In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using the Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?

As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.

Need a professional opinion? Read this article from the “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law” by Joseph R. Simpson, MD, PhD which repudiates the NRA's claim that only involuntary commitments and adjudications by courts will saddle people with firearms disabilities under HR 2640. The article points out that for 40 years, federal law has barred certain individuals with a history of mental health treatment from purchasing, receiving, or possessing firearms. Simpson also discusses the case law related to firearms disability and mental illness commitment, pointing out that it takes a bit more [but not much more] than a psychiatrist's say-so, or being given Ritalin as a child, to lose your right to own a gun under federal law.

Now, let’s dig into the myths:

H.R. 2640 would require states to report mental health data to the BATFE for inclusion in gun purchase background checks via the National Instant Check System. Unfortunately, the NRA has apparently engineered passage through the U.S. House and a Senate Judiciary Committee without even a recorded vote.

In response to members who have contacted the NRA to voice concerns over the vast implications of H.R. 2640, the NRA has responded with falsehoods and half-truths. What follows is the first of a multi-part series intended to: (1) Break up a complicated bill into manageable pieces; and (2) Expose NRA falsehoods.

NRA says: “H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons" [i.e. prohibited from owning firearms]. The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.”

THE REST OF THE TRUTH:

While HR 2640 doesn’t specifically create new classes of prohibited persons, existing vague language in United States Code could already be construed to prohibit tens of thousands of people from owning guns, including (but not limited to) diagnoses of depression, bipolar disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), chemical dependency, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Lacking a centralized reporting system for mental health data, no scrutiny has been directed at such people with regard to gun purchases. Yet HR 2640 creates exactly such a centralized reporting system, ensuring that for years to come, gun control advocates will look to “close loopholes” by reinterpreting “mental defective” to include more and more people as “prohibited persons.”

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), prohibits transferring firearms to “mental defectives” which vague language in the Code of Federal Regulations under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defines as:

“Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”

Ø “Adjudication” doesn’t refer only to court rulings, but instead by a “DETERMINATION by a board, court or commission…” which could include, among other things, a board of psychologists at a mental hospital.

Ø Anyone with a “mental illness” who is deemed by psychologists as unable to “manage his own affairs” would be a prohibited person.

Ø Any such person whose data is reported to BTAFE would incur a potentially permanent firearms “disability,” i.e. would be barred from owning firearms.

More importantly, these people would be denied the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights without being able to avail themselves of their Fifth Amendment right to due process in a court of law.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED