richfolkes
11-23-2007, 09:20 PM
There is a loophole in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 which has a negative impact on a large swathe of people. This thread deals with those in the medical profession.
It is about the provision which deals with the bodyguards of organized criminals. Back in the late forties and early fifties, it has been said that unethical experiments were carried out on Americans pertaining to nuclear materials and various other dangerous substances under the supervision of the military. The movie "Mulholland Falls" which starred Nick Nolte and John Malkovich is one example of such rumors.
Let's say, back in 1948, long before there was a GCA '68. An army medic is ordered to carry out experiments which are classified top secret. That medic knows that what he's ordered to do goes directly against the Hippocratic oath he took upon his graduation ten years earlier. This doctor flatly refuses to comply with the orders. And the CO tells him "If you're not prepared to carry out these experiments, I will get somebody who is!". Meaning the medic will face court martial for disobeying direct orders. That medic faces court martial and defends his sworn duty to save lives. The general presiding the court martial, the prosecutor and the jury beg to differ stating his duty to his country and find him guilty. The doctor is found guilty and then dishonorably discharged from the military.
In civilian life, the American Medical Association understands the reason he was court martialled and fails to see any reason why they should take away his medical license, let alone take any other action against him, stating that his decision to adhere to his professional ethics instead of following orders from his CO to conduct unethical experiments clearly makes him worthy of his license. In fact, they praise him for following his responsibilities as a doctor.
That doctor then applies for a job at a major hospital in Tucson AZ. The team interviewing him takes the court martial into consideration and are well impressed by the doctor's refusal to break is oath. They hire him.
Over time, he rises through the ranks to being the medical director of the hospital and he too leads teams interviewing applicants. That man becomes highly esteemed among his colleagues and his patients alike and has saved many lives throughout his civilian career.
Today, under the GCA, the provision on bodyguards to organized criminals has the potential effect of making Federal criminals out of everyone who is currently and formerly employed at the hospital. From the triage nurse to the Director of Nursing. From the janitors who provide a safe and clean environment to the security staff. From the interns to the chief surgeons of the hospital. All of whom can otherwise legally own their handguns and carry them with their CCW permits. This loophole makes them all liable to Federal prosecution as the 'bodyguards of an organized criminal', purely because their boss was dishonorably discharged from the military just because he did the right thing as a doctor. Perhaps long before most of those employees were even born.
And to make matters worse. The disqualification from owning a firearm came twenty years after he was drummed out of the Army, making the provision an ex post facto law. And if he still owned his Colt .45 he had as a soldier, he can't legally get rid of it in any manner because GCA '68 forbids transfers from as well as to prohibited persons. And even if he gave the gun to his son back in 1967, he still becomes criminally liable because the firearm was transferred from a prohibited person.
So, come to think about it, GCA '68 not only harms the average person in society, it harms the pillars of society too. And I don't think today's BATFE would have any qualms whatsoever about knocking down a major pillar of society simply because of a minor incident in the Army which arose from an ethical dispute that happened nearly 60 years ago!
Nasty stuff, ain't it?
It is about the provision which deals with the bodyguards of organized criminals. Back in the late forties and early fifties, it has been said that unethical experiments were carried out on Americans pertaining to nuclear materials and various other dangerous substances under the supervision of the military. The movie "Mulholland Falls" which starred Nick Nolte and John Malkovich is one example of such rumors.
Let's say, back in 1948, long before there was a GCA '68. An army medic is ordered to carry out experiments which are classified top secret. That medic knows that what he's ordered to do goes directly against the Hippocratic oath he took upon his graduation ten years earlier. This doctor flatly refuses to comply with the orders. And the CO tells him "If you're not prepared to carry out these experiments, I will get somebody who is!". Meaning the medic will face court martial for disobeying direct orders. That medic faces court martial and defends his sworn duty to save lives. The general presiding the court martial, the prosecutor and the jury beg to differ stating his duty to his country and find him guilty. The doctor is found guilty and then dishonorably discharged from the military.
In civilian life, the American Medical Association understands the reason he was court martialled and fails to see any reason why they should take away his medical license, let alone take any other action against him, stating that his decision to adhere to his professional ethics instead of following orders from his CO to conduct unethical experiments clearly makes him worthy of his license. In fact, they praise him for following his responsibilities as a doctor.
That doctor then applies for a job at a major hospital in Tucson AZ. The team interviewing him takes the court martial into consideration and are well impressed by the doctor's refusal to break is oath. They hire him.
Over time, he rises through the ranks to being the medical director of the hospital and he too leads teams interviewing applicants. That man becomes highly esteemed among his colleagues and his patients alike and has saved many lives throughout his civilian career.
Today, under the GCA, the provision on bodyguards to organized criminals has the potential effect of making Federal criminals out of everyone who is currently and formerly employed at the hospital. From the triage nurse to the Director of Nursing. From the janitors who provide a safe and clean environment to the security staff. From the interns to the chief surgeons of the hospital. All of whom can otherwise legally own their handguns and carry them with their CCW permits. This loophole makes them all liable to Federal prosecution as the 'bodyguards of an organized criminal', purely because their boss was dishonorably discharged from the military just because he did the right thing as a doctor. Perhaps long before most of those employees were even born.
And to make matters worse. The disqualification from owning a firearm came twenty years after he was drummed out of the Army, making the provision an ex post facto law. And if he still owned his Colt .45 he had as a soldier, he can't legally get rid of it in any manner because GCA '68 forbids transfers from as well as to prohibited persons. And even if he gave the gun to his son back in 1967, he still becomes criminally liable because the firearm was transferred from a prohibited person.
So, come to think about it, GCA '68 not only harms the average person in society, it harms the pillars of society too. And I don't think today's BATFE would have any qualms whatsoever about knocking down a major pillar of society simply because of a minor incident in the Army which arose from an ethical dispute that happened nearly 60 years ago!
Nasty stuff, ain't it?