The Sniper

I wrote this blog entry at the Liberty Zone a few days ago, but decided to post it here after reading TSO’s earlier comment about HR2640. Since I’m the resident gun nut in the neighborhood, and I haven’t blogged about it here yet, I figure I might as well put in my double pennies…

I received an email the other day from the NRA trying to salvage the leak in gun owner support for HR 2640. I’ve read numerous blog entries and articles about the bill, claiming the “extremist” among us are trying to divide the gun owner community, that there’s nothing in this bill that would endanger the rights of gun owners, veterans or any other law-abiding citizen.

For the record, I have read the text of HR2640. I have linked to it here if you, the readers, want to take a look.

Meanwhile, I’m going to explain why I don’t like this bill.

First and foremost, it’s the principle of it. We don’t do a background check on those wishing to purchase a Koran. We don’t do a background check on the press, although Goddess knows many journalists have caused enough harm and damage with their twisted stories and outright lies. But we run a background check on those wishing to make a perfectly legitimate purchase and exercise a fundamental right that is recognized in the Bill of Rights and specifically protected from government infringement. The moment you have to ask the government permission to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right and becomes little more than a state-granted privilege. The moment you grant politicians the power to permit you to exercise a right, you have also given them the power to take that right away. I’ve never been comfortable with NICS, and I’m less comfortable with it as the politicians and the NRA work to make the system stronger.

Second, the NICS background checks have not been proven to be effective in the least in preventing criminals from getting guns, nor has it been proven to have any effect at all on violent crime. The federal government has a poor record of prosecuting those who were identified by NICS as trying to illegally purchase firearms. The NICS check doesn’t prevent straw purchases, nor does it prevent the mentally ill, the criminally insane or anyone else that wants to commit a crime with a firearm from purchasing it illegally – which is how most guns used in crimes are obtained.

There are those of us out there who are absolutely adamant that we will never get rid of NICS, so why fight changes that might make it more effective? Well, I have a fundamental problem with making immoral, unconstitutional, ineffective legislation even stronger. Sorry. Call me an extremist, but making an expensive system that has not been proven to be effective in reducing crime even stronger and expanding its reach to those “adjudicated” too mentally defective to exercise their rights doesn’t sit right with me. We may never get rid of NICS, but that doesn’t mean I want to expand its tentacle-like reach either.

I understand that people adjudicated “mentally defective” are already prohibited from purchasing firearms. But including people who may or may not have mental problems in a criminal database does not give me a warm fuzzy.

And yes, I also realize that the bill specifically states mental health evaluations cannot be reported if they have been expunged. But we also know how effective and streamlined state records can be…. (/sarcasm) I have all the faith in the world that old mental records will likely make it into NICS, causing law-abiding citizens headaches as they try to clear their names and restore their rights.

And yes, I do believe the bill will negatively affect veterans. I’ve considered the following scenario after I read a report about how our troops are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan only to have lost their families, their children and their homes to vindictive spouses.

A Soldier comes home after a year’s deployment to Iraq. His spouse has decided to leave him during that time – a crappy thing to do to someone who is in a warzone, dodging bullets and IEDs, but hey, it’s all about her… she met someone, and she’s history… along with his children. The Soldier is upset, distraught and scared. He just spent a year in a warzone, and he comes home to nothing. Obviously things are tense. There is fighting. There are tears. There are probably quite a few heated words exchanged and likely some things said that neither side meant. But instead of talking it out like adults, the spouse gets pissed, calls “the authorities” and reports that her ex husband is violent and is scaring her. He just came back from Iraq, she says. He’s crazy. I’m afraid he’ll hurt me. Next thing you know, he’s being given a mandatory mental evaluation (if he hasn’t lost his rights already under Lautenberg, that is). Yes, he’s stressed. Yes, he has PTSD from his deployment. Yes, he’s angry. Yes, he spews a few harsh words about his ex. Shrink doesn’t like that, and next thing you know, this guy is in front of a judge with a bad mental review and an adjudication of being a danger to his ex and mentally unfit to exercise his rights. His name gets reported and is included in NICS. He no longer has Second Amendment rights.

Will it happen? Not necessarily. Could it happen? Absolutely. And given the number of troops coming back from warzones with PTSD and problems at home, veterans are likely to get affected more than most.