Vietnam Vet Denied Second Amendment Right

Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
12,824
Reaction score
7,901
Golden Thread
0
Location
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
Vietnam Vet Denied Second Amendment Right

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 1, 2013

Jeffrey Schrader, a Vietnam War veteran, had his Second Amendment right to own a firearm stripped in 2008 by the government.

Video Landing Page - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5

Schrader’s crime? He was arrested for participating in a fist fight and was charged with a misdemeanor in 1968.

Schrader owned and sold firearms for over forty years before the feds decided he presented a risk to society and shut down his Second Amendment.

"They contacted me and told me. The ATF officer was apologetic about it. He said, ‘I couldn’t believe this. I looked into everything trying to figure this out because it doesn’t make any sense.’ He says, ‘I’m sorry to have to tell you this but you can’t have any guns,’" Schrader told Fox 5 in Atlanta.

“You don’t have the right and they treat you just like a felon," Schrader said.

In addition to ancient misdeamnorr charges, the government is attempting to deny veterans their Second Amendment rights if the Veterans Affairs Department decides they are mentally incompetent.

In February, we reported on letters the Department of Veteran Affairs sent to “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes,” according to constitutional attorney Michael Connelly.

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the VA letter states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

In 2007, HR 2640 was introduced by notorious Democrat gun grabbers Carolyn McCarthy and Patrick Leahy.

“Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away … forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, remarked after the bill was made public. “Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a ‘determination’ in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred — for life — from owning guns”

On June 13, 2007, the bill passed in the House and on December 19, 2007, the Senate version was passed.

Obama’s recommendations on “gun violence” released in January propose tightening up and expanding the “relevant records” contained in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Agencies involved in the effort include the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

More veterans and plenty of other Americans deemed incompetent by the government will undoubtedly have their Second Amendment rights stripped in the near future.

This article was posted: Friday, March 1, 2013 at 2:37 pm
 

If someone is found to be a risk to themselves and to others should they still have guns? I thought most people agreed this was not a good idea.
 

MY question is, WHAT is "Mental Incompetence" ...; to MY knowledge, only licensed, QUALIFIED Veterans Administration PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCHIATRISTS can make that decision. Can it be appealed via local FED courts...? Dunno; Dr. "C", take it on!
 

Attaching your political and social views to people's medical condition is a dangerous, slippery slope. The very nature of the changing face of mental health and "fads" makes it so.
Less than 50 years ago, random elctro shock therapy, phrenology and ablution/cold water treatment were "cutting edge" and taken as gospel.
Before that, cocaine and later psychedelic drugs were administered.

The application of mental health and it's being used to enforce your political will was the tool of the Communists in Russia and China from the 1940s til about the 1970s (See Solzhenitsyn and Dolgun)

It is a slippery slope and easily manipulated.
 

Last edited:
Attaching your political and social views to people's medical condition is a dangerous, slippery slope. The very nature of the changing face of mental health and "fads" makes it so.
Less than 50 years ago, random elctro shock therapy, phrenology and ablution/cold water treatment were "cutting edge" and taken as gospel.
Before that, cocaine and later psychedelic drugs were administered.

The application of mental health and it's being used to enforce your political will was the tool of the Communists in Russia and China from the 1940s til about the 1970s (See Solzhenitsyn and Dolgun)

It is a slippery slope and easily manipulated.

NONE of THAT has ANYTHING to do with PTSD, does it...?
 

NONE of THAT has ANYTHING to do with PTSD, does it...?

Wow.
I'm not even going to address that.
Go to Wikipedia, look up "comprehension"
Study it, report back.
 

FY! NOT gonna tolerate your PUTDOWN!
I'm sorry that you are so upset, but I don't believe that you are serious and that your posts are only inflammatory in nature and you fail to comprehend things that you do not agree with.
You made multiple posts stating the same thing (see previous record) and I responded with how I feel that is dangerous, relaying my opinion with what I understand to be facts.
I am sorry if you disagree with what I post, and hope that you have a very nice day.
 

