Freedom States Alliance executive director.



http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-not-even-soldiers-are-safe-from-gun-violence-in-u-s-r-1257535677

[anonymous171]

1. He isn't a veteran though.

Actually, most anti-gun people would allow him to own a weapon, since he was military and was "properly trained" or whatever their reasoning is.

[-..__...]

2. The blood hasn't even dried yet, all the facts aren't in....

but the leeches and parasites at the Brady Campaign are already feeding on this tragedy in order to
push their agenda...

Statement on Fort Hood Tragedy

Nov 6, 2009

Washington, DC - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement about the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas:

“Our deepest sympathies go to the families who lost loved ones or are today visiting them in the hospital. Along with the rest of the country, we wish the Fort Hood community a return to a secure and safe environment.

“When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as ‘mentally incapacitated’ or ‘mentally incompetent.’ In light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected.

“America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/veteransleg


FWIW... I'm in full support of "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" as it is meant to right a shameful wrong.

Of course the Bradys mischaracterize the legislation by making it sound as if all mentally unstable and unfit former military personnel will have unfettered (and legal), access to firearms without any judicial or legal input whatsoever...



Sec. 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes

`In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 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.'.

[Junkdrawer]

3. I'm not surprised you would support such a law....And, per my OP...

...

Sen. Burr’s legislation would prohibit the Veteran’s Administration from submitting soldiers’ names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judge determines the veterans to be a danger to themselves or to others. Such a high standard ensures that soldiers will gain easier access to firearms regardless of their emotional state or mental health and will put themselves and others at greater risk of violence.

...

[-..__...]

4. Yet...

that's not good enough for the Bradys.

They would prefer it if any and all veterans diagnosed or treated for PTSD be disqualified for life from possessing firearms.

Where's the justice and petition for relief if all it takes is the opinion of one doctor that a person is unsuitable to own firearms?

[Junkdrawer]

5. Perhaps the veteran should be required to prove the VA is wrong...

instead of the VA required to go to court.

[-..__...]

6. Perhaps when someone is arrested and tried...

it should be required that they must prove their innocence rather than requiring the prosecutor proving their guilt?

[Junkdrawer]

7. In the case of gun access, I'm OK with guilty until proven innocent...

Especially if it's a licensed practitioner who declares the patient too unstable to own a gun.

Safety before individual gun rights.

[derby378]

8. Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither

I think Ben Franklin said that once.

If you want to tackle the issue of barring at-risk veterans from obtaining guns, I think a new approach is needed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. So you aren't a fan of the Constitution or Civil Rights. How progressive you are....

:sarcasm:

[Junkdrawer]

10. So...you're NOT in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of emotionally unstable people?

2nd Amendment as an absolute right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. I'm fine with people who are adjudicated mentally ill being barred from gun possession.

[Junkdrawer]

13. In many states, civilians who are admitted to mental health treatment facilities....

have that information to gun check databases...

...

Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have databases containing information submitted by courts or mental health treatment facilities on people with mental illness. In California, for instance, people who have been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and ruled a danger to themselves or others must be reported to the local law enforcement agency by an attending health care professional, according to the report.

"In most jurisdictions, law enforcement authorities have access to these mental health data and can use them to determine legal access to firearms," the report stated.

...


http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6

I'm guessing you think that's unconstitutional...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Those are people who are involuntarily committed. Not outpatients.

[X_Digger]

15. That's not how our legal system works..

My how progressive.. guilty until proven innocent.

[X_Digger]

12. You don't permanently revoke someone's rights without due process.

Nice precedent, though.. psychiatrists, not judges, as arbiter of your rights.

[Junkdrawer]

16. This law will pass...and people will die....

There will be a month or two delay now that Ft. Hood happened, but what the NRA wants, the NRA gets.

[X_Digger]

18. What the constitution demands.. the foundation of our legal system..

isn't going to change by nibbling away at it by knee-knocking ninnies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Well said.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I don't like guns but...

...the way you say it is scary.

I guess I can quip: Anyone who wants psychiatrists to judge our rights must be crazy and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Hyperbole of course but you get the point.

[X_Digger]

20. Yup.. but before something like this can pass..

You'd have to first repeal the fourteenth amendment (and all that it entails.. do people _really_ want to go down that road?)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Junkdrawer]

21. When Bush's Supreme Court made the 2nd Amendment into an Individual Right...

I said that there would be profound consequences.

This is just one example of what's coming....

[vadawg]

22. hasnt it always been an individual right :shrug: