Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/change-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire-77709/)

Overkill0084 12-04-2012 08:31 PM

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire
 
I hadn't heard anything about this.
Seems reasonable. you want to take away someone's rights, you need due process. Not too hard, or at least it shouldn't be.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/?page=all#pagebreak
Quote:

A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.
“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”
The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.
“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”
After a similar plea from Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, and a warning from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, that the move could embolden Democrats’ push for filibuster reforms, Mr. Coburn eventually backed off.
“There’s more here, frankly, than just a refusal to allow an amendment,” Mr. McCain said. “That is going to mean that it’s more likely that we have this showdown, which we think — many of us think — would be devastating to this institution and the way that it’s done business for a couple of hundred years.”
The quarrel over the broader bill and the filibuster continued on the Senate floor Monday when Mr. McCain dinged Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, when he alluded to Mr. Paul’s previous threats to filibuster the bill if there was not a vote on an amendment to ensure a trial to American citizens accused of terrorism. That provision was approved by the Senate last week.
The measure that sparked last week’s late-night imbroglio is also part of a still-pending sportsman’s bill that the Senate declined to vote on last week. Similar legislation has been proposed in past years, and a bill introduced by Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican, and Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, passed the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs unanimously in September.
The debate on the measure should not be about gun control, but about veterans’ mental health, said Tom Tarantino, senior legislative associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“If even one person will not go to seek the help they need and they fall through the cracks because we failed to remove the mental health stigma as much as possible, then we’ve failed,” he said. “Right now, what happened is someone pulled the thread of politics in something that should not political. And that thread’s starting to unravel.”
But Brian Malte with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said simply that if Mr. Coburn’s amendment passes, more than 100,000 people deemed medically incompetent would immediately be able to purchase guns. He also noted that the declaration is not absolute.
“There is due process,” Mr. Malte said. “Gun possession is allowed if competency is restored. It’s up to the professionals to make that determination.”
The 1993 Brady Bill established a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ enforcement regulations declared that those deemed mentally defective could not purchase or possess a firearm.
The Department of Veterans Affairs forwards the names of those labeled mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion in a national federal database, barring them from purchasing or carrying firearms.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.

locutus 12-05-2012 10:59 PM

Yeah. sure! Makes a lotta sense.

Give a guy a machine gun and tell him to kill as many folks as he can. Then bring him home and tell him he's no longer fit to enjoy the rights of the constitution. :mad::mad::mad:

John_Deer 12-05-2012 11:53 PM

Such bills will be a deterrent to recruiting. If one can be stripped of their rights for serving our country, why should recruits who love guns risk losing the thing they love the most?

alsaqr 12-08-2012 01:08 PM

Senator Coburn caved in to the demands of senators McCain, Schumer and others. McCain did not want to rock the boat. So much for veterans rights.

Quote:

After a similar plea from Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, and a warning from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, that the move could embolden Democrats’ push for filibuster reforms, Mr. Coburn eventually backed off.
Read more: http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight#ixzz2ETA3ov8G

http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight

bobski 12-08-2012 01:13 PM

let me see this correctly...

they want a judge to rule on a vets status instead of DVA.
as it is now, DVA does, which doesnt allow vets to have guns?

hoovco 12-08-2012 03:53 PM

When you get back, they tell you that seeking help will have no repercussion on your career or your rights. How many vets will want to seek help knowing that they may lose their second amendment rights? This sucks. Our policy makers are a bunch of retards.

FullautoUSA 12-09-2012 10:39 PM

The government really wants to kill our veterans don't they, first they send them off to fight an unjust moronic war and then they take away the only thing that can protect them against criminals. Basically the government is saying that they have to fight for our freedoms but they can't exercise those freedoms? I hope every Veteran denied the right to own a gun because of their financial situation sues the federal government for everything they had in the 80's because right now they are in the negatives.

therewolf 12-10-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullautoUSA (Post 1045846)
The government really wants to kill our veterans don't they, first they send them off to fight an unjust moronic war and then they take away the only thing that can protect them against criminals. Basically the government is saying that they have to fight for our freedoms but they can't exercise those freedoms? I hope every Veteran denied the right to own a gun because of their financial situation sues the federal government for everything they had in the 80's because right now they are in the negatives.

No, the government doesn't want to be bothered with killing

our honored, battle hardened veterans.

They just want to DISCARD them, like soiled dishrags...:mad:

Chainfire 12-10-2012 12:53 PM

There is nothing new about this. The Federal government has banned people with mental disabilities from buying firearms for as long as I can remember. The problem for the Vets is that they are screened for mental disabilities where the general public is not.

The other issue is that, being a Vet, does not mean that you do not have a mental disability. If someone is suffering from a severe case of PTSD, they should not be able to buy a firearm, just as someone who is not a vet and has a mental disability should not be able to own a firearm. The rate of PTSD related suicides is far higher for vets then for the general public. They could, of course, jump in front of a truck or take poison, but they normally just take the easy, effective method and shoot themselves.

When a vet returns from service, they should have proper treatment, if they need it. They should have the assurance of good jobs, and a good transitional income, in order to return to a quality civilian life. As it is, they are no longer useful to the powers that sent them to war, so they are thrown on the junk heap. It would be far better, if we didn't persue wars to enrich the defense industry there wouldn't be the need for the Vets to be placed in the position to cause them injury; physical or mental.

trip286 12-10-2012 01:27 PM

There goes that blind adoration again...

What's new is that vets are being specifically targeted, and they're talking of using simply being financially unstable as grounds to declare a vet to be mentally incompetent. Financially unstable. In this economy. Hmmm....


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.