Questioning H.R. 2640? NRA endorsed gun-control???

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/alerts ... 2640.shtml

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

Interesting analysis...

I'm still going through it, but I figure everyone else here should get a chance to take a crack at it...

[AEA]

This NRA is getting out of control!
Looks like they are moving towards the middle!

[stevie_d_64]

I wouldn't go that far...There have been plenty of bills that looked good on the surface, and through a few pages after that...

I just hope we get something that helps the process as a whole, and not divide and conquer as it appears this may do, until we get it ALL up on the table for everyone to see...

It actually made some sense to me on the surface at first, yet there was something, until now, that I felt kinda smelled from the get go...

[ELB]

I would not rely exclusively on nationalgunrights.org or the GOA for insight into this, or any other gun related issue.

If you read no other analysis, read the following one from Evan Nappen, attorney and Executive Vice President for Pro-Gun New Hampshire. I've excerpted part of it below, but do follow the link and go read the whole thing. If you have time, read the rest of this post, see what Dave Hardy and Clayton Cramer (no 2A slouches) have to say, and follow the links supplied.

Misguided NRA bashers are doing a better job of helping the anti-gun movement than the anti-gunners could do themselves. You may have heard or read things like "NRA pushing gun control" or "NRA supporting bill to disarm veterans" or "NRA in bed with Schumer and Kennedy," etc. A number of gun rights organizations have generated a wave of criticism over HR 2640 and its supposedly terrible effect on gun ownership. They make the NRA sound so bad that Sarah Brady might even become a Life Member. The misinformed pro-gunners who spew this venom are shooting our gun rights in the foot and potentially stopping thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens from regaining their gun rights.

NRA deserves PRAISE for HR 2640. In the aftermath of the atrocity at Virginia Tech, the NRA was able to turn a renewed anti-gun hysteria into a pro-gun gain. HR 2640 is a shrewdly devised bill that creates no new prohibited persons, limits records, helps veterans, and mandates a system of relief so that disqualified persons can legally own guns again. But hey, don't just take my word for it. This is why Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), OPPOSES HR 2640.

...

Much of "the sky is falling" alarmist warnings have been over the definition of the term "adjudicated as a mental defective"; they claim that with the bill allowing "adjudication" by not only a court, but by a "board, commission, or other lawful authority," a person could be prohibited from possessing guns by the declaration of a "board" of, say, any two anti-gun psychiatrists. What HR 2640 actually says is as follows (go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look up bill number HR 2640):

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

That's right: HR 2640 merely adopts the well settled federal regulation that has ALREADY defined the term for years. Here is what that regulation, 27CFR478.11, ALREADY says under the Code of Federal Regulations:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result
of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency,
condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to article
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

...

Even if HR 2640 is defeated, this regulation is not going away. HOWEVER, if HR 2640 is passed, then for the first time, folks who have lost their gun rights due to being "adjudicated as a mental defective" may get RELIEF, regardless of how the "adjudicated" term is defined! (See HR 2640 sections 105 - state relief - and 101(b)(c)(2) - federal relief.)

...

Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to make this bill law without delay so that thousands of folks denied their gun rights can get their rights restored, including 80,000 veterans disarmed by former President Clinton.


http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing

Consider also:

Attorney Dave Hardy, 2A scholar, producer of the the documentary In Search of the Second Amendment, blogging on Of Arms and the Law:

I've read the complex bill, and see it as a help. (1) It doesn't add anyone to the prohibited person list who isn't already there. (2) At most, it increases the number of names in the list, which isn't a good thing, but since it's already a felony for those folks to possess a gun, it's hard to see how letting them get a gun, and then be subject to prosecution, is a good idea. This way they at least get alerted. (3) Most importantly, it lets people on the list for a mental committent get off the list, and has pretty broad standards for letting them do it. Right now, if a person has EVER been committed to an institution, they are barred for life. There's no restoration of rights, or even pardon, such as we have in the area of a felony conviction. I know two people who are in that position, committed for a few days many years ago, thoroughly upstanding and stable people today -- but without something like this, they're barred for life.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/ ... r_2640.php

See also:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/ ... ntal_1.php

Consider also:

Historian, software engineer, and 2A scholar Clayton Cramer, author of Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie, In Defense of Themselves and the State, and several other books, as well as scholarly articles, and popular press columns. He also was the man who uncovered Bellesiles fraud in Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,, where Bellesiles purported to show that early America had few firearms, ergo the 2A could not be about individual ownership. Clayton found not only errors, but lies in Bellesiles' work, and eventually Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize was revoked and he was fired from his university for academic fraud.

