Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back

[LifeNRA]

Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back

-- Veterans Disarmament Act on its way to the President

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/ordergoamem.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------

"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" --

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back

yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his

congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called

"compromise" on

HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents --

is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady

Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady

Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to

the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end

product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this

legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101©(1)©, 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.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have

to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The

veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an

attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

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.

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!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these

people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been

illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting

relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton

Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady

Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101©(1)© of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal

actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily

barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their

rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't

have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of

inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend

thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the

wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a

veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.

Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House

yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill

passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White

House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise"

deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were

only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a

Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady

bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had

already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to

read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of

fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited

resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady

Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and

were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of

that shooting.

Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away.

GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding

Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the

books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the

House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.