****2nd Amendment help please****

Please forgive my ignorance, but I've not studied some of these issues very long, still trying to learn.
I came across some of these headlines this morning doing research.
Eric Holder vote February 2, 2009
Is the 2nd Amendment under fire really? (pun intended)
(excerpts)
"Remind your senators that Holder has been vocally anti-gun, vocally anti-Second Amendment, and actively supported illegal restrictions and record keeping on guns and gun owners. Tell your senators that you see a vote for Holder, or a vote for cloture to end a filibuster against Holder's confirmation, as an anti-gun vote and you will remember their decision in their next election."
"This guy is bad news."
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/

(Lou Dobbs/CNN January 28, 2009 Obama/Holder To BAN Guns)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8

I have this sneaking suspicion that if you've ever been prescribed an antidepressant or the likes, whether self-committed , by force, or simply sought therapy/not, that you could ALREADY be in the NICS database?
HR2640 already passed Jan.8, 2008 taking the 2nd away from some veterans (PTSD pts.), now with the agenda those here on the DP are WELL aware of, are they're going for the rest of the guns with the help of (VA) Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's proposed "loophole", Holder, Obama, Emmanuel, Brady Bunch?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

The MSM "investigates" this as not so much of a concern for the O administration @ this time, however, not according to this report in concurrence with this DP thread:
(Lou Dobbs/CNN January 28, 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/80847

Ammunition Accountability Act Fraud?
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner...

Unlike many here on the DP, I'm confused on whose a credible source these days and who isn't.
ANY help is DEEPLY appreciated.

Closing the gap on the 2nd?
Do keep in mind, this law suffers from the same problems as any other these days:

* 1. It's only as good as the authorities' willingness to follow it. If they don't act on a request to restore rights, they're not punished (but now you can proceed without them if they stall). If the courts act in a corrupt manner you'll get no justice.

* 2. If officials fail to fix records, they're not punished (but deadlines are now spelled out).

* 3. If they miss their deadlines, they're not punished. If they don't respond to you, they're not punished. New laws need to include sanctions against authorities who fail to act, act too slowly or in any way compromise your rights under the law.
It's time to punish our elected officials and bureaucrats the same as the laws punish us, the people, for failure to comply. I had recommended such language, but it had a snowball's chance in h*ll given the current climate. I recommended it anyway, and will continue to do so. You should start demanding this in all proposed new laws:

(a) Failure to act on a remedy provided by law in a specified short time frame shall incur fines, paid by the agency, to the aggrieved party (a sweet addition many laws could benefit from; why would an honest bureaucrat intent on obeying the law object?).

(b) Failure to act on requests for a legal remedy in a specified short time frame shall subject the agency itself to budget cuts based on the length of delay and the number of people whose rights are held in limbo.

(c) If delays exceed a specified limit, the head of the agency is subject to sanctions (another sweet feet-to-the-fire remedy for many rampant abuses at federal and local levels -- activists should start adding related language to bills as standard procedure). Sanctions should include suspension without pay, dismissal, a ban from being hired at other agencies, and for particularly egregious failures, prison. Can you see how this simple measure would keep officials in line finally?

(d) Any person whose civil rights are wrongly denied in any way by the NICS system may seek damages in addition to attorney fees and court costs. Why would an honest person object? To reduce the risk of hefty costs to government, simply make careful determinations before adding names to NICS, instead of allowing the innocent to appeal after their rights are denied. It's just a reasonable, common-sense safeguard.

* 4. Also note the new law does nothing for 140,000 veterans whose rights were denied en masse on bureaucratic grounds (diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder), without the current safeguards. Those safeguards include advance notice that you face rights denial, notice that there is an appeals process, and that only a true due-process procedure before a real court (plus a valid medical diagnosis) can make the decision. Under the new law, those vets could appeal, and if they win, their attorney's fees are covered (at a somewhat less-than-full rate).

* 5. The massive funding to states (with threats of lost funding for failure to comply) continues an uncomfortable policy of strong-arming states to follow federal rules, weakening federalism (states' rights). In fairness though, if states don't put the certifiable mental cases in the NICS background check system, the plan won't work. (Whether NICS is a good idea altogether is a separate discussion; the proposed BIDS system seems far better, cheaper and less intrusive, but that die is cast.)

* 6. We still don't know who the anonymous 21 million people are, mentioned by the Brady-clique in the bill's intro as possible prohibited possessors, who might face rights denial. Are there that many certifiable mental cases running around loose? That implies an awful lot of court time tied up to fill the NICS database (tripling the current set of records).
Although the original Brady-backed gun-grabbing nightmare has been gutted, in keeping with modern spin control, Brady supporters like Schumer and McCarthy are calling this a win. That's a little like Hillary's exceptionally clever twist, saying anything less than a two-digit loss for her is a victory (yes, her side actually promoted that idea).

In the final analysis though, gun owners have a mixed bag here. We dodged a virtually arbitrary set of rules for denying gun ownership. A method, not great but a method, for restoring rights is now in law. And certifiable mental cases fall under greater control. But we have a lot of new gun law, and with gun law growing with no end in sight, the overall threat to Americans everywhere can not be denied.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8ddabf4e-59e1-40a1-...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2640/news

In Sec.102 (2), they only have to change "of domestic violence" to (blank), making a speeding ticket, or any other "misdemeanor" a reason to disarm?
Sec. 105 ("denials of relief") (as described in the above article)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2640/show

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/01/virginia-governor-tim-...