I'm sorry that you are so upset, but I don't believe that you are serious and that your posts are only inflammatory in nature and you fail to comprehend things that you do not agree with.
You made multiple posts stating the same thing (see previous record) and I responded with how I feel that is dangerous, relaying my opinion with what I understand to be facts.
I am sorry if you disagree with what I post, and hope that you have a very nice day.

TY, just DON'T need your PUTDOWN, and I AM serious; trying to understand the FACTS!
 

I'm sorry that you are so upset, but I don't believe that you are serious and that your posts are only inflammatory in nature and you fail to comprehend things that you do not agree with.
You made multiple posts stating the same thing (see previous record) and I responded with how I feel that is dangerous, relaying my opinion with what I understand to be facts.
I am sorry if you disagree with what I post, and hope that you have a very nice day.

We CAN agree to disagree; you have a nice evening... 7:39 pm/est.
 

Critical Recovery said:
Attaching your political and social views to people's medical condition is a dangerous, slippery slope. The very nature of the changing face of mental health and "fads" makes it so.
Less than 50 years ago, random elctro shock therapy, phrenology and ablution/cold water treatment were "cutting edge" and taken as gospel.
Before that, cocaine and later psychedelic drugs were administered.

The application of mental health and it's being used to enforce your political will was the tool of the Communists in Russia and China from the 1940s til about the 1970s (See Solzhenitsyn and Dolgun)

It is a slippery slope and easily manipulated.

Is your point that no one should lose their second amendment right if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others?
 

Is your point that no one should lose their second amendment right if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others?

It just baffles me that people can not see what is stated and put before because they are so parked in their ideology.
Is it intentional?

I'm not doing this.
 

Critical Recovery said:
It just baffles me that people can not see what is stated and put before because they are so parked in their ideology.
Is it intentional?

I'm not doing this.

I have no idea what you are talking about? Parked in what ideology. I thought I asked a pretty simple question. By all means you are under no obligation to answer and question or post.
 

Question is who is saying he is a danger to himself. It is a government agency doctor, he should have the right to an independent doctors opinion in the hearing on his rights...... I am against any government agency telling someone based on "their" bias opinion you can't do something....

Social securty routinely refuses 99.9% of the cases of people filing for disability do to injuries, you have the option of getting a private attorney to fight for you, it should be the say way here..........
 

Question is who is saying he is a danger to himself. It is a government agency doctor, he should have the right to an independent doctors opinion in the hearing on his rights...... I am against any government agency telling someone based on "their" bias opinion you can't do something....

Social securty routinely refuses 99.9% of the cases of people filing for disability do to injuries, you have the option of getting a private attorney to fight for you, it should be the say way here..........


Which reminds me of a thought I had, I am doing a bunch of stuff at once right now, so it slipped my mind.

A mental health doctor can have a person indefinitely detained as long as he/she see fits.
End of story.
That one doctor can, without any other means, imprison a person for the rest of their natural lives.
Sure, there has to be a hearing.
But what is the hearing? A judge looking at what the doctor produces as evidence.
And what will any judge tell you? "I am not a mental health expert, I will follow what the expert says"
And who do they view as an expert on the situation?
Why, the very same doctor that pushes the MHT petition through probate.
Look it up.

The very nature of that precedent, coupled with an increasing hostility towards the combination of veterans and those who view their government as broken by doctors that WORK for that government?

if you don't see this is troubling when looking at the history of manipulation of control by government entities, I can't make it plainer.
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Question is who is saying he is a danger to himself. It is a government agency doctor, he should have the right to an independent doctors opinion in the hearing on his rights...... I am against any government agency telling someone based on "their" bias opinion you can't do something....

Social securty routinely refuses 99.9% of the cases of people filing for disability do to injuries, you have the option of getting a private attorney to fight for you, it should be the say way here..........

I completely agree for something this important there should always be a second opinion and a right to appeal. My hope would be that this is already in place. I assume if there is overwhelming evidence than no one would be against preventing someone from owning guns?
 

Of course - how interesting that it was not mentioned in the "article". And I love the "and just a little bit of a danger ..." part. Must be like being a little bit pregnant. Article is a disgusting fundraiser in the guise of "news". Guys using vets to line his pockets.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom