Utah Guns Forum banner

Stop HR 2640

1223 Views 5 Replies 3 Participants Last post by  Ruger Collector
I received this this morning from JFPO. This is an important issue and needs to be seriously stopped. Here is the Alert:


America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

January 9th, 2008


In the past JPFO has published harsh commentary about HR 2640.
We are not alone. We ask you to read this alert and share it with others.


WHEN: JANUARY 11TH 2008 12 PM (week of January 7th 2008)



In an unrecorded voice vote the gun grabbing bill once known at HR
297, HR 2640 also known as "The Veteran's Disarmament Act" by Pro 2nd
Amendment grass roots organizations across America, passed, and will
soon be on the way to President Bush for signature or veto.
The bill calls for a guilty before being proven innocent program of
separating which Americans may realize the 2nd amendment and which may
not. According to the bill any past, present, or future "thought
crime" may threaten your right to purchase or own a firearm. Without a

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of
disability," so long as a citizen or 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
citizen or veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much
less an attorney financed by the government. Children with past
diagnosis for ADHD, People diagnosed with Alzheimer's, veterans
dealing with PTSD and who seek psychiatric help, men and woman who are
charged or suspected of domestic violence, and anyone currently under
medication for psychiatric reasons what so ever... Are targets of HR

We are forcing people choose between what may be essential mental help
and counseling, or their 2nd amendment rights.

Funding for implementation on a state level is based on a "secret
formula" set by the US Attorney General in order for the states to
obtain the funding necessary to pay for this very expensive data base.
We have alerted the public to the nascent no fly lists, the coming no
work lists, now we must alert you to the no gun list. We have in
effect become a nation of lists, in the order of Stalin's Russia,
Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China. Unless we want to realize the
communism, socialism, or fascism of these failed prison states, we
must act NOW or lose everything the United States of America and its
constitution stands for.

So where is the NRA in all of this? It was in fact the NRA that helped
legislate this bill all along. They own this lock stock and barrel!
Here is what NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons had to say about
supporting HR 2640 with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein,
Frank Lautenberg, and Carolyn McCarthy: "We want a clean bill. If this
becomes a Christmas tree of gun control, we will absolutely remove
support from this bill" Three months later they did NOT remove

And this is exactly what we ended up with. A Rockefeller Center style
Christmas tree lit up with more gun CONTROL than all previous gun
control bills combined. Like thieves in the night, in a secret vote,
with NO PUBLIC debate, with no mention by all but one of the
Republican presidential candidates (that one is Ron Paul) with no
coverage by the big 5 media companies, without a care for liberty and
the Constitution... Our 2nd amendment rights have been put in the hands
of George W. Bush.

Every indicator seems to show that Mr. Bush, an alleged conservative
will sign this nightmarish bill.

We might have time to stop him and we certainly have time to let the
president know that we want this bill vetoed until such a time when
Americans can have a thoughtful debate on what we are getting into
with HR 2640.

We have time, not much, to send a message to the Senate and Republican
minority leader Mitch McConnell to reconsider sending this to the
president, and we have the entire year to challenge each of the
candidates running for president on where they stand on such a bill.
This is especially important if those running as sitting senators, and
congressmen voted for this bill while posing as supporters of the
right to keep and bear arms.

We ask you this week to call into radio talk shows, to write your
newspapers, and television networks to ask them why they have not
addresses this issue before their audiences, and where they stand on
the issue. We ask you this week to ask all of the candidates for
President in 2008 to clarify where they stand on the issue of 2640,
have they read the bill, and did they support it yes or no! We ask you
this week to call you senators and congresspersons, and the White
House to tell them that you do NOT support 2640, or anyone who
endorses it.

We ask you on Friday January 11th 2008 at 12 Noon in your time zone to
go to your state capitols, halls of government, media outlets, and to
the White House with signs, banners and leaflets to alert the public
to HR 2640 and to ask for their help in stopping it. Our goal is to
get media attention to get this bill before the public eye. WITHOUT

If we do not do anything it won't be long before, on the smallest of
pretexts, YOU will lose your rights to legally own a firearm, and it
won't be long before like in the UK, the government will come for your
butter knives.

If you would like more information on this subject, or would like to
schedule an interview please contact Jack Blood at
[email protected]

Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back - Veterans Disarmament Act on its
way to the President http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm email

Congressman RON PAUL'S action notice:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/write-your-senator Sample Email
Opposing HR 2640
Dear Senator [Senator's Name Here], I am very disappointed that the
Senate Judiciary Committee passed out HR 2640 on and unrecorded vote,
just as the House did. This bill will solve nothing but will expose
hundreds of thousands of private medical records to organizations that
have already proven they cannot be trusted to accurately deal with
personal information. Furthermore, the liability that people face when
accused of being mentally incompetent to own a firearm will discourage
people with personal issues from seeking medical help. I strongly urge
you to reject the Senate version of HR 2640. Very truly yours, [Your
Name Here]

Send Emails to your appropriate Senator. Email forms for all Senators
can be found at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_i ... rs_cfm.cfm

See less See more
1 - 3 of 6 Posts
I’m sure it’s no coincidence he chose a day when the American people and news media would be distracted by the NH primary elections for this foul deed...

See less See more
From an Alan Korwin email:

Alan Korwin email said:
Without fanfare or advanced notice, the incredibly dangerous anti-rights gun law drafted by the Brady group and its allies, HR 2640, has been rewritten by attorneys coordinated by the NRA.

The new bill, though not perfect, is a giant leap ahead of the highly controversial first draft. The improved bill was passed by Congress in a surprise last-minute vote before Christmas recess, and signed into law yesterday (1/8/08 by president Bush.

Key points are summarized below. A complete plain-English description of the new bill is posted at gunlaws.com.

It makes sense for the NRA to attribute the exceptional improvements in HR 2640 to the brave and solitary stance of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), along with NRA's "careful analysis" of the earlier bill. This is politically savvy, enhances credibility, and saves some face after an arduous and rancorous struggle to get the bill to this better place. Many gun-rights activists properly called the earlier draft horrendous.

It would go a long way toward smoothing troubled waters to acknowledge that the insight and determination of gun-rights advocates nationwide contributed to a significantly improved product. Many folks were glad to see NRA listened to the chorus of voices, and took heed where heed was needed. It may be hard getting the ear of the firearms fathers in Fairfax, but it's important to do so when circumstance requires.

The current draft is indeed immeasurably better, and does address the many valid (and some less than valid) concerns numerous decent people raised in good faith over the original Brady-backed bill. Some voices are still raised -- but clearly the most egregious problems and the open-ended traps are gone or diminished.

It speaks volumes that the viciously anti-rights Violence Policy Center, a former supporter of the bill, now curses the final product, saying that a once fine piece of legislation has been ruined by the NRA ("hijacked by the gun lobby"). Thank you VPC. The idea that the bill would simply "rearm mentally disabled veterans" is pure baloney, and their claim that the bill is "a gun-lobby wish list" is preposterous.

Knowing a little about how sausage and laws are made, I have to wonder if the plan all along was to get the anti-rights groups encouraged by appearing to promote an awful gun-rights power grab, and then at the last minute pushing through the right stuff and leaving them shivering in the cold. That would be a difficult, thankless road to walk, against the slings and arrows of otherwise supportive friends.

The right stuff means:

1. Preventing certifiable mental cases from getting their hands on guns at retail.

2. Providing and funding a long-absent, fairly reasonable path toward rights restoration in cases where it is truly appropriate, and there are many.

3. Requiring government agencies to comply with rights-restoration procedures.

4. Notifying you in advance that proceedings could remove your rights, and how you can get your rights restored.

My plain-English technical analysis of the new law is posted on my site (always check my "New Stuff" button for inside scoops):

My plain-English technical analysis of the prior awful bill is posted here:

Do keep in mind, this law suffers from the same problems as any other these days:

1. It's only as good as the authorities' willingness to follow it. If they don't act on a request to restore rights, they're not punished (but now you can proceed without them if they stall). If the courts act in a corrupt manner you'll get no justice.

2. If officials fail to fix records, they're not punished (but deadlines are now spelled out).

3. If they miss their deadlines, they're not punished. If they don't respond to you, they're not punished. New laws need to include sanctions against authorities who fail to act, act too slowly or in any way compromise your rights under the law.

4. Also note the new law
does nothing for 140,000 veterans whose rights were denied en masse on bureaucratic grounds (diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder), without the current safeguards. Those safeguards include advance notice that you face rights denial, notice that there is an appeals process, and that only a true due-process procedure before a real court (plus a valid medical diagnosis) can make the decision. Under the new law, those vets could appeal, and if they win, their attorney's fees are covered (at a somewhat less-than-full rate).

5. The massive funding to states (with threats of lost funding for failure to comply) continues an uncomfortable policy of strong-arming states to follow federal rules, weakening federalism (states' rights). In fairness though, if states don't put the certifiable mental cases in the NICS background check system, the plan won't work. (Whether NICS is a good idea altogether is a separate discussion; the proposed BIDS system seems far better, cheaper and less intrusive, but that die is cast.)

6. We still don't know who the anonymous 21 million people are, mentioned by the Brady-clique in the bill's intro as possible prohibited possessors, who might face rights denial. Are there that many certifiable mental cases running around loose? That implies an awful lot of court time tied up to fill the NICS database (tripling the current set of records).

Although the original Brady-backed gun-grabbing nightmare has been gutted, in keeping with modern spin control, Brady supporters like Schumer and McCarthy are calling this a win. That's a little like Hillary's exceptionally clever twist, saying anything less than a two-digit loss for her is a victory (yes, her side actually promoted that idea).

In the final analysis though, gun owners have a mixed bag here. We dodged a virtually arbitrary set of rules for denying gun ownership. A method, not great but a method, for restoring rights is now in law. And certifiable mental cases fall under greater control. But we have a lot of new gun law, and with gun law growing with no end in sight, the overall threat to Americans everywhere can not be denied.
Thanks for reading.

Permission to circulate granted.

Emphasis added.

See less See more
1 - 3 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.