Remember... the NRA Backed and helped get this bill Passed ! 
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
"For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." -- Military Order of the Purple Heart, June 18, 2007
ACTION:
1. Even if you have already sent an e-mail to your Senators on the McCarthy bill, please send another such as the one at the end of this alert. Yes, you might have already taken action on HR 2640. But if you (and many other gun owners like yourself) haven't taken any action recently, then NO ONE is taking action. After all, the NRA is supporting this bill, so they're not rustlin' up the troops in opposition to this massive gun control bill. Remember the immigration fight -- it took weeks of continued activism to kill that bill. This fight may very well be the same.
2. Please try to get as many of your friends as you can to join with you in this effort to kill the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Now that Senators are returning from their July 4th holiday, we need to get as many gun owners as possible to remind them that HR 2640 is unacceptable!
McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE
Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in jeopardy once again!
You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640) without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it on the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.
An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.
But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!
So it's not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislative process, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR 2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after an offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg Community College in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in that state.
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was arrested, but not charged with anything.
The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say. But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR 2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy bill. Right?
Well, think again.
DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?
The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders (such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a tyrannical American government?
Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting a detailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make a statement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'd blow him away!"
Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts think you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to others?
Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2) codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code says it only takes a "lawful authority" to "adjudicate" someone as a mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear this "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)
Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years, but they've been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not statutory law).
But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF THE LAND -- even though those regs were never submitted to a legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can fall into this category of "other lawful authority" that can deem someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.
But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A school counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city councilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their own right. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?
Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of what the words "lawful authority" in 27 CFR 478.11 mean -- once they have been "statutized" by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?
If the "lawful authority" thinks you pose a danger to yourself or others (or can't manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could be gone.
In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using the Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?
As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.
HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politician nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing psychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over. Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.
http://www.capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=9985246
