"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Once again..Stupid shows his ignorance.

Gunner


Yup...

Nope. From the NRA/ILA:

"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would "prohibit" thousands
of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only enforce
current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now
unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to
have their names removed from the instant check system."

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

Don't start following Gunner around the block, Richard. He's as ignorant as
a lamp post about anything political.

Are you sure this isn't the remedy for what I stated earlier?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Once again..Stupid shows his ignorance.

Gunner


Yup...

Nope. From the NRA/ILA:

"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would "prohibit"
thousands
of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only
enforce
current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now
unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to
have their names removed from the instant check system."

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

Don't start following Gunner around the block, Richard. He's as ignorant
as
a lamp post about anything political.

Are you sure this isn't the remedy for what I stated earlier?

Wes

I don't know what you stated earlier. It's a remedy for reading the b.s. gun
sites, if that's what you mean. Reading the bill itself is another remedy,
but that's too much like being responsible for Gunner and the boyz. Can't
have that much responsibility all in one place, ya' know.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:48:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Once again..Stupid shows his ignorance.

Gunner


Yup...

Nope. From the NRA/ILA:

"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would "prohibit"
thousands
of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only
enforce
current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now
unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to
have their names removed from the instant check system."

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

Don't start following Gunner around the block, Richard. He's as ignorant
as
a lamp post about anything political.

Are you sure this isn't the remedy for what I stated earlier?

Wes

I don't know what you stated earlier. It's a remedy for reading the b.s. gun
sites, if that's what you mean. Reading the bill itself is another remedy,
but that's too much like being responsible for Gunner and the boyz. Can't
have that much responsibility all in one place, ya' know.


Read the Bill?? Buy a dictionary?? Understand all the words??

Damn! You sure ask a lot of a man...

Regards,

J.B.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

Don't start following Gunner around the block, Richard. He's as ignorant
as
a lamp post about anything political.

Are you sure this isn't the remedy for what I stated earlier?

Wes

I don't know what you stated earlier. It's a remedy for reading the b.s. gun
sites, if that's what you mean. Reading the bill itself is another remedy,
but that's too much like being responsible for Gunner and the boyz. Can't
have that much responsibility all in one place, ya' know.


I am reading it. Thomas has a neat feature where you can compare changes to the bill as it
progressed.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...o=ih&view=side


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

Don't start following Gunner around the block, Richard. He's as ignorant
as
a lamp post about anything political.

Are you sure this isn't the remedy for what I stated earlier?

Wes

I don't know what you stated earlier. It's a remedy for reading the b.s.
gun
sites, if that's what you mean. Reading the bill itself is another remedy,
but that's too much like being responsible for Gunner and the boyz. Can't
have that much responsibility all in one place, ya' know.


I am reading it. Thomas has a neat feature where you can compare changes
to the bill as it
progressed.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...o=ih&view=side


Wes

Yes, and what did you find?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, and what did you find?

That reading this is a huge headache


The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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)."


Wes

Btw, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.





--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, and what did you find?

That reading this is a huge headache

Hey, Constitutional law is my hobby. It can be fun. g



The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that
commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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.

Except that it never happened. Note that this discussion began when you said
"From what I've heard, Soldiers and Marines that are treated for traumatic
head injuries get a notice from the VA that they lost their 2nd Amendment
rights under Brady."

I think the "traumatic head injuries" idea was a red herring from the start.
There is a reasonable question about how PTSD would be treated, but the bill
that was being objected to never passed in that form. How the provision
would have been interpreted by the courts is an open question; of course,
the gun writers assume the worst possible case.

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)."


Wes

Btw, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, Wes.

--
Ed Huntress

Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, and what did you find?

That reading this is a huge headache


The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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)."


Gee Wes, that seems to be exactly what I said....

Of course, since I am the President of the longest continuously
operating pistol club west of the Allegheny Mountains, I tend to keep
myself informed on these issues.

But don't feel bad, many of my own members will repeat anything they get
without asking the questions or doing the research that you eventually did.

So far, in factual terms, the current congress and admin has been pretty
good to us. Carry in the National Parks, transport on Amtrak,
protection of surplus arms, and even the Bill you cite which both helps
to keep the criminals from getting guns legally, and provides a better
means for challenging or correcting bad or old info in your records.

Stuart

Stuart Wheaton wrote:

Gee Wes, that seems to be exactly what I said....

Of course, since I am the President of the longest continuously
operating pistol club west of the Allegheny Mountains, I tend to keep
myself informed on these issues.


