Fighting the Bloomberg agenda would be a lot easier if it were not for weak-kneed gunnies who, at a pivotal minute, think they can get “brownie points” from the liberal press by sabotaging the Second Amendment movement.

The battle over the anti-gun Senate Bill 244 is no different.

As originally introduced, the bill would have forced New Hampshire to send the FBI gun-ban (NICS) system the names of all Granite Staters who had guardians appointed or who were involuntarily committed.

To show the horrific abuse of New Hampshire’s guardianship and commitment procedures, we cited the case of Noreen Cousins of Ossipee, who was imprisoned for days as a result of an involuntary commitment.

But, says a “pro-gun” group in New Hampshire, Cousins’ attorney believes the state did follow the proper procedure — and besides, she had to be “adjudicated” in order to lose her guns.

Anyone making this argument does not understand federal gun law.  True, the 1968 Gun Control Act required “adjudication” (18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g)).  But, beginning with the Clinton administration, the ATF administratively defined this term to include any finding by any “other lawful authority,” which included a government psychiatrist.

Subsequently, the so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (more accurately dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act) codified this unlawful interpretation.  Ironically, its passage was pushed through with the support of weak-kneed gunnies at the national level, even though it was drafted by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and pushed in the Senate by the notoriously anti-gun Chuck Schumer.  Over 150,000 veterans have lost their gun rights as a result of this perfidy.

But we don’t have to go as far as Ossipee to find out why S.B. 244 is wrong.  The mother of our legislative counsel had her rights stripped in a star-chamber proceeding at Concord Hospital, in which neither she nor her family were given the right to representation, despite supposed statutory guarantees which she was deemed to have waived.  It took four weeks and $5,000 to terminate the guardianship.  And, during that time, when she wouldn’t stop screaming her son’s name, she was pumped with Haldol until she was rendered a vegetable.  As a result, she soon died.

But, says the “pro-gun” group, S.B. 244 doesn’t “create” any new “disqualifiers.”  This is really a lie.  There are tens of millions of Americans who are theoretically “prohibited persons” under the Veterans Disarmament Act’s definitions.  But what turns these tens of millions of persons from “theoretical prohibited persons” into actual prohibited persons is when their names are forwarded to the FBI NICS system, as S.B. 244, as introduced, would have done.

Which brings us to the most recent draft of S.B. 244.

Says the “pro-gun” group, this most recent draft allows persons subject to mental health disqualifiers to get their gun rights back.

There are a couple of problems with this:  The first is that, fortunately, New Hampshire has been loath to send the names of persons with guardians and involuntary commitment to the NICS system, because of privacy concerns.  S.B. 244, as originally introduced, would have opened the floodgates to gun bans for people falling into these categories.  Then, having taken away their guns, it would have “generously” allowed them to spend tens of thousands of dollars in a procedure to get them back.

All of the time, Gun Owners of America gets e-mails from Americans — usually veterans — who have lost their gun rights and cannot afford a lawyer to get them back.  For all practical purposes, S.B. 244’s procedure is a sham.

It is true that, for the time being, the most recent “compromise” no longer requires the transmission of names to NICS — although, by creating a VDA-type relief from disabilities system, it may encourage it.

But there are a lot of problems with this line of reasoning:  The bill will only get worse as it moves through the legislative process.  And supporters of universal gun registration have already said they are looking for a vehicle to append their own gun control proposal.

Finally, the “study” in the most recent compromise will, in fact, keep the issue open and in play, as the Bloomberg people celebrate the passage of S.B. 244 and look to it as a springboard for things to come.

ACTION: Contact your state senator.  Ask him to oppose the Bloomberg gun control legislation, S.B. 244. While the pre-written letter below is long, it’s very important because it answers the points that a certain “pro-gun” group is peddling in New Hampshire.

HOW TO CONTACT-WRITE YOUR STATE SENATORS.

Go to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/wml.aspx

Simply identify your state senator, click on their email addresses and then copy-n-paste the message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Fighting the Bloomberg agenda would be a lot easier if it were not for weak-kneed gunnies who, at a pivotal minute, think they can get “brownie points” from the liberal press by sabotaging the Second Amendment movement.

The battle over the anti-gun Senate Bill 244 is no different, and I would urge you to oppose it.

As originally introduced, the bill would have forced New Hampshire to send the FBI gun-ban (NICS) system the names of all Granite Staters who had guardians appointed or who were involuntarily committed.

The horrific abuses in New Hampshire’s guardianship and commitment procedures can be seen in the example of Noreen Cousins of Ossipee, who was imprisoned for days as a result of an involuntary commitment.

But, says a “pro-gun” group in New Hampshire, Cousins’ attorney believes the state did follow the proper procedure — and besides, she had to be “adjudicated” in order to lose her guns.

Anyone making this argument does not understand federal gun law.  True, the 1968 Gun Control Act required “adjudication” (18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g)).  But, beginning with the Clinton administration, the ATF administratively defined this term to include any finding by any “other lawful authority,” which included a government psychiatrist.

Subsequently, the so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (more accurately dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act) codified this unlawful interpretation.  Ironically, its passage was pushed through with the support of weak-kneed gunnies at the national level, even though it was drafted by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and pushed in the Senate by the notoriously anti-gun Chuck Schumer.  Over 150,000 veterans have lost their gun rights as a result of this perfidy.

But we don’t have to go as far as Ossipee to find out why S.B. 244 is wrong.  The mother of Gun Owners of America’s legislative counsel had her rights stripped in a star-chamber proceeding at Concord Hospital, in which neither she nor her family were given the right to representation, despite supposed statutory guarantees which she was deemed to have waived.  It took four weeks and $5,000 to terminate the guardianship.  And, during that time, when she wouldn’t stop screaming her son’s name, she was pumped with Haldol until she was rendered a vegetable.  As a result, she soon died.

But, says the “pro-gun” group, S.B. 244 doesn’t “create” any new “disqualifiers.”  This is really a lie.  There are tens of millions of Americans who are theoretically “prohibited persons” under the Veterans Disarmament Act’s definitions.  But what turns these tens of millions of persons from “theoretical prohibited persons” into actual prohibited persons is when their names are forwarded to the FBI NICS system, as S.B. 244, as introduced, would have done.

Which brings me to the most recent draft of S.B. 244.

Says the “pro-gun” group, this most recent draft allows persons subject to mental health disqualifiers to get their gun rights back.

There are a couple of problems with this:  The first is that, fortunately, New Hampshire has been loath to send the names of persons with guardians and involuntary commitment to the NICS system, because of privacy concerns.  S.B. 244, as originally introduced, would have opened the floodgates to gun bans for people falling into these categories.  Then, having taken away their guns, it would have “generously” allowed them to spend tens of thousands of dollars in a procedure to get them back.

All of the time, Americans — usually veterans — lose their gun rights and cannot afford a lawyer to get them back.  For all practical purposes, S.B. 244’s procedure is a sham.

It is true that, for the time being, the most recent “compromise” no longer requires the transmission of names to NICS — although, by creating a VDA-type relief from disabilities system, it may encourage it.

But there are a lot of problems with this line of reasoning:  The bill will only get worse as it moves through the legislative process.  And supporters of universal gun registration (H.B. 1589) have already said they are looking for a vehicle to append their own gun control proposal.

Finally, the “study” in the most recent compromise will, in fact, keep the issue open and in play, as the Bloomberg people celebrate the passage of S.B. 244 and look to it as a springboard for things to come.

Please oppose the Bloomberg gun control legislation, S.B. 244.

Sincerely,