My senator needs your help

[pills]

Sen. Coburn Standing Alone In Holding Up The Veterans Disarmament Act
-- Coburn needs your help right away!

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007


"When the NRA and Chuck Schumer agree, that tells you it's something
worth doing," Schumer said. -- The Associated Press, September 26,
2007


The quote above explains the problem we are facing. Both sides of
the gun control debate -- with the exception of Gun Owners of America
and many pro-gun groups at the state level -- are supporting the
Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640).

"Propelled by a rare alliance between the National Rifle Association
and majority Democrats," the AP explained, "the legislation was
passed in similar form by the House and would be the first major gun
control law in more than a decade." Both sides are screaming for
passage of this bill!

But you should realize that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been working
with Gun Owners of America and, right now, is standing ALONE in the
U.S. Senate to hold up this dangerous piece of legislation -- which
is being pushed by the Queen of Gun Control in the House (Carolyn
McCarthy of New York) and the King of Gun Control in the Senate
(Chuck Schumer of New York).

Consider what the above news report had to say late last night:

"Majority Democrats in the Senate were poised as early as this past
Monday to bring the bill to a vote until Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.,
objected," the AP stated.

Sen. Coburn understands that the bill is anathema to gun rights and
will result in the disarmament of (potentially) millions of
additional, law-abiding Americans. "Veterans, or any other American,
should not lose their Second Amendment rights," he said, "if they
have been unfairly tagged as having mental health concerns."

Coburn gets it. He is absolutely correct in regard to his concerns
with the bill. But why aren't other pro-gun Senators standing with
him?

Your help is desperately needed right now. Even if you have taken
action against this bill in the past -- even the recent past -- we
still need you to do so again. There are two important action items:

ACTION ITEM #1:

Please contact Senator Tom Coburn via his webform at
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home
to thank him for his defense of gun rights. He's willing to fight the fight,
but it will help him know that he has millions of gun owners standing
behind him. (A pre-written letter is provided below to guide your
comments to Sen. Coburn.)

ACTION ITEM #2:

Please use the second pre-written message to contact one of the other
Senators who need to join Sen. Coburn in actively working to defeat
the Veterans Disarmament Act -- just choose the one nearest to you.
The Senators who need to hear from you, and their contact info, are
as follows:

Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana
Webform:
http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=webformIQV1
Phone: 202-224-4623

Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Webform:
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Phone: 202-224-4343

Sen. James Inhofe
Webform:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Phone: 202-224-4721

Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho
Webform:
http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Phone: 202-224-6142

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina
Webform:
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Phone: 202-224-6121


----- Pre-written letter to Sen. Coburn -----

Dear Senator Coburn:

Thank you so much for standing up for the rights of gun owners! You
are a breath of fresh air in an institution where senators often put
the interests of their fellow legislators above the interests of the
American people.

Your defense of liberty is being noticed out here in the
"hustings."
And we are very grateful for what you've done in opposing the
Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640). Please continue to stand strong;
you have our support behind you!

Sincerely,


----- Pre-written letter to Senators Vitter (R-LA), Bunning (R-KY),
Inhofe (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID) or DeMint (R-SC) -----

Dear Senator:

I gather from press reports that Senator Tom Coburn is courageously
blocking passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640). I know
that you are a pro-gun senator, and it just seems to me that you
should be standing beside him in actively opposing this bill.

The Associated Press noted the "rare alliance between the National
Rifle Association and majority Democrats." It also quotes the
notoriously anti-gun Senator Schumer as saying, "When the NRA and
Chuck Schumer agree, that tells you it's something worth doing."
Well, I disagree.

While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
they support the Veterans Disarmament Act, which is being sponsored
by Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640) and is being pushed by
Chuck Schumer in the Senate.

Please... please... please... stand with Senator Coburn in fighting
this legislation. The bill is anathema to gun rights and will result
in the disarmament of (potentially) millions of additional,
law-abiding Americans.

That is why the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it,
having stated on June 18 of this year, that "[f]or the first time the
legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban
on battle-scarred veterans."

Grassroots gun owners are opposed to it, too. So please do
EVERYTHING you can to kill this bill. I hope you will contact me and
let me know what you intend to do.

Sincerely,

[Graybeard]

Just one more glaring example to show that the NRA is NOT the friend of gun owners.

[Redhawk1]

The fiction of H.R. 2640.  Here are the true facts.  Now who will you believe and if you don't believe this, what actions are you endorsing that the GOA is part of???

THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL:  MYTH AND REALITY


Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.   

The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete.  But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill.  The following are some of the common myths.

MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."   
FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons."  The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons.  H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill.  In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms. 

MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder." 
FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.   

A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process.  The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court.  Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.

Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.3.162218) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics."  Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640.  (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.4.162218.) 

Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs.  Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder  "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)." 
FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."   

Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."  They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."   

