|
Home >
Alerts &
Updates
>
2020 Bill Tracking Page >
HB
100: Veteran Disarmament Courts
HB 100: Veteran
Disarmament Courts
Threat briefing last updated:
2/13/20 at 11:50a
"Reload" this page to see latest version.
Special Note: This bill keeps
getting worse the more it is studied.
Summary:
House Bill 100 (HB 100)
radically expands "veterans courts"
enacted by SB 214 in 2015. These Kangaroo Courts mirror
Obama-era "drug courts" and their purpose is to
disarm Utah veterans. Court dictators (aka "judges")
become glorified social workers, who force "collaboration"
between prosecution teams, defense counsels, state agencies,
and federal agencies.
The
ultimate aim of HB 100 is to manipulate
veterans, strip them of their rights and dignity, and prohibit
them from keeping and bearing arms. Globalist forces view the ongoing assault
against veterans as essential to the final disarmament and
destruction of America.
Position: UT Gun
Rights opposes this bill.
Status: Alert!
This bill
UNANIMOUSLY passed the entire state house,
UNANIMOUSLY passed state senate, and awaits Gary "Fudd"
Herbert's signature. See its
bill status page.
Find
and contact your
house,
senate, and
executive branch
officials.
Sponsors:
Lowry Snow ("Republican")
in the house and
Lyle
Hillyard ("Republican") in the senate.
Jump down to any topic:
1. Utah's "Veterans Courts" are
Obama's "Drug Courts"
Same Sh#@, Different Names
HB 100 a
Radical Expansion of Court Powers
2. Entire Court Gangs Up Against Defendant
3. Veterans Bullied to Participate
4. Modeled after Soviet-Style Communism
5. Criminal Utah Regime DESPISES Veterans
Driving Utah Veterans to Suicide
Cannabis Trickery to Seize Firearms
Utah Politicians are the Dirtiest Drug
Addicts
6. Real Agenda: Disarm Veterans —
Permanently
Hostile Federal Congress
Department of Homeland INsecurity
Veterans Affronts Administration
Trump's AG William Barr Continues War on
Veterans
7. States Are Key to Disarming Veterans
8. Appropriate Action
Supplemental: Other views on HB 100
Utah's "veterans
courts" are no accident.
Here Obama is joined with Hickenlooper who banned
standard capacity ammunition magazines in Colorado, and
Utah governor Gary "Fudd" Herbert who
supports background checks for BB guns. |
1. Utah's "Veteran Courts" are Obama's "Drug Courts"
In 2015, Utah's criminal legislature and Gary "Fudd"
Herbert enacted
SB 214. You must first understand that bill in order
to understand why HB 100 is so destructive.
SB 214 created
special "veterans
courts" for those who meet the following criteria:
"Screening criteria for participation
in a veterans court program shall include:
(a) a plea to, conviction of, or adjudication for a criminal
offense;
(b) frequent alcohol and other drug testing, if
appropriate;
(c) participation in veteran diversion
outreach programs, including substance abuse treatment
programs where appropriate; and
(d) sanctions for noncompliance with diversion and substance
abuse programs' requirements." [bold added]
The term
"include" did not preclude coercing other participants
to participate. In other words, SB 214 empowered courts
to force veterans to participate
in these "veterans courts".
SB 214 (a short bill, read it
here) required participating veterans
to be
subjected to a "collaborative
strategy" and "cooperative approach" between an
unaccountable court dictator* (aka "judge"), prosecution team, defense counsel, corrections
agencies, substance abuse
treatment "services", and the infamous U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) "Veterans Justice Outreach Program".
*Note: The Utah governor, without any substantive review or
confirmation process, hand-picks all voting members of
"judicial nominating commissions." These commissions select
judicial candidates, the governor selects his favorite, and
his favorite is confirmed by the state senate. The "judicial
council" selects court commissioners, who are deemed
"quasi-judicial officers of courts of record". Sources: Utah
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8,
and state statutes 20A-12-201, 78A-5-107, 78A-10-103, 78A-10-105,78A-10-202,
and 78A-10-204.
In order for voters to remove a judge, over 50 percent of them
must be sufficiently angry at him/her to vote "no" on his/her
judicial retention election. Imagine how many lives a judge
can destroy before half the voters know enough to vote "no"?
"And you
thought I was gone!" |
Same Sh#@, Different Names
And where did such a "collaborative," "cooperative"
idea come from? Former US president and traitorous gun
control zealot
Barrack Obama advocated these "veterans
courts" (or "Veterans Treatment Courts") as follows:
"Based upon the success of
drug courts and a pronounced need to address
challenges unique to our Nation’s veterans, Veterans Treatment
Courts (VTCs) are being established in jurisdictions across
the country. VTCs utilize the same rigorous protocol of
treatment and personal accountability to treat veterans
suffering from a substance abuse and/or mental health
disorder, while helping ensure public safety." [bold added]
According to the national Center for
State Courts
"Veterans Courts Resource Guide":
"The first veteran's court opened in
Buffalo, N.Y. in 2008. The veteran's court model is
based on drug treatment and/or mental health treatment courts."
[bold added]
Government and pseudo-government
sources boldly parade supposed "drug courts"
success stories. Critics across the political spectrum paint a
very different picture, citing
gross human rights abuses and the destruction of
authentic due process. Here are a few examples:
"Reevaluating
Drug Courts: No Mother Should Have to Go Through What I Did,"
by Elaine Pawlowski, Huffington Post, July 29,
2013.
"Want
to Go to Drug Court? Say Goodbye to Your Rights", by
Mike Riggs, Reason magazine, August 17, 2012.
"Drug
Courts are Not the Answer", by the Drug Policy
Alliance, March 2011.
"Therapeutic
Jurisprudence: Embracing a Tainted Ideal," by former Utah
juvenile court judge Arthur Christean, June 2002.
Subsequent topics focus on how
these broad "collaborations" in both "drug courts" and
"veterans courts" destroy the very essence of traditional
American jurisprudence and threaten the safety and well-being
of those subjected to them.
SB 214 in
2015 was limited scope and impact. It was the
camel's-nose-under-the-tent to gradually condition the public
to accept this blatant injustice.
"And then I
said, 'These veterans courts are ideal for America's
warriors!'" |
HB 100 a Radical Expansion of Court Powers
Note that both SB 214 and HB 100
authorized the "Judicial Council" to create these "veterans
courts,"
"...in any judicial district or
geographic region [of Utah]..."
HB 100 essentially repeals and
replaces SB 214, with a radical expansion of the power of
these "veterans courts."
For example, in SB 214,
screening/participation criteria included veterans with,
"...a plea to, conviction of, or
adjudication for a criminal offense" (line 51).
HB 100, however, broadly
expands this to include veteran defendants only
charged with a crime, and even veterans
who have not been formally charged with any crime at all.
On lines 92 and 100 (of
HB 100):
"Screening criteria for participation
in a veterans treatment court shall include... ANY
additional criteria developed by a veterans treatment court".
[bold caps added].
In other words, if a veteran
defendant is merely charged with a
crime, he/she can be included in these veterans courts.
Line 51 substantiates this:
"'Defendant' means a veteran
CHARGED with a criminal offense." [bold caps added]
And on lines 142 and 156-158:
"A veteran treatment court may adopt
supplemental policies and procedures to... monitor a defendant
CHARGED with a domestic violence offense to
assure compliance with a domestic violence protection order,
no-contact order, and
PROHIBITION OF WEAPON POSSESSION."
[bold caps and yellow added]
There it is: the true objective. No conviction is required, only the
mere accusation. And in the Beehave State, so-called "protective orders"
can also technically be filed without any criminal charges
accompanying them.
Further, on lines 142 and 159:
"A veteran treatment court may adopt
supplemental policies and procedures to... otherwise assist
the veterans treatment court".
What does "otherwise assist" mean?
Apparently, anything the court dictator (aka "judge") desires
to impose upon the veteran
— be it related to an actual conviction, or mere
accusation (formal or informal) of some "offense."
HB 100 is pushing the limits so far,
the drafters included a severability clause (lines 243-246)
that was NOT part of SB 214 in 2015. They know that
these "veterans courts" are so foreign to, and defiant of,
traditional American jurisprudence, that even in today's
injustice courts, they are walking on thin ice.
Conduct your own side-by-side
language comparison between
HB 100 and
SB 214 from 2015. Both bills are relatively short.
Some of the language is essentially the
same. Both bills call for "collaborative strategies" and
"cooperative approaches" between the same parties
(judges/courts, defense counsel, prosecutors, and state and
national bureaucracies), compromising all of these parties
beyond all recognition (see Topic 2 below).
HB 100 is loaded with more flowery,
feel-good language. For example:
* "Forge partnerships" (line 132).
* "Generate local support" (line
135).
* "The court shall consider
nationally recognized best practices..." (lines 136-137).
Sounds utopian, but no mechanism of
accountability is defined, which is par for the course in Utah
statute when the government is the actor. Nor
is any reasonable recourse provided to veteran defendants when
this "collaborative" process fails abysmally to deliver on its
lofty promises. In other words, HB 100 contains more
meaningless drivel than its predecessor bill.
HB 100 also adds the word "treatment,"
calling them "veterans treatment courts,"
which is another attempt to
make the recipe appear more palatable to the unwary
— and to coincide with the name given to these Kangaroo Courts by the Obama
regime (see above).
Their ultimate "treatment" for veterans,
however, remains to
disarm them.
Back to
Topics
"Have we got
a deal for you veterans!" |
2. Entire
Court Gangs Up Against Defendant
Whenever you read terms like "collaborative" and "cooperative"
in statute, your gut reaction should be alarm and anger. Utah's
corrupt regime has repeatedly proven
—
beyond any reasonable doubt
—
that it is NOT here to help you or serve your
interests.
Take court dictators (aka "judges"),
for example. Ideally, he/she should serve as a referee to
assist the jury in determining whether a statute was violated
and whether that statute is reasonable or unreasonable. Less
ideally, he/she determines a sentence based upon a guilty
verdict given by the jury (this task should be checked by the jury as well).
In these "veterans courts,"
however,
court dictators surrender even a semblance of objectivity.
He/she now assumes the god-like mantle of an all-powerful
social worker who heads a "clinical team" that pursues a
"therapeutic process."
Consider how these "clinical
teams" operate in "drug courts"
—
and inevitably in "veterans courts":
"When acting as a member of a clinical
team bent on achieving certain outcomes, judges cannot avoid
unethical ex parte communications, that is, discussion of the
case with one party outside the presence of the
other party. Ex parte communications are traditionally a
serious ethical breach for judges, but such communications
form a regular part of the therapeutic process. Further,
when
judges become the central focus of the entire effort as the
enforcer of the treatment team's decisions, rather than an
independent adjudicator of the facts and the law, the
appearance of bias cannot be avoided. To the
defendant, the judge becomes simply 'one of them.'"
[bold added]
Source:
"Therapeutic
Jurisprudence: Embracing a Tainted Ideal," former Utah
juvenile court judge Arthur Christean, June 2002.
In other words, court dictators
are unable to avoid blatant conflicts of
interest that inevitably arise from these communications.
They are now required to pursue, and
achieve, pre-determined social outcomes that may have little,
or nothing, to do with the defendant's alleged crime.
In these compromising environments, the defense
counsel no longer remains focused on
defending innocence, in helping the defendant challenge and resist
the injustice of absurd statutes, or necessarily to obtain as
light a sentence for the defendant as possible. Rather,
the defense counsel is required by statute to work together with the
prosecution and government agencies to make you a more
"politically-correct person."
Consider this warning regarding "drug
courts" — again from which "veteran courts" are
admittedly modelled:
"'In many drug courts,' says
Elizabeth Kelley of the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, 'the defense attorney is asked to forfeit the
traditional role of being the zealous advocate of the client,
and is asked to be part of the prosecutor or judge as part of
’treatment.’' Federal drug court guidelines say that defense
attorneys are to 'explain all of the rights that the defendant
will temporarily or permanently relinquish,' and then work
with prosecutors 'to build a sense of teamwork and to
reinforce a nonadversarial atmosphere.'"
Source: "Want
to Go to Drug Court? Say Goodbye to Your Rights," by Mike
Riggs, Reason.com, September 17, 2012.
Every branch of
Utah government is already infested with foreign,
deadly scum. |
Corrections and substance abuse "experts"
—
salivating at the potential for increased government
employment opportunities, benefits, and retirement
— would
also "collaborate" and "coordinate" with the court dictator, prosecution, and defense,
prior to sentencing; rather than waiting for the sentence to
be delivered and performing their function more independently.
Utah courts are already rabidly anti-gun,
and need no additional incentive to pronounce lifetime bans on
veteran firearms ownership. They have amply demonstrated
their eagerness to collude, and conspire, with the federal
regime to neutralize the perceived threat of combat veterans
bearing arms.
In addition to federal funding, the federal Veterans Affairs
Administration (VA) can likewise provide
"experts" who furnish these gun control courts with
heretofore confidential communications from veteran
defendants who sought treatment there. The VA further obscures this mess by
dangling carrots in the form of perverse incentives to state
and local budgets, and by pressuring veterans to comply
(discussed below).
You, the veteran defendant, who bled and suffered for these
shameless, despicable officials and lobbyists who should be
forced to live in the
communist China they love so much, stand very much
alone.
Back to
Topics
"You better
go... or else." |
3. Veterans
Bullied to Participate
As mentioned in Topic 1, veterans may be forced
to participate in these "veterans courts." As is
apparent to critics of "drug court" schemes, once federal and
other grant monies flow into the process, participation can be
coerced through multiple avenues of attack.
Court dictators (aka "judges"), as
leaders of veterans court "treatment teams", have
megalomaniacal and perverse funding incentives to expand these
courts and affiliated programs by cajoling, threatening, and
otherwise pressuring more veterans into participation.
The
prosecution and defense, now completely aligned within this
perverse "therapeutic" infrastructure, are motivated to
induce veterans to plead guilty with glamorous assurances of
obtaining a "better outcome" in these "special" courts.
Once trapped, veterans must comply with every team whim, or
face punishment with no realistic recourse or meaningful due
process protections. In the words of the 1970's Eagles
song,
Hotel California,
"You can check-out any time you
like, but you can never leave."
With the expansion of HB 100, VA
administrators will increasingly reinforce this enslavement,
to include the eventual withholding of certain federal
benefits and services for veterans who resist these
corrupted "collaborative efforts." It is only
a matter of time.
Back to
Topics
"Let's
discuss the details of your re-education program,
Comrade." |
4. Modeled
after Soviet-Style Communism
As discussed in Topic 1, "veterans courts" are modeled
after popularized "drug
courts". According to the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, veterans courts
"use a hybrid integration of Drug Court and Mental Health
Court principles".
These "principles" embrace a political doctrine known as
"therapeutic jurisprudence", or "therapeutic
justice". In 2002,
former Utah juvenile court judge, Arthur Christean, exposed
the dangerous follies of this doctrine in an article entitled,
"Therapeutic
Jurisprudence: Embracing a Tainted Ideal."
After detailing many of its practical flaws, Christean discussed its
close relationship to
philosophies espoused by the former Soviet Union:
"Therapeutic jurisprudence, and
recent legislation influenced by it, appears to share some of
the prominent characteristics of Soviet-style law...
"In the former Soviet Union, courts
and judges were expected to implement state policies and
demonstrate loyalty to the philosophical premises supporting
them. Unlike the United States Constitution, the Constitution
of the USSR established the law as an instrument of the
state's will—the 'people's will'—not as a limitation upon the
state. With such a view of the purpose of the law, it is not
surprising that such a legal system would fundamentally differ
from the American system...
The nightmare is
already happening
right here in Utah. |
"The first major difference between
Soviet and American legal systems, and the first major
parallel between the Soviet system and therapeutic
jurisprudence, is the separation of powers. As noted above,
the therapeutic justice model undermines our traditional
separation of powers. The creators of the Soviet legal system
rejected the concept of separation of powers, and checks and
balances between branches of government...
"Soviet legal codes tended to include
a great deal of policy pronouncements and statements of
political and social theory, another area where this model
resembles the therapeutic jurisprudence model but differs from
the American model. Soviet courts were expected to act in
harmony with policy pronouncements and to enunciate rules of
public order promoting the collective welfare of the state...
"Soviet judges did not function under
the traditional ethical standards that restrain American
judges and acted with little concern for judicial impartiality
and procedures that American courts refer to as 'due process.'
Soviet judges were free to engage in ex parte communications,
conduct their own interrogations and engage in prosecutorial
activity."
Exchange the term "drug courts" with
"veterans courts," and Christean's expose is entirely
applicable to the fatal flaws proposed by SB 214 in 2015, and
HB 100 in 2020.
Back to
Topics
Utah is
NOT the place for suffering veterans or
their families. |
5. Criminal
Utah Regime DESPISES Veterans
The original SB 214 enacted in 2015 claimed,
"A veterans court
program shall... promote public safety, [and] protect
participants' due process rights..."
Notice which
priority is listed first. Utah officials couldn't care less about actually
"protect[ing] participants'
due process rights." As a Utah legislative task
force put it recently when debating the recent sales tax on
food debacle, the People of Utah are merely a
"reservoir of funds".
Additional source: "Ronald
Mortensen: Tax reform fiasco is setting the stage for a Utah
Proposition 13," by Ronald Mortensen, Salt Lake Tribune,
Dec. 3, 2019.
As UT Gun Rights has pointed out
in, "Courts
of InJustice versus Clark Aposhian", any feel-good
rhetoric politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists spout is meaningless in Utah's criminal injustice industry where,
"...unreasonable seizures occur, the right to Counsel is
effectively denied, the right to a public trial by an
impartial jury is obstructed, and deprivation of life,
liberty, and property may occur without authentic due process
of law."
The radical statewide expanion envisioned in HB 100
demonstrates that things have only worsened in the last few
years.
Matthew Stewart: De facto murdered by the same regime that
pretends to
give a shit about veterans. |
Driving Utah Veterans to
Suicide
Utah prosecution teams, courts, and
agencies have repeatedly demonstrated their callous disregard for veterans and
their sufferings. Consider Utah veteran Matthew Stewart,
whose home was violently invaded in the night by the
"Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force" lowlife thug squad.
Stewart, who Statute Enforcement
Agents (SEAs) knew suffered from
post traumatic stress and was almost certainly asleep,
believed he was under attack by a violent gang, and defended
himself, killing and wounding several officers, and being
seriously wounded in the process. During the
public show trial that ensued, Stewart apparently lost all
hope of being treated fairly and
took his own life in prison.
Where were all of
Utah's so-called champions of suffering veterans in Matthew
Stewart's case? Where were the HB 100 sponsors
Lowry Snow
and
Lyle
Hillyard? Or the ones they serve:
House speaker Brad Wilson and senate president Stuart Adams?
All of Utah's self-proclaimed "caregivers"
went silent to avoid intervening to assist a highly-decorated
veteran in his time of greatest need.
And how
absurd is it to pretend that the Veterans Affairs
Administration (VA) has expressed any interest
in the rights, let alone dignity, of American veterans?
Stories of
veterans who died after being placed on secret lists purposely
denying them care,
VA falsification of records to appear to be treating ill veterans
quickly, and
overall gross mistreatment tell the real tale.
Click on picture to
see story. |
Cannabis Trickery to Seize
Firearms
If selective, violent home invasion and
de facto murder weren't
enough, examine the broad manner in which this Utah regime
abuses veterans who seek alternative natural remedies like cannabis.
As UT Gun Rights exposed recently in,
"Warning!
Utah's "Cannabis" Bill Designed to Entrap Gun Owners,"
rather than protect innocent gun owners, many of whom are
veterans, the Utah legislature and Gary "Fudd"
Herbert deliberately lured them into thinking they can
participate in Utah's grotesquely-absurd "medical cannabis
program" while still possessing firearms.
As the article exposes, in
reality, they have set veterans up for horrific federal harassment
and imprisonment.
Behold Utah's WORST drug addicts. |
Utah Politicians are the
Dirtiest Drug Addicts
Ready for the truth? THE MOST
DRUG-ADDICTED INDIVIDUALS IN UTAH HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE.
As
the watch dog group,
Justice4All.blog, has recently exposed, Utah elected
officials are "on the take" for
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of tax-free campaign contributions from
pharmaceutical corporations. For example:
*
Former US senator "Opioid Orrin" Hatch took $2.5 million
over the course of his abysmal career, and
still pretends to fight the crisis he perpetrated.
* Current US senator Mitt "Flip-Flop"
Romney
took $698k in pharmaceutical-related campaign contributions.
* Utah attorney general Sean "Rambo"
Reyes
took $152,000 from pharmaceutical sources while
shamelessly pretending to combat Utah's dire opioid crisis.
* Utah state senator and
pharmaceutical drug kingpin Evan "El
Chapo" Vickers
effectively flooded his area of Utah with opioids, and
laughs about it.
* Utah state senator Curt Bramble took
$73k from pharmaceutical-related contributors.
See Justive4All.blog's
Top 10 Takers list to learn more about their treachery.
UT Gun Rights will be exposing how this criminal political
syndicate manipulates the entire state legislature in the near
future.
These political criminal lowlifes
aren't interested in curtailing drug use. If they
possessed a conscience, they would check themselves in at the nearest prison
for an extended stay.
Not pretend to "help" veterans or others struggling to survive
and heal from the post traumatic stress they suffered.
Utah's overwhelming message is clear: Veterans are
expendable tools to expand the criminal injustice industry and corrupt
political power.
Back to
Topics
Gun Control 101:
Neutralize any potential threat to the gun control
agenda. |
6. Real
Agenda: Disarm Veterans — Permanently
Many veterans have extensive combat
training and experience. As such, they pose a
potential, formidable, defensive resistance against the federal regime's
tyrannical gun control programme.
Veterans' life-and-death experiences are also
scary to effeminate anti-gun
zealots like Gary "Fudd" Herbert, who
believes that government should, for instance,
require background
checks for BB guns.
The same holds true for Herbert's
would-be protege, lieutanant governor and now-gubernatorial-candidate, Spencer Cox. As a house representative in
2013,
Cox
worked through secretive "back-channels" to defeat a "constitutional-lite" version of
a permitless concealed carry bill.
The bill is termed "constitutional-lite" because concealed carriers
without a government "permit" would have still
been required to carry their
firearm in an "unloaded" condition. Yes, even
that was too scary for Herbert and his
brown-nosing "mini-me."
The federal
congress is increasingly full of "vicarious
warriors," or people who send others to
bleed and die. |
Hostile Federal Congress
The federal government
has comprehensively targeted veterans for lifetime firearms
bans
— without authentic due process. In 2007, the federal
congress and Obama enacted HR
2640, which funneled massive resources, and opened veteran
records, to the scrutiny of the National Instant Check System
(NICS). According to Gun Owners of America,
"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
veteran had an 'opportunity' for some sort of 'hearing' before
some
'lawful authority' (other than a court)," the
organization said in a new criticism of the plan. 'Presumably,
this 'lawful authority' could even be the psychiatrist
himself,' the organization said.
"Note that unlike with an accused
murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The 'lawful
authority' doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not
necessarily entitled to an attorney – much less an attorney
financed by the government,' the group said."
Source: "Gun
Owners 'Get Stabbed in Back'",
World Net Daily, 12/23/07.
Department of Homeland INsecurity
In 2009, the Obama regime's U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) published, "Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in
Radicalization and Recruitment." With regard to
veterans, the report claimed the following on page 2:
"The possible passage of new
restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans
facing significant challenges reintegrating into their
communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist
groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent
attacks." [page 2, bold added]
The footnote at the bottom of page two claimed the
following:
"Rightwing extremism in the United
States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements,
and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on
hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and
those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal
authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups
and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such
as opposition to abortion or immigration." [bold added]
Federal agents
predictably downplayed the significance of this report to
the public.
Obama's DHS director Janet Napolitano eventually "apologized".
This DHS report was hardly conducted in a
vacuum, however. It was published by the
DHS's
Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and, according to
page 1 of the
report itself, was,
"Prepared by the Extremism and
Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis
Division. Coordinated with the FBI."
In 2012, the federal regime produced
the "Report
on VA Facility Specific Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF),
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation New Dawn (OND)
Veterans Coded with Potential PTSD - Revised".
This
report claimed that a quarter of a million returning veterans
have been "coded" as having "potential PTSD". These veterans
are key targets of the gun control apparatus.
The disturbing nature of this federal gun
control effort against veterans was gradually revealed. Here are a few
examples from alternative news sources at the time:
"Operation
Vigilant Eagle: Is This Really How We Honor Our Nation's
Veterans?" by John Whitehead, OpEdNews.com, 5/22/13.
"Why
is the Federal Government Disarming Veterans?" by Joe
Wolverton, The New American, 2/26/13.
"Veteran
Declared 'Mentally Defective,' Has Guns Seized," by Paul
Joseph Watson, Infowars.com, 9/24/12.
Since its enactment in 2007,
repeated efforts were made
by various organizations and individuals to rein back NICS and
increasing federal abuses. To no avail.
Instead, in 2013, the Obama regime
pursued a rule to expand NICS access to health and
other records. Speaking of the rule, the
Electronic Privace
Information Center argued:
"...DOJ regulations define 'committed
to a mental institution' as a 'formal commitment of a person
to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or
other lawful authority' INCLUDING 'commitment[s] for mental
defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for
other reasons, such as for drug use.' The phrase 'for
other reasons' is overly broad and vague. Although the DOJ has
illustrated that drug use is an example of 'commitments for
other reasons,' the nebulous language would grant the DOJ
sweeping authority to prohibit individuals from possessing
firearms, a constitutionally protected right. We
recognize that HHS does not have authority to amend DOJ
regulations. But, because HHS proposes to amend its Privacy
Rule so that states can comply with the DOJ's rule, HHS should
not amend its privacy regulations to facilitate states
implementation of the DOJ's broad rule. Thus, until the DOJ
clearly defines and enumerates the types of formal commitments
that can bar gun ownership, HHS should not amend its
regulations to release sensitive mental health information to
the DOJ." [bold and bold caps added]
In January 2014, Michael Hammond, general counsel of the
Gun Owners of America, wrote in
The Washington Times:
"The Department of Health and
Human Service's 'notice of proposed rule-making,' floated by
the White House in a Friday media dump, would waive portions
of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA) to allow psychiatrists to report their
patients to the FBI's gun-ban blacklist (the NICS system) on
the basis of confidential communications.
"The 1968 Gun Control Act bans guns
for anyone who is 'adjudicated as a mental defective or…
committed to a mental institution.'
"Unfortunately, under 2008 NICS
Improvement Act, drafted by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York
Democrat, and its regulations, that 'adjudication' can be made
by any 'other lawful authority.' This means a diagnosis by a
single psychiatrist in connection with a government program.
"In the case of nearly 175,000
law-abiding veterans, the 'lawful authority' has been a
Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist, who, generally,
will take away a veteran's guns by unilaterally declaring him
incompetent and appointing a guardian over his financial
affairs.
"Certainly, the findings can
be appealed, but most veterans don’t have the tens of
thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and psychiatrists to do
so." [bold added]
In December 2014,
Gun Owners of
America reported the following regarding the massive spending
bill that was enacted:
"The bill increases funds, by $13
million, for the widely abused NICS system which Obama has
spent the last two years trying to expand
— both through
unsuccessful legislation and then through unlawful executive
action.
"Among the people stripped of their
Second Amendment rights by the bill's largesse will be over
175,000 law-abiding veterans. The bill is, thus, a kick in
the pants to those who served our country honorably and are
counting on you to protect them." [bold added]
Veterans Affronts Administration
The federal Veterans Affairs
Administration (VA) is ideal to play a
major role in disarming innocent veterans through these
federal gun control advances.
Federally-funded VA psychiatrists are paid and programmed to solicit
sensitive feedback from veterans.
These "experts" then classify
veterans as
suffering from "post traumatic stress," "depression," etc.
Such labels make veterans increasingly vulnerable to ongoing
statutory efforts to label them as being
"unfit" to possess firearms.
The dominant VA mindset was expressed
in its publication, "Firearms
& Dementia":
"The
best way to reduce gun risks is to remove the gun from your
home...
"The presence of firearms in
households has been linked to increased risk of injury or
death for everyone in or around the home...
"Firearms in the home can increase the
possibility of completing suicide...
"Family members do not always take
appropriate action to unload, secure, or remove firearms from
the home. These actions should be taken regardless of the severity of the dementia
or
whether your loved one is suffering from a behavioral problem
or depression...
"Many people see guns as a means of
self-protection rather than as a potential safety hazard. The
belief in the right to 'bear arms' can also be very high."
[bold added]
The Trump
regime's current AG William Barr, a
radical gun control zealot and foe to all veterans. |
Trump's AG William Barr Continues
War on Veterans
But... these disgusting vermin from
the Obama era have all disappeared, right? Everything
must be
improving under president Donald Trump, yes?
Think again.
The Trump regime's attorney general, William Barr, is
continuing the Obama legacy. As examples, AG Barr:
*
Defended FBI snipers who murdered Army veteran Randy Weaver's wife, son,
and dog in 1992;
*
Favors violent gun confiscations, magazine bans, and other
frightening gun controls, and
* Is
preparing a frightening pre-crime federal assault on innocent
gun owners.
The same deep-state swamp of the
Obama regime era is alive and gurgling, with
salivating serpents like AG Barr who want nothing more than to "collaborate" with Utah courts
for your disarmament.
Back to
Topics
7. States are
Key to Disarming Veterans
The Veteran Affairs Administration's
(VA) power to
disarm veterans still has some limitations. According to
Gun Laws by State, a
loophole exists protecting many veterans from federal
gun control aggression: state governments.
"A person who has been adjudicated as
a mentally defective or committed to a mental institution is
not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated by or
committed by a department or agency of the Federal Government,
such as the United States Department of Veteran's Affairs
("VA") (as opposed to a State court, State board, or other
lawful State authority); and (2) either: (a) the person's
adjudication or commitment for mental incompetency was set
aside or expunged by adjudicating agency; (b) the person has
been fully released or discharged from all mandatory
treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; or (c)
the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from
the mental health condition that served as the basis of the
initial adjudication..." [bold added]
In other words, under federal code, the federal regime and
its VA lapdog may, in some instances, still need to "collaborate"
with the state agents and agencies to ensure that veterans are
forcefully and permanently disarmed.
That is why corrupt special
interests are so focused on enticing states to pass gun control bills
like HB 100. Because
Utah is arguably the fraud capital of America, it is
particularly vulnerable to federal coercion.
Rather than help and assist veterans,
Utah's current regime is eager to bend over and grab their
ankles whenever an increasingly-deviant "Uncle Sam" comes
knocking.
Back to
Topics
8. Appropriate Action
HB 100
just
UNANIMOUSLY passed the entire state house and
now moves on to the state senate. See its
bill status page.
Barring a very concerted and immediate effort by Utah's veteran
and right-to-keep-and-bear-arms communities, HB 100 will
be fast-tracked through the senate by powerful and corrupt
special interests.
More Utahans need to comprehend how
house speaker Brad Wilson and
senate president Stuart Adams are running roughshod
over their state legislators. These two tyrants set the
rules, dominate the entire process, and coerce others to bow
to their whims and wishes.
Learn more by reading, "Two
Bullies Steal Your Rights." UT Gun Rights will
provide additional resources in the near future.
For actions you can
take right now, see the article, "What
You Can Do." And keep watching UT Gun Rights'
2020 Bill
Tracking Page: The Good, The Bad, & the Ugly for
critical updates on general session bills.
Back to
Topics
8. Supplemental: Other Views
on HB 100.
Hear Defending Utah discuss HB 100 and the concept of
"veterans courts" by
clicking here.
Back to
Topics
Click here to go back
to The 2020 Bill Tracking Page: The Good, The Bad, and The
Ugly. |
|
Sign
up for E-mail Alerts & Updates
To sign up for free alerts and updates,
email
info@utgunrights.com.
Also "Like" the UT Gun
Rights Facebook page and share it with your friends at
https://www.facebook.com/UtGunRights.
Copying Permission: Permission to reprint articles and
material in whole or in part is hereby granted provided that
UT Gun Rights is cited. Feel free to share this
information with others.
Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational
purposes only. If there
are errors, email info@utgunrights.com.
Comments or
questions? Email
info@utgunrights.com.
Copyright © 2020 UT Gun
Rights
|
|
