HR2640

07/11/07
HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream
"...with ATF harrassing the shit out of numerous mom & pop gunshops in SC, ID & elsewhere, this is THE American issue of alltimes. I pray to God ya all hammer relentlessly." -Nuge
McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE
Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are injeopardy once again!
You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the Houseof Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640)without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it onthe Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.
An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a billin committee, to get both public and private observers to askquestions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.
But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The billwas rammed through the legislature with very few Representativespresent on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!
So it's not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislativeprocess, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after anoffhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg CommunityCollege in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in thatstate.
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly saidthat it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone brokeinto hiscar, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he wasmaking a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or ifhe was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damagebecause of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller wasarrested, 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 statementsin this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carrypermit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checksinto his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he hadsaid, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "Icontacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked.And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mentalhealth procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible topossess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've neverhad a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never beenon Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthybill. 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 byHR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the SecondAmendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders(such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn atyrannical American government?
Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting adetailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make astatement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'dblow him away!"
Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nutsthink you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if youmake the local district attorney or police officer nervous, howdifficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom arevery left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and toothers?
Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? Oneof the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2)codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal codesays it only takes a "lawful authority" to"adjudicate" someone as amental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clearthis "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, butcan simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)
Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietlyattempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years,but they've been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpretthese regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and notstatutory law).
But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats havequietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OFTHE LAND -- even though those regs were never submitted to alegislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings ordebated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot ofquestions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people canfall into this category of "other lawful authority" that can deemsomeone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to applyto Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federalgovernment already added more than 80,000 veterans with PostTraumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.
But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A schoolcounselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a citycouncilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their ownright. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?
Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question ofwhat the words "lawful authority" in 27 CFR 478.11 mean --once theyhave been "statutized" by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANYconstraint and can read it as broadly as they want?
If the "lawful authority" thinks you pose a danger to yourself orothers (or can't manage your own affairs) then your gun rights couldbe 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 caninclude "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using thePennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun Americanlike you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defenseagainst tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK ofhurting someone else?
As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.
HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politiciannervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wingpsychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over.Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See 27 CFR 478.11.(2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hangingtheir hat on language which purports to help disqualified people toget their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on itswebsite that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun ownersof the dangers in HR 2640. Please go tohttp://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of thebill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made byproponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of beingdisqualified for buying a gun, and more.

home Rock 'n Roll site contact business inquiries terms of use privacy site map
© copyright 1998 - 2007 Ted Nugent