In other words, Clayton is a solid 2A supporter AND a clear and detailed thinker:

The BATF letter also is quite clear that voluntary hospitalization or being held for observation is not a commitment, and neither is "a stay in a mental institution that never involved any form of adjudication by a lawful authority."

Yes, if a court went ahead and declared that a person was mentally defective because of Alzheimer's, he could be disarmed. But relatively few people are adjudicated as mentally defective because of Alzheimer's--and I would guess that when this happens, it is probably with good reason. The example that Gun Owners of America gives, a psychiatrist evaluating patients--is clearly not a due process adjudication.

The returning veterans concern is something that H.R. 2640 specifically deals with, and corrects--so this is actually a gain for this group.

The school psychologist? What? That's not a due process adjudication--not even close.

I am not aware of ANY state where a psychologist has authority to involuntarily commit a patient "with no due process at all." In general, state laws give substantially more authority to psychiatrists on this count than psychologists, but even psychiatrists don't have this kind of power in any state, to my knowledge.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/200 ... 0974920411

I was at first a little surprised at the number of people who have been finding some nefarious and dastardly plot in H.R. 2640. I am no fan of the gun control crowd, and I look pretty carefully at whatever scheme they come up with, because I am not terribly trusting of their good intentions. Still, I read the various criticisms of H.R. 2640, and I just don't see that it fundamentally puts gun rights at risk, except for the relatively small number of people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Thanks largely to the ACLU, involuntary commitment (as opposed to being held for observation) is really quite difficult in the United States, and has been for a couple of decades.

So why is there this profound mistrust of not only H.R. 2640, but also of the NRA, for backing it? A friend of mine, Don Kates, who is the elder scholar of the gun rights movement in America, describes the net effect of the gun control movement's continuing efforts to disarm law-abiding people as "poisoning the well." They have created so much mistrust that even when they come together with the NRA on what should be an uncontroversial bill, there is an assumption that if the gun control crowd is for it, it has to have a dark, incredibly subtle underside to it.

Let's get straight about this: H.R. 2640 doesn't really change who is prohibited from owning a gun. The rules about those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent not being allowed to own a gun have been in place since the Gun Control Act of 1968. If anything, H.R. 2640 is an improvement on the current system, because it provides an appeal mechanism for those who were wrongly declared mentally incompetent in the past. What it changes is the requirement for states to report this information to the federal government. Argue if you want that there's a privacy issue here, or a federalism issue, but this really isn't changing who is prohibited from owning a gun.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/200 ... 9253726066

Also see his notes here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/200 ... 2831327551

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/200 ... 0731692471

A valid criticism of the gun-control movement is that they rely on pants-befouling hysterics to sway public opinion and lawmakers. It does us no good if organizations that claim to support the 2A engage in the same nonsense, and I smell that going on within the criticism of HR 2640.

elb

[stevie_d_64]

Good stuff ELB! Excellent!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . A valid criticism of the gun-control movement is that they rely on pants-befouling hysterics to sway public opinion and lawmakers. It does us no good if organizations that claim to support the 2A engage in the same nonsense, and I smell that going on within the criticism of HR 2640.

elb

There seems to be no shortage of gun owners willing to buy into it, without the slightest hesitation or desire to truly examine the facts.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Even though my intent was to instigate discussion on facts, and what is actually being talked about out there...I found this in another forum I frequent and the poster ID "Old Ironsides" is someone who has been around for a while over there...Its another interesting viewpoint and commentary...

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

It's worse than you think. This is a bit "legal", but here it goes...

If HR2604 passes, Constructive Possession is the legal principle that gives the Antis all the power they need to begin confiscating privately owned firearms.

Let's take this step by step... a Due Dilligence that the NRA thought unnecessary:

#1. A person lawfully owns (licensed, FOID, Vermont, whatever) firearms.

#2. A member of the Gun Owner's family/household, due to no criminal activity but only an "adjudication" by a "lawful authority" or "involuntary commitment" becomes a "prohibited person" - and placed in the NCIS. (See what happened to the kid who protested Corpus Christi above)

#3. All firearms and ammunition in a household not secured so as the "prohibited person" cannot have even accidental access (as defined and inspected by the BATFE) is, by definition, "Constructive Possession".

#4. According to CFR Title 18 (922 & 925) "possession" by a "prohibited person" is a punishable violation of Federal Law.

#5. Simple correlation of the NCIS and extant Public Records (FOIDs, CCW/CCP licenses, (4473s?)) would be Sufficient Cause for a Warrant & Seizure of "firearms in possession of Prohibited Persons".

Net Result:

EVERY HOUSEHOLD WITH A "PROHIBITED PERSON" IS/WILL BE SUBJECT TO FIREARM CONFISCATION.

This is technically true now, but, as of yet, because of the medical privacy laws that HR2640 will subvert, there is NO WAY for the BATFE/Anti Gun Pols to correlate any households other than those of "Felons" (another issue that deserves debating since "felon" doesn't just mean "violent").

Add the names of tens of thousands of "adjudicated" persons - everything from once-suicidal-teens to post-partum-depressive women to PTSD Veterans to simple "bookkeeping errors" and Psychiatric abuse - and suddenly TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE FORBIDDEN TO POSSESS FIREARMS - FOREVER.

(NRA platitudes notwithstanding, the unfunded mandate to create program(s) to provide "relief" will either never have enough funding or be so overwhelmed as to, in either case, to not be useful.)

Not just the individuals on the NCIS, but EVERYONE THEY LIVE WITH.

Period.

No discussions.

The Case Law is there (look it up. Google "constructive possession". True, most cases have to do with drugs, but there are plenty about guns and "prohibited persons" (felons) as well) - waiting to be used by an Anti Gun Attorney General willing to send the BATFE out to "enforce the law".

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

I think some research on "constructive possession" could be interesting...

I might not be the swooftest legal mind in here, but I get the feeling that there is some real holes being started in how much exploiting could be accomplished if the political landscape in the future becomes even more favorable to the gun-control agenda...

I stand to be corrected and welcome being told I might be stretching this a bit too far...If there is NOT anything to worry about in this regard, I feel I have done my duty for the day...And no hard feelings will be hanging around me...

I think it is extremely important we get this particular issue ironed out here...Once and for all...

I have great confidence that we can do this...

[stevie_d_64]

I am also NOT at all bashing the NRA for its position on this...

I want to try to figure out why other "pro" organizations are negative on this deal...

Their protest seem to have hit a cord with a wide variety of people in our ranks, and I do not like to see divisiveness like this...

[KBCraig]

I find the headline itself a bit amusing, since it seems to question if the NRA has or would endorse gun control.

I can't think of any federal gun control measures that have passed without the NRA's endorsement.

Oh, I'm not talking about the PR war, but the "halls of Congress" war. Is there any federal gun control law that the NRA hasn't had an active hand in writing?

I understand they do so for strategic reason, to keep it from being worse than it otherwise might be. Sometimes, like TSRA managed to do with the "school parking lot 'ban' bill", our side can rush something through that the antis think serves their purpose, when it really serves ours. The bill in question might fill that role in the wake of the VPI shootings.

Passing "not as bad" laws is still a long way from repealing bad laws.

[srothstein]

Stevie_d:

Your post brings up a very good point that I had not considered. In states other than Texas (like Illinois), the comparison of the two might be possible. In Texas, of course it would not be.

We do need to consider the constructive possession of the firearm, but there is a flaw with his logic. The comparison of the two lists would not be sufficient to generate any type of search warrant or confiscation list. It is missing any element to suggest that the firearm is not secured, so the mere fact that there is a gunowner in the house and a prohibited person in the house would not constitute probable cause, IMHO.

Obviously, there are judges in some places (NYC federal district comes to mind) who would disagree with me on the PC argument, though.

[stevie_d_64]

Stevie_d:

Your post brings up a very good point that I had not considered. In states other than Texas (like Illinois), the comparison of the two might be possible. In Texas, of course it would not be.

We do need to consider the constructive possession of the firearm, but there is a flaw with his logic. The comparison of the two lists would not be sufficient to generate any type of search warrant or confiscation list. It is missing any element to suggest that the firearm is not secured, so the mere fact that there is a gunowner in the house and a prohibited person in the house would not constitute probable cause, IMHO.

Obviously, there are judges in some places (NYC federal district comes to mind) who would disagree with me on the PC argument, though.

What needs to happen is that some common sense needs to be injected into the parole system in regards to family members, or others closely associated with the paroled individual, who just happen to be law-abiding citizens and carry a firearm for lawful purposes...

We are not criminals, we do not warrant any drakonian, intimidating misinformation from "some" (not all) P.O.'s and others in this system when it comes to conditions like this...

[Hiram]

My grandfather was one of the veterans that was disarmed by Clinton. It was good enough for him to carry a gun in the Korean DMZ and oversee troops in Ia Drang, but home defense? Not according to Bill Jeff.

Disgusting.