They are wrong.  Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position.  In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions."  Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way.  The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.

Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns. 
FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms.  NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark." 
FACT:  This case does not hold up to close investigation.  The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors.  (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.)  After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.

Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation.  Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms.  Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR%202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.

MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights. 
FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated.  When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf.  The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions.  Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2295.6.162218. 

MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program. 
FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill.  The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health.  BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do.  Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress. 
FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea.  NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners.  Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call." 
FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote.  This is not unusual.  The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote.  (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)

After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote.  There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018

[pills]

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640... that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment." -- Statement by the American Legion, Sep. 27, 2007

[pills]

I am posting this from another board I frequent for your consideration.

I oppose this bill - HR2640 - for the simple fact that the NICS is unconstitutional to begin with. It doesn't matter what good it does, if any. I find the NRA's support of this bill unacceptable. But, rather than quitting the NRA, I propose the following as laid out in my message to the NRA:

Dear NRA,

HR 2640, regardless of all the supposed good it will do, is still part of unconstitutional law. Supporting this bill is no better than passing any other unconstitutional law. All this bill does is increase the dependence upon unconstitutional law to supposedly prevent criminal activity instead of forcing law enforcement and the judicial system to keep violent criminals and the mentally incompetent or untrustworthy off the streets. Preventing crime is nearly impossible. Being armed to address crime as it happens is the best way to handle crime. This is one case where the ounce of prevention is worthless compared to the pound of cure that is needed to save lives and preserve property when criminals are determined to ply their trade.


It isn't up to us here in the NRA to provide for, or support, solutions to the judicial system that enables them to shirk their responsibilities to keep those adjudicated untrustworthy either institutionalized or imprisoned; or to execute those adjudicated as irredeemable and dangerous. The only thing NICS does is "allow" the court to release dangerous criminals from prison by forcing everyone to pass a background check before they can buy or carry an arm in the hopes that the NICS will keep arms out of the hands of the violent criminals. We all know how well that works, don't we!


I seriously considered no longer supporting the NRA when it comes out in favor of such misguided endeavors as the NICS. But then I remember it's MY National Rifle Association. I would rather address the internal solution - that being the firing of all those who voted in what ever committee or executive session that made the decision to support this bill.


Please forward to me the names and positions held of all employees of the National Rifle Association who had a hand in the decision to support HR 2640. If you include the names and positions of all members of any such committee or executive board, please include how they cast their votes so that I may be able to single out those who voted in support of this bill. It is my wish to mount a campaign to vote these people out of their positions, and to campaign for NRA members who will support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms AS PROTECTED by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Bruce Wood

It's OUR NRA. It's our voice. When it doesn't speak as we wish, it's time to change the decision makers. Send them your message (or copy this one and personalize it) and request those names. If enough of us ask, the NRA powers-that-be just might be forthcoming with that list. Surely they'll wish to send us such a list. They make no bones about sending us lists of those in Congress who should be supported or defeated, don't they?

[Redhawk1]

All I can tell you is, the bill is no different than what the current law already has in effect. I for one do not want someone with a mental condition owning guns. Regardless if they served in the Military or were just the guy off the street.

[Graybeard]

Just more NRA lies foisted on us by their Number One loyal blind follower. Some day even you will wake up open your eyes and see them for what they really are. Of course by then it will be TOO LATE and your guns will be gone thanks to your buddies at the NRA.

[Redhawk1]

Graybeard, the information I posted did not all come from the NRA, most were independent news outlets.  But I guess if the GOA did not say it, it must not be true. So exactly who has blinders on here? You were the one who told me to do research and I did, I think you need to research the group you support. If you like there direction they are going and who they support and give money to, then by all means support them and be happy with your decision.

It is obvious the NRA has nothing to hide, what they do is always posted on there web site. The GOA is the one that hides most of there agenda and for good reason.

[chikndave]

Hey thanks for the heads up! I am a member of the NRA and will be checking all of this thoroughly. Thanks for the good links too!

[pills]

I just got a call from them. Wayne wanted to send me a knife if I would give 50 or 75 dollars. After giving the guy an earful and listening to "You wouldn't even have a gun today if it wasn't for the NRA for the third time" I asked him a few questions.

1. How can the NRA even think about joining hands with Mcarthy?
2. If Wayne is the VP then why is he the frontman?
3. How can you tell me how bad it might be with Hillary when you are supporting one of her agenda items rit now?

He then offered to send me the knife for 25. I told him that I wouldn't give twenty five cents to be associated with the NRA today. In his spill he said the NRA was the "only group" standing up for my rights. I asked him about the other groups out there and he said "I ain't saying the NRA is better than them." I educated him on the word only as in excluding all others. I know he was just reading a script but still.

I told him to call me back the day after Wayne Lapierre was no longer running the NRA and I would consider rejoining.

703-656-9939 is the number to call if you want to hear the script.