But don't feel bad, many of my own members will repeat anything they get
without asking the questions or doing the research that you eventually did.

I do want to be accurate. Sometimes it is based on repeating sources I trust. That can
be a problem if there is inaccuracy in the chain of trust.

So far, in factual terms, the current congress and admin has been pretty
good to us. Carry in the National Parks, transport on Amtrak,
protection of surplus arms, and even the Bill you cite which both helps
to keep the criminals from getting guns legally, and provides a better
means for challenging or correcting bad or old info in your records.


I'll go with you on Congress. I like that Senator Webb.

Merry Christmas Stuart,

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, and what did you find?

That reading this is a huge headache

Hey, Constitutional law is my hobby. It can be fun. g

Ranks up with counting grains of sand on the beach with me. My grammar isn't good enough
to figure where a semicolon can change the intention of a sequence of words.



The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that
commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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.

Except that it never happened. Note that this discussion began when you said
"From what I've heard, Soldiers and Marines that are treated for traumatic
head injuries get a notice from the VA that they lost their 2nd Amendment
rights under Brady."



I think the "traumatic head injuries" idea was a red herring from the start.
There is a reasonable question about how PTSD would be treated, but the bill
that was being objected to never passed in that form. How the provision
would have been interpreted by the courts is an open question; of course,
the gun writers assume the worst possible case.

I'll keep my ears and eyes open. The law was enacted in response to something. As
always, some horse trading took place since Carol McCarthy supported it.

I ment to say "traumatic brain injuries", not that it gives my statement much different
meaning.

PTSD, I wonder what the accuracy rate is in diagnosis, the range of it's effects, can it
be short term? Is a vet diagnosed with PTSD 100% service related disabled? You seem to
be up on medical stuff.



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)."

It is much better than the situation they were in.



Wes

Btw, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, Wes.


Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Yes, and what did you find?

That reading this is a huge headache

Hey, Constitutional law is my hobby. It can be fun. g

Ranks up with counting grains of sand on the beach with me. My grammar
isn't good enough
to figure where a semicolon can change the intention of a sequence of
words.

Not to worry. It usually doesn't change anything. The supposed wayward comma
in the Second Amendment is irrelevant, for example.




The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that
commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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.

Except that it never happened. Note that this discussion began when you
said
"From what I've heard, Soldiers and Marines that are treated for traumatic
head injuries get a notice from the VA that they lost their 2nd Amendment
rights under Brady."



I think the "traumatic head injuries" idea was a red herring from the
start.
There is a reasonable question about how PTSD would be treated, but the
bill
that was being objected to never passed in that form. How the provision
would have been interpreted by the courts is an open question; of course,
the gun writers assume the worst possible case.

I'll keep my ears and eyes open. The law was enacted in response to
something. As
always, some horse trading took place since Carol McCarthy supported it.

It was enacted to the nutball mass killing at Virginia Tech.


I ment to say "traumatic brain injuries", not that it gives my statement
much different
meaning.

PTSD, I wonder what the accuracy rate is in diagnosis, the range of it's
effects, can it
be short term? Is a vet diagnosed with PTSD 100% service related
disabled? You seem to
be up on medical stuff.

The evidence is on your side. There are some studies that show that most
mental illnesses, and disabilities, have little to do with whether people
are going to go over the hill and kill someone.

I think I saw one recently...bear with me...AHA! The "History" function in
IE comes through:

"National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act: Implications
for Persons With Mental Illness" Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law Online (2008):

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/123


--
Ed Huntress



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)."

It is much better than the situation they were in.



Wes

Btw, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, Wes.


Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Not to worry. It usually doesn't change anything. The supposed wayward comma
in the Second Amendment is irrelevant, for example.

Rotflmao!





The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that
commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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.

Except that it never happened. Note that this discussion began when you
said
"From what I've heard, Soldiers and Marines that are treated for traumatic
head injuries get a notice from the VA that they lost their 2nd Amendment
rights under Brady."



I think the "traumatic head injuries" idea was a red herring from the
start.
There is a reasonable question about how PTSD would be treated, but the
bill
that was being objected to never passed in that form. How the provision
would have been interpreted by the courts is an open question; of course,
the gun writers assume the worst possible case.

I'll keep my ears and eyes open. The law was enacted in response to
something. As
always, some horse trading took place since Carol McCarthy supported it.

