The distinct odor of bullshit over HR2640 was beginning to subside, but it’s passage has once again caused me to smell the odor. I’m completely willing to give Gun Owners of America a break to be what they are, the “no compromise” gun group that stands ready to charge up and take the hill. I don’t expect them to like HR2640. I do expect, however, that they will make factual and non-inflammatory arguments against it, and not try to smear other pro-gun groups who support it as the enemy. That does not help the cause. Let’s take a look:
The bill — known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents — is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.
As far as I know, GOA is the only group that’s called it the Veterans Disarmament Act, it’s an odd title for a bill that will help restore the right to bear arms to a great many veterans who might have had problems when they first came home, but don’t now.
The core of the bill’s problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a “prohibited person” on the basis of a “medical finding of disability,” so long as a veteran had an “opportunity” for some sort of “hearing” before some “lawful authority” (other than a court). Presumably, this “lawful authority” could even be the psychiatrist himself.
This is nonsense. Here’s what the section in question actually says:
(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if–
(A) the adjudication 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 or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or
(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
This section is specifically calling for due process protections for people who are prohibited persons. I challenge GOA to show me any state law where a psychiatrist can unilaterally commit someone for mental health treatment. The very term “adjudication” requires that it be some legal authority. This is not a psychiatrist.
ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.
ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in — statutorily — huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.
And then it “graciously” allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.
Show me where in the bill is adds a new class of prohibited person. Seriously. It’s not there. They are pulling this out of their asses. What they also aren’t saying is that “gracious” allowing of people who are prohibited persons for mental health reasons doesn’t exist at all under current law, and the new senate version will actually allow them to attempt to recover legal fees from the government.
More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the “right hand” are taken away by the “left.” Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.” (Emphasis added.)
Um, doesn’t this language sound similar to those state codes (like California’s) that have “may issue” concealed carry laws — where citizens “technically” have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don’t grant the permits!
No, it actually sounds nothing like that. Sheriffs in California and other may issue states have much broader discretion than this. Here’s the actual language:
(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program–
(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;
(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person’s record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and
(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.
The emphasis there is mine. GOA’s argument is hinging on the subjectivity of the language, but almost all language in legislation is subjective. But again, I stress the relief this bill is creating is still better than the current system, which is to have no relief.
But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.
Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. There’s no reasonable reading of that section which supports that argument. I have no problem if GOA wants to oppose this bill. Reasonable people can disagree on its merits, and it’s certainly reasonable to argue it doesn’t go far enough. But I can’t stand to see GOA going to such lengths to deceive people as to exactly what this bill does, and doesn’t do, and couch their opposition in hyperbolic and inflammatory language. I will never give a dime to GOA because of crap like this, and that’s a shame, because we need other groups to go out on limbs that NRA isn’t able to.