It was enacted to the nutball mass killing at Virginia Tech.

Those kind of things seem to cause a knee jerk reaction to 'Do Something' (TM)
Demopublican parties.



I ment to say "traumatic brain injuries", not that it gives my statement
much different
meaning.

PTSD, I wonder what the accuracy rate is in diagnosis, the range of it's
effects, can it
be short term? Is a vet diagnosed with PTSD 100% service related
disabled? You seem to
be up on medical stuff.

The evidence is on your side. There are some studies that show that most
mental illnesses, and disabilities, have little to do with whether people
are going to go over the hill and kill someone.

That is good to know. The sad thing in this is attempts to disarm mentally unwell
individuals may keep those same individuals from seeking treatment.

Not to fire the flames but there seems to be a right to privacy in legal theory to support
abortion but piercing privacy for mental health issues seems to be okay.

I probably mentioned it before but a member of our club that is a *very* active shooter,
range coach, bullet caster, lead scrounger, and even a machinist who also has an
underground range in his home that he uses quite often had a blood lead test. His was
elevated. That got our club a visit from MiOsha since he was a member. All positive lead
tests get reported in our state to the State.


I think I saw one recently...bear with me...AHA! The "History" function in
IE comes through:

"National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act: Implications
for Persons With Mental Illness" Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law Online (2008):

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/123

I'll give it a read tomorrow. My quick scan indicates it is worth my time and effort but
it is late and I've had a bit of Christmas eve cheer

One of the qualities you have that I like is that I think you are an honest researcher
that tries to filter ideology from reality. Something that is very hard to do. I know
from that from experience.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Not to worry. It usually doesn't change anything. The supposed wayward
comma
in the Second Amendment is irrelevant, for example.

Rotflmao!





The enrolled bill seems like a step forward. Better than the
original.

GOA seems to have issues with it but the NRA seems to be okay with it.

Alan Korwin wrote a piece http://www.gunlaws.com/gloaup6-PR.htm that
commented on the
bill as passed.

I'm going to cite a portion of the above link

"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.

Except that it never happened. Note that this discussion began when you
said
"From what I've heard, Soldiers and Marines that are treated for
traumatic
head injuries get a notice from the VA that they lost their 2nd
Amendment
rights under Brady."



I think the "traumatic head injuries" idea was a red herring from the
start.
There is a reasonable question about how PTSD would be treated, but the
bill
that was being objected to never passed in that form. How the provision
would have been interpreted by the courts is an open question; of
course,
the gun writers assume the worst possible case.

I'll keep my ears and eyes open. The law was enacted in response to
something. As
always, some horse trading took place since Carol McCarthy supported it.

It was enacted to the nutball mass killing at Virginia Tech.

Those kind of things seem to cause a knee jerk reaction to 'Do Something'
(TM)
Demopublican parties.



I ment to say "traumatic brain injuries", not that it gives my statement
much different
meaning.

PTSD, I wonder what the accuracy rate is in diagnosis, the range of it's
effects, can it
be short term? Is a vet diagnosed with PTSD 100% service related
disabled? You seem to
be up on medical stuff.

The evidence is on your side. There are some studies that show that most
mental illnesses, and disabilities, have little to do with whether people
are going to go over the hill and kill someone.

That is good to know. The sad thing in this is attempts to disarm
mentally unwell
individuals may keep those same individuals from seeking treatment.

Not to fire the flames but there seems to be a right to privacy in legal
theory to support
abortion but piercing privacy for mental health issues seems to be okay.

I probably mentioned it before but a member of our club that is a *very*
active shooter,
range coach, bullet caster, lead scrounger, and even a machinist who also
has an
underground range in his home that he uses quite often had a blood lead
test. His was
elevated. That got our club a visit from MiOsha since he was a member.
All positive lead
tests get reported in our state to the State.


I think I saw one recently...bear with me...AHA! The "History" function in
IE comes through:

"National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act: Implications
for Persons With Mental Illness" Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law Online (2008):

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/123

I'll give it a read tomorrow. My quick scan indicates it is worth my time
and effort but
it is late and I've had a bit of Christmas eve cheer

One of the qualities you have that I like is that I think you are an
honest researcher
that tries to filter ideology from reality. Something that is very hard
to do. I know
from that from experience.

Wes

Well, thanks, Wes. I appreciate that. I do try.

Enjoy your Christmas cheer, and the Christmas you're cheering! I'll settle
down to a good liberal European beer in a few moments, myself. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress