Vets unsuitable to be gun owners?


PDA






dbp
February 22, 2013, 12:23 PM
I ran across this link on Drudge concerning letters that some veterans are getting. Have any of you vets seen anything like this?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/shock-report-veterans-receive-letters-from-va-prohibiting-ownership-or-purchase-of-firearms/

If you enjoyed reading about "Vets unsuitable to be gun owners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hipoint
February 22, 2013, 12:30 PM
I for one would like to see more of the letter than a paragraph before I made up my mind... I certainly respect veterans for their service mind you, but that's not much to go on. I deal with the V.A. quite a bit where I work and it is really sad what they put these folks through.

psyopspec
February 22, 2013, 12:36 PM
I really wish he would have posted a copy of the letter. But taking a look at this quotation from the article: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition," it makes it look like such a determination has not been made. Further, "incompetency" is a vague term in legal aspects; in order for someone to lose their firearm rights they must be "adjudicated mentally ill/defective" per the 4473. That adjudication is made by a mental health professional and requires due process to be upheld (that being a function of the judicial branch rather than the executive, since the piece blames the current administration), and is a standard generally correlated with involuntary commitment.

While I'm interested in seeing the letter and wish he would have posted it, even that would require some context. If a person communicated that they were a threat to themselves or others, it would not be surprising if they received a letter notifying them that a hearing might occur in which they could be adjudicated unfit for firearms ownership.

Obviously, if true this would ultimately do harm to public health and the health of veterans as a whole by disincentivizing going in for treatment if someone had PTSD, depression, or alcoholism but was not a danger to themselves or others.

Having said all that, I'll stay tuned. But my pitchfork isn't coming out until I see more information and more context.

dbp
February 22, 2013, 12:43 PM
If you go to the bottom of the page of the linked article and click on "more here" and go to the bottom of that article you will see the three part letter. The letter comes out of the VA Affairs office in Portland, Oregon.

I was just wondering if anyone on THR had received one?

psyopspec
February 22, 2013, 01:01 PM
Thanks! I pulled it up, but Chrome wouldn't zoom in any more. I had to squint, but the relevant section is certainly there. Of course, we still don't have the context. I understand that whomever received this may wish to remain private, but I'd still like to know more.

dbp
February 22, 2013, 01:08 PM
Thanks! I pulled it up, but Chrome wouldn't zoom in any more. I had to squint, but the relevant section is certainly there. Of course, we still don't have the context. I understand that whomever received this may wish to remain private, but I'd still like to know more.
I understand that whomever received this may wish to remain private

Yes, I am sure you are correct. I wasn't thinking when I asked for anyone receiving this to admit it.

I too would like to know more about this situation.

9MMare
February 22, 2013, 01:11 PM
Our military should get alot more help & support...in many many ways....when they come home. They are more likely to commit suicide, like police, than many other groups. And sadly even killing their families but as far as I know, they are not more likely to commit 'crimes.' (I realize that murder is of course, a crime).

Altho I have one friend in N. CA that speaks highly of his VA and the treatment he gets, most others I hear from....treatment and basic services are a disgrace. I think it's a crime to cut money from VA hospitals and programs...it's like we made a deal with these men, they held up their end of the deal, and then we just drop the ball for so many after we're 'done with them.'

JohnBT
February 22, 2013, 01:14 PM
From what I read on another site - posted by someone with better eyesight than me for those 3 little images that won't open properly - the letter is informing the applicant that the VA is ready to make a decision on competency and asking if the person agrees or would like to submit additional info/medical opinions, etc.

John

Zeke/PA
February 22, 2013, 01:23 PM
Vets??
Don't EVEN get me started.
Lot's of Vets are sleeping under bridges as we speak and NOBODY cares.
Meanwhile, TONS of money is sent elsewhere in the world for "foreign aid" purposes.
Say what you will our first concern should be our Vets and our Elderly.
BUT, we NEED the Middle East's Oil, RIGHT???
i GET sooooo sick of hearing the retoric of CORRUPT politics!

dbp
February 22, 2013, 01:25 PM
Here is a link to another site with a little more information and the letter has been enlarged slightly.http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/

Cosmoline
February 22, 2013, 01:33 PM
Isn't the determination of incompetency tied with treatment and benefits? Seems like the best solution is to reject both and keep your lips together.

Ehtereon11B
February 22, 2013, 01:38 PM
A fellow OEF vet told me about this. He found it on redflagnews or something so I didn't pay much attention. Since breitbart, blaze, redflag, and similar sources are about as accurate as The Onion or Duffel Blog usually.

Doesn't surprise me. This is why tons of vets don't talk about PTSD with anyone at the VA or and named system.

JohnBT
February 22, 2013, 02:17 PM
"Isn't the determination of incompetency tied with treatment and benefits?"

I believe it's more about ability to handle the money, buy food, pay bills, etc. I could tell you how the VA handled it years ago, but I'm retired now and have no idea about their current policy.

For perspective, the Social Security system provides for a Representative Payee when the disabled person is determined to be incapable of handling the monthly check.

www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-repayee-ussi.htm

"A representative payee is a person, agency, organization or institution we select to manage your funds when we determine that you are unable to do so yourself. "

JohnBiltz
February 22, 2013, 02:55 PM
Hate to say it but "A determination of incompetency" means you are not competent for a lot of things. You are giving up a lot of your rights, you are pretty much no longer considered an adult. Its a pretty serious step.

Fishslayer
February 22, 2013, 03:12 PM
Isn't veteran status also one of the red flags for a domestic terrorist in that DOJ flier that was going around? Like paying cash for things and having more than a couple weeks food in the house?

Coop45
February 22, 2013, 03:19 PM
"Isn't the determination of incompetency tied with treatment and benefits?"

I believe it's more about ability to handle the money, buy food, pay bills, etc. I could tell you how the VA handled it years ago, but I'm retired now and have no idea about their current policy.

For perspective, the Social Security system provides for a Representative Payee when the disabled person is determined to be incapable of handling the monthly check.

www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-repayee-ussi.htm

"A representative payee is a person, agency, organization or institution we select to manage your funds when we determine that you are unable to do so yourself. "
I haven't heard of anything new coming down the pike, but with TBI's and high ratings for PTSD that determination is possible.

alsaqr
February 22, 2013, 03:27 PM
Yep, theres rumors concerning various letters from the VA along with questions of gun ownership by VA doctors. This 80 percent disabled vet has never seen any of these letters and had never been asked any questions about gun ownership.

Its all trash.

gym
February 22, 2013, 03:34 PM
It's all about control, they know that Vets know how to use a weapon, and that is on the crap list of things they are trying to do away with. If anything ever did happen, Vets would be in a position of leading others who have less or no experience in surviving during times of strife.
First the guns, then the ammo, then the manufacturers, and finally the folks who have the best training in the world.
It's like a terminator movie. Uncle Sam spent millions on teaching guys how to penetrate enemy lines and survive off the land, along with snipers, explosive experts, and just about everything that could come back to bite them, so of course they now want them made into docile unarmed manaquins.
I am sure that their protocalls include drugs to make them unable to function past a certain point.

ApacheCoTodd
February 22, 2013, 03:38 PM
Much more illuminating than cherry picked paragraphs. I'm still concerned with the fact that it could apply to a mental or PHYSICAL condition which presents evidence as to the recipient being unable to handle his/her VA benefit payments.

All three pages are at the bottom of this page:

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition

First off the primary issue is the recipients ability to handle the benefits as a sign of incompetence, secondly, how could a physical incompetence alter one's rights to own a firearm?

Sounds like an American's With Disabilities Act lawsuit waiting to happen to me.

rdhood
February 22, 2013, 03:41 PM
BUT, we NEED the Middle East's Oil, RIGHT???

Actually, not so much anymore, and not for much longer.

oldbear
February 22, 2013, 03:56 PM
purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me.


The portion of the letter posted states that “a determination of incompetency” Not you have been determined to be or we suspect you are. Again one sentence in the letter simply informs the receiver of federal law, nothing more nothing less.

I'm also pleased that almost everyone who has all ready posted has been quick to question the intent of the letter and perhaps the person who Originally posted it, "Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, February 22, 2013, 6:11 AM"

Shadow 7D
February 22, 2013, 03:59 PM
No, not really, it's SOP for the VA, lets not think too much about this, most of the time these cases are run up the system via family and VA social workers, where a vet is having difficulty with their own finances/care.

dbp
February 22, 2013, 04:50 PM
Hey - Oldbear, I am the OP in this thread. Let me be sure I understand, are you saying that I am fear mongering and have some nefarious intent here? Or are you speaking about the author of the article?

Al Thompson
February 22, 2013, 04:58 PM
Some good discussion here:

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265

More in-depth analysis and an interesting statement by a former VA worker.

psyopspec
February 22, 2013, 05:13 PM
Hey - Oldbear, I am the OP in this thread. Let me be sure I understand, are you saying that I am fear mongering and have some nefarious intent here? Or are you speaking about the author of the article?

I didn't get that impression at all, and I'm usually one of the people most ready to call out rumor-mongerers on gun boards. You did everything right by putting a question mark rather than an exclamation point in your thread title. Further, the entire point of your post was to solicit feedback on something that's unconfirmed. I for one am I glad you brought it up.

bikerdoc
February 22, 2013, 05:24 PM
Doesn't surprise me. This is why tons of vets don't talk about PTSD with anyone at the VA or and named system.
__________________

This!!!! Dont tell them bupkas.

Screw the VA. I have not been since 1970. All they wanted to do then was hand me bunch of Valium and tell me to get over it .

Took me until 75 ,after many bottles of Jack Danials, to find a church vet support group that worked.

I'm willing to help my younger fellow vets, get started just Pm me. ( check my profile for credentials.)

breakingcontact
February 22, 2013, 05:30 PM
Ah, the government, always creating another problem by creating another solution.

So, less vets will seek treatment, let's see how that turns out.

Dave Workman
February 22, 2013, 05:36 PM
'breakingcontact'

Having followed this for some time, you probably just cracked a code.

This could easily result in a number of vets who really could use a bit of help just turning their backs because they don't want to lose their rights.

What a sorry statement about the government. We train these folks, send them into harm's way ostensibly to defend our rights and our constitution...and when they come home, we deny them the rights they fought for automatically.

There is probably a better term, but right now can't think of one more appropriate than "sucks."

:cuss::fire:

SharpsDressedMan
February 22, 2013, 06:57 PM
That just makes perfect sense. Place a man into a situation where he developes mental issues while sacrificing for his country, and then make him sacrifice his right to fireams after he gets out. I think I'd go postal after that one, even if I wasn't BEFORE.

Deer_Freak
February 22, 2013, 07:19 PM
One thing we are looking at a snippet of a VA document. The text on the bottom of the document might be on all documents that a veteran is required to sign to be determined incompetent. I take friends to the VA if they need transportation. I am eligible for VA benefits myself. Given the veteran is able to handle his own money he will be found competent. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, not being able to handle ones financial affairs is the bar of incompetence.

oldbear
February 22, 2013, 08:15 PM
are you speaking about the author of the article?

dpb, be assured I was referring to the author of the article, NOT YOU.

If there was/is any confusion about my intent, I offer an apology to you and any others who may have misunderstood my reference.

jcwit
February 22, 2013, 08:28 PM
Been dealing/going to the VA for 11 - 12 years now for everything from cancer to bloody noses. I get my eyes tested there. I get my hearing aids there. I get all my meds there. I am on disability pension. I served back in the 60/70's. My medical care has been super, I'm completely satisfied. My Dr. called me the other night at 8 PM from home checking on me as she said she was concerned.

Everything is good.

I have discussed my hobby of target shooting with both my eye and hearing Dr.'s with no negative reaction.

And NO, I have never gotten a letter such as described.
With that said, I sure see Vets at the hospital who had no business owning a firearm let alone handling one.

I had one old gentleman jump to attention and salute me calling me a General because my Veteran baseball cap had some scrambled eggs on the visor.

Torian
February 22, 2013, 08:32 PM
I've already warned my fellow combat veterans about the risks of claiming PTSD benefits. If you want the money, and you check all the boxes, be prepared to give up some rights.

stumpers
February 22, 2013, 08:37 PM
If someone is so grossly incompetent that they cannot handle a monthly disability payment from the federal government that is automatically direct deposited to a bank account, they have bigger problems than gun rights.

I have no idea about the subject of the letter, nor does anyone else here. Please consider that the subject of the letter may actually be suicidal, homicidal or suffering from a severe mental disorder that leaves him basically non-functioning.

I know for a fact that I am not prohibited from possession or purchase of firearms and I have a disability rating from the VA that includes, among other things, a rating for PTSD. I even went so far as to go through the Voluntary Appeal File process and was given UPIN - a year after being rated by the VA.

Anyone with PTSD should not hesitate to seek mental health treatment at the VA for fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. Anything else at this time is paranoia.

I challenge anyone to prove that someone has lost their Second Amendment right through an administrative action by the VA that did not include legal due process.

stumpers
February 22, 2013, 08:39 PM
I've already warned my fellow combat veterans about the risks of claiming PTSD benefits. If you want the money, and you check all the boxes, be prepared to give up some rights.

Do you have a source for this claim about the risks of claiming PTSD?

Many veterans who desperately need the help are not getting it because of falsities like this. Stop making stuff up and get your friends help so they can live up to, as much as possible, the potential they had before PTSD.

Torian
February 22, 2013, 08:44 PM
I worked with a SSG in my current unit a couple years before he ETS'd. 90% disability to include benefits for PTSD. He wasn't a big second amendment guy, but he did get a letter confirming that he was no longer permitted to own firearms. He didn't mention it initially, but I was curious given his status, and decided to ask him whether he received any notification.

He didn't really care that much about it, since he walked away from guns awhile ago (he realized that his short fuse probably didn't make it a good idea).

The threat is real. It doesn't affect all individuals with PTSD, but you're naive if you think that your "mental illness" won't be a future target for liberals if they get their way. The bills we are seeing at the state and federal level makes me feel less and less paranoid every day.

I took fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was actually a combat medevac from my most recent deployment. I likely have mild PTSD, but you won't ever find me admitting having difficulty sleeping, or being easily startled, or other symptoms of PTSD any time soon. I'll deal with it. My guns are my therapy.

We should be saving the resources for the guys that are really suffering. There are way too many people out there these days that are claiming PTSD without ever stepping outside the wire or getting shot at or blown up.

stumpers
February 22, 2013, 09:02 PM
We should be saving the resources for the guys that are really suffering. There are way too many people out there these days that are claiming PTSD without ever stepping outside the wire or getting shot at or blown up.

You should know better as a combat veteran and as a member of the Armed Forces than to make such an insensitive statement. This is not pertinent at all to the thread, but your statement is offensive and I cannot ignore it. Your comments on PTSD and "mental illness" are not true, polite or "highroad."

Torian
February 22, 2013, 09:17 PM
You should know better as a combat veteran and as a member of the Armed Forces than to make such an insensitive statement. This is not pertinent at all to the thread, but your statement is offensive and I cannot ignore it. Your comments on PTSD and "mental illness" are not true, polite or "highroad."

Great, good for you; I won't lose sleep over your being hot and bothered.

You jumped into this thread, challenged people to refute you, and I did...based on my experience as a combat veteran who has been wounded in action, and someone who has had to not only help soldiers deal with PTSD, but also watch others game the system.

Telling the truth or sharing ones experiences isn't about winning a popularity contest.

On a side note:

I put "mental illness" in quotations because that's what liberals think it is, not what I think it is.

joeschmoe
February 22, 2013, 09:33 PM
All vets are insane. They were crazy enough to believe the government would take care of them and not abuse them. :rolleyes:

montgomery381
February 22, 2013, 09:36 PM
The rating of incompetency is not a broad diagnosis of a person's mental state. It only pertains to a person's ability to handle their VA benefits, basically their ability to pay their bill and meet their needs. This rating can be given to people who have no other problems than short term memory loss.And on the other hand some one with a severe case of PTSD does not automatically get this rating. Veterans are also able to apply to have the prohibition lifted so that they can own firearms. Veterans can also appeal the incompetency rating and have the rating removed which would lift the firearms prohibition.

stumpers
February 22, 2013, 09:38 PM
Can anyone please provide a citation, study, court case, etc., about someone losing their Second Amendment right through a medical or administrative process that circumvents legal due process?

There is no proof that I have seen or anyone has produced, only speculation, that people are becoming prohibited persons based on the VA claims process or mental health system.

montgomery381
February 22, 2013, 09:49 PM
stumpers, 38 U.S.C. 5502(a)(1) may have some information on it. The prohibition is part of the Brady Act to Prevent Handgun Violence.

The vet will receive notice that the VA has rated them incompetent. The vet then has 60 days to contest the rating or they can agree with the rating. If there is no reply after 60 days the rating is made official.

Coop45
February 22, 2013, 09:49 PM
Before we all get our panties in a wad, check out this site (http://www.vva.org/ptsd_levels.html).

Coop45
February 22, 2013, 09:53 PM
OOPs double post

stumpers
February 22, 2013, 09:56 PM
I just found this:

"The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 (The Brady Act), prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including beneficiaries the VA determines are incompetent. In compliance with this act, VA reports the names of incompetent beneficiaries to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which then adds the names to a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). "

The link I tried to post did not work, if interested in the source, 'Google' - "brady act veterans" it's the first one on the list, it's a Word document.

FMF Doc
February 22, 2013, 09:58 PM
This is why I tell all the guys I know, getting out, be careful what you say. If you NEED help, get it. But don't go blabbing about sleepless nights and flashbacks to get a couple extra buck or two from the VA...it ain't worth it.

On a slightly more sinister note, why do you think the military is encouraging departing vets to speak up about PTSD and TBI. This is their ticket to disarming a potential future problem. Governments have always been fearful of armed veterans. We have morals, prinicples, dedication to a cause greated than ourselves, a tendancy to associate with like minded people, and training in weapons and (for us modern era guys) insurgent warfare. We are nightmare to an over-reaching, powergrabbing central government.

dbp
February 22, 2013, 10:28 PM
dpb, be assured I was referring to the author of the article, NOT YOU.

If there was/is any confusion about my intent, I offer an apology to you and any others who may have misunderstood my reference.
No harm done. Thanks. Just trying to get other opinions of the article.

DMN
February 22, 2013, 11:23 PM
I have conducted these evaluations for the VA, and have seen the excerpts from the letter posted online. This specifically refers to a veteran's competency in managing his benefit payments. It becomes a serious issue if someone is incompetent to the point of not being able to be their own payee. I have only seen the denial once, when someone was regularly experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, and was a real danger to themselves and others. Also, most of the vets I've evaluated for psychiatric disability have some measure of PTSD, and this has not precluded the right to own firearms.

However, with the passage of new invasive and draconian laws (e.g., NYS), one needs to be very careful about the kind of information given to health professionals.

JohnBT
February 22, 2013, 11:59 PM
"There is no proof that I have seen or anyone has produced, only speculation, that people are becoming prohibited persons based on the VA claims process"

There is plenty of info. Here's one example.

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=542311&highlight=vets+ptsd+va+gun+rights

barnbwt
February 23, 2013, 12:00 AM
A mish-mash of rationales regarding this "vets' competency" nonsense I've heard by people I know (the latter portions are my attempt at completing the "logical" progression of each point)

1. Only highly trained soldiers can be relied upon to win battles--but training/experience makes them too effective to be trusted back home
2. Only psychos join the military-->but only psychos can perform as soldiers
3. Service makes soldiers crazy-->but it's okay; they were crazy to begin with
4. Veterans are incapable of reintegrating into society-->therefore they can never be fully trusted

Just a mess of conflicted logic and poor assumptions. But some people live by contradictions, it seems. The only way to satisfy the "constraints" of the caricatured viewpoints above is for our servicemen to completely dissappear before and after conflict--but somehow remain ever vigilant, and ever ready. And totally isolated from civilian society at all times.

I suppose the dream is that if we civilians can avoid the cost and risk of war to ourselves, we can wage it with impunity? :eek: I can envision nothing more horrific than a warrior protected from all compassion for his enemies. If we more exposed to the true costs of conflict and to those affected by it, civlians would have both more reluctance to wage wars, and a better understanding of and respect for those returning--so they would not be treated as outsiders. War has become too pleasurable and convenient in it's mechanized, automated form.

TCB

Glennx39
February 23, 2013, 01:14 AM
once you have a documented mental disablility rating with the VA, you have just given them an amount of control over your 2nd am. rights. Many people in the military have no idea about this, and think that it could never happen to them.(alot of people getting out of the military claim a small percentage for PTSD just for a little money every month). IF YOU NEED HELP GET IT, BUT DON'T MILK THE SYSTEM IF YOU DON'T NEED HELP. No one listened to my warnings though. But, a guy in my old platoon I knew well, claimed a bunch of ptsd, and guess what? He couldn't re-enlist, and can't own a firearm the rest of his life. Think about the emphasis on mental health now after sandy hook. I'm telling you the VA probably has a quota for the year for how many people to deem incapable of having firearms. It's all about numbers you can talk up as progress. If you honestly think they don't have a target goal now for this year, you need to get back into your "sheeple" flock. It's probably miniscule maybe 50 or 100. But, there's a quota I'm sure. Anyone who's worked for the government knows it's a numbers game, you're told from above what needs to happen and you make it happen so they can say they accomplished some great goal. One step at a time, wait until 15 years from now when a 10% ptsd disablility rating takes away your rights. If you milked the system you are gonna wish you could give all that money back. wait and see

foghornl
February 23, 2013, 01:57 PM
perhaps some of those folks making the rules remember something of "The Battle Of Athens, TN", whne WWII veterns drove out the corrupt political machine.

skoro
February 23, 2013, 02:06 PM
I'm a vet.

I've never received such a latter.

I chalk it up to bull-loney. :)

9MMare
February 23, 2013, 02:15 PM
On a slightly more sinister note, why do you think the military is encouraging departing vets to speak up about PTSD and TBI. This is their ticket to disarming a potential future problem. Governments have always been fearful of armed veterans. We have morals, prinicples, dedication to a cause greated than ourselves, a tendancy to associate with like minded people, and training in weapons and (for us modern era guys) insurgent warfare. We are nightmare to an over-reaching, powergrabbing central government.

I think that there are two sides to this...altho I'm not sure I agree with the credibility of yours as 'sinister.'

The VA HAS dropped the ball in care for our vets coming home and the rates of domestic violence and suicide are very high. They NEED help and as is recognized, many are hesitant to reach out for it. For many reasons....trying to be 'strong, fear of losing their guns, fear of being stigmatized, etc.

IMO, being mentally healthy and coming back to be a good son, father, husband, employee is more important than owning a gun. Guns are not the only option for protection or self-defense...esp not for a military man or woman.

9MMare
February 23, 2013, 02:18 PM
I have conducted these evaluations for the VA, and have seen the excerpts from the letter posted online. This specifically refers to a veteran's competency in managing his benefit payments. It becomes a serious issue if someone is incompetent to the point of not being able to be their own payee. I have only seen the denial once, when someone was regularly experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, and was a real danger to themselves and others. Also, most of the vets I've evaluated for psychiatric disability have some measure of PTSD, and this has not precluded the right to own firearms.

However, with the passage of new invasive and draconian laws (e.g., NYS), one needs to be very careful about the kind of information given to health professionals.

Altho only one person's experience, I think this bears repeating. Esp. the last caveat, which I bolded.

9MMare
February 23, 2013, 02:22 PM
But, a guy in my old platoon I knew well, claimed a bunch of ptsd, and guess what? He couldn't re-enlist, and can't own a firearm the rest of his life.e

Well it's just IMO but if someone truly has PTSD, they have no business re-enlisting, even in a non-combat position. They should be removed from such associations as much as possible.

I kinda call BS on the legitimacy of his claim (as did you it seems).

alsaqr
February 23, 2013, 04:35 PM
This VA is after your guns stuff has been making the rounds for years. Theres a new epidemic of it ever six months or so. These guys are all combat veterans and veterans advocates:

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265


If anyone knows ANY VETERAN who has been adjudicated as incompetant to handle his fiduciary stuff, but who isn’t absolytely BAT**** crazy (and/or) who hasn’t threatened to kill themselves or others, than contact us. Seriously. I looked for months and months, and never found one. I’d find someone who was almost perfect, and then we’d find out how he threatened to kill his mom or himself. If you know an actual person that shouldn’t have had this happen, JUST CONTACT US.

SharpsDressedMan
February 23, 2013, 07:00 PM
The question on the 4473 (Do they still call it that?) is have you been adjudicated mentally deficient, or currently being treated, or something to thsat effect, right? Well, I can see that easily being "revised" by BATF to include veterans and PTSD.

Ehtereon11B
February 24, 2013, 07:18 AM
Well it's just IMO but if someone truly has PTSD, they have no business re-enlisting, even in a non-combat position. They should be removed from such associations as much as possible.

In many cases that does more harm than good. My old PSG has PTSD, a rather severe case of it. Between his Marine and Army careers, he has been on 8 combat deployments many of which were voluntary. He is calmer under fire than back home and a great leader. When he is stateside, he is jittery and anxious. Almost not even the same person.

The question on the 4473 (Do they still call it that?) is have you been adjudicated mentally deficient, or currently being treated, or something to thsat effect, right? Well, I can see that easily being "revised" by BATF to include veterans and PTSD.


Seeking treatment is the biggest grey area for vets with PTSD. You can go to formal counseling that takes your name but promises "to not inform anyone unless they feel you are a danger." I am always wary of those because they are usually run by civilians, never military or former.

The other are informal sessions that are done by Vet focused organizations. Some take your name, others don't. The informal discussions where there is no group leader or representative work the best. A quiet corner at a VFW or American legion with a bunch of other vets is the best therapy that I have found. No civilian doctor with a degree who thinks he knows what he is talking about.

bikerdoc
February 24, 2013, 09:19 AM
The informal discussions where there is no group leader or representative work the best. A quiet corner at a VFW or American legion with a bunch of other vets is the best therapy that I have found. No civilian doctor with a degree who thinks he knows what he is talking about.


This is what I mentioned earlier. It works!

rodinal220
February 24, 2013, 11:10 AM
Careful on the UBC.They are looking to create as many categories of people to prohibit from ever owning firearms again,vets included.Vets have combat experience and training,the progressive center left types do not like this.

wideym
February 24, 2013, 11:25 AM
There was a local new report a few years ago about a vet who had his CCW permit revoked due to the VA listing him as incompetent. At first I was outraged, but then I saw the interview and realized he convinced the VA to find him incompetent so his wife could be appointed his guardian and draw additional money from the VA.

It was all about the money, until he couldn't legally carry anymore.

9MMare
February 24, 2013, 05:25 PM
In many cases that does more harm than good. My old PSG has PTSD, a rather severe case of it. Between his Marine and Army careers, he has been on 8 combat deployments many of which were voluntary. He is calmer under fire than back home and a great leader. When he is stateside, he is jittery and anxious. Almost not even the same person.

.

I wont doubt you about your old PSG. However I cant see how that is any good for him, mentally or otherwise. It's an unnatural and unhealthy environment that he has become adapted to. I wouldnt consider that 'treatment' for PTSD or even healthy maintenance, but then again, I'm not a doctor.

Averageman
February 24, 2013, 06:44 PM
I believe I alerted you folks here about 6 months ago that I thought this would start being an issue.
It can be written in a kinder more gentle way, but in the end if you are taking moeny for the disability of PTSD, I do believe, you have sold your gun rights to get it.

gym
February 24, 2013, 09:45 PM
I would think a doctors letter stating your ability to own a weapon would go a long way with this. If a doctor's letter can get you disabled, then it should also explain what your limitations are according to the medical findings.
I would try that first, if your doctor is willing to write a letter for you.

HorseSoldier
February 24, 2013, 09:59 PM
The VA, as a medical and mental health provider, having the authority to adjudicate someone mentally incompetent (when they meet certain criteria) isn't the same thing as the VA saying all veterans are liable to lose their 2nd Amendment Rights. And, as was touched on up thread, there haven't been a rash of cases of the VA whimsically adjudicating people mentally incompetent -- when you get that one tacked on, you've got something pretty serious going on.

That could change, of course. And, while the VA hasn't been slap happy with adjudication, the fact that they and the .mil health system have become incredibly liberal with handing out PTSD and associated diagnoses, and have spent the past decade urging, cajoling, and occasionally ordering people into the warm embrace of the behavioral health system, does create what could come back to bite a lot of people if they change their mind on their criteria.

Personally, I did not see the 2A angle of this coming, but saw potential for a lot of career damage for people who self-identified as per orders during the war now that we are going into downsizing mode and getting back to the good old worthlessness of garrison mindsets and zero defect mentalities. I suspect, sadly, that eventually mental health issues are going to be a lever for the guys who hid out from the war as much as possible to edge out the real fighters and soldiers in the peacetime politics of promotion, though we'll have to see how it goes, I suppose . . .

Ehtereon11B
February 25, 2013, 08:06 AM
I wont doubt you about your old PSG. However I cant see how that is any good for him, mentally or otherwise. It's an unnatural and unhealthy environment that he has become adapted to. I wouldnt consider that 'treatment' for PTSD or even healthy maintenance, but then again, I'm not a doctor.


Guess my point was is what may work for one person, doesn't work for everyone. There is some merit of doing something dangerous after experiencing deployment. Like my old PSG volunteers for more deployments. Another friend of mine skydives, has done something like 200 jumps since we got back 3 years ago. Whereas I just avoid explosions/bangs, certain alarms, and drink now and then.

The VA system is run by bureaucrats, not by doctors. Some administrator will think you are irresponsible with your money and declare you mentally deficient. Then they automatically send your name to the NICS because of it. There is a reason why the stigma exists between soldiers and anyone trying to "help." Every doctor associated with, paid from, or provided by the VA has always had some ulterior motive every time.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 25, 2013, 08:10 AM
On a slightly more sinister note, why do you think the military is encouraging departing vets to speak up about PTSD and TBI.

So they can show they're trying to do something. Check the box. The military doesn't actually care about solving the problem. They care about looking like they're trying to solve it. It's a CYA measure. That's all the modern military is. Half the people are creating new boxes to be checked and the other half are checking them.

beatledog7
February 25, 2013, 09:59 AM
I agree with Ehtereon11B.

The human mind is incredibly complex, and no two are alike. The concept that one person can know another's mind with any degree of accuracy is wishful thinking at best. At worst, it's another means for the government to control us.

I've been around and around this part of the gun control argument in my own mind, which even I don't always understand, and I'm reaching the conclusion that we have no business predicting whose mental state renders him or her unsuitable for gun ownership. To me, it seems more and more like punishing a person for a crime he might someday commit. There are some mental states that obviously make a person unable to function in a way we consider normal, but then, what's normal? You see how the argument goes round and round?

So, I'm on the side of not stripping away rights from a person unless and until we see that person exhibit a behavior that warrants it. If Joe or Sally actually does something violent with a gun that's attributable to a mental condition, then we must address it. But to strip a person of rights because we fear some possible future occurrence...

Who can say for sure that any single gun owner, veteran or not, will never snap? Who can say for sure that a particular driver will never have a few drinks and get behind the wheel, or that a seemingly balanced woman will never turn a kitchen knife on her children?

9MMare
February 26, 2013, 01:22 AM
Guess my point was is what may work for one person, doesn't work for everyone. There is some merit of doing something dangerous after experiencing deployment. Like my old PSG volunteers for more deployments. Another friend of mine skydives, has done something like 200 jumps since we got back 3 years ago. Whereas I just avoid explosions/bangs, certain alarms, and drink now and then.

The VA system is run by bureaucrats, not by doctors. Some administrator will think you are irresponsible with your money and declare you mentally deficient. Then they automatically send your name to the NICS because of it. There is a reason why the stigma exists between soldiers and anyone trying to "help." Every doctor associated with, paid from, or provided by the VA has always had some ulterior motive every time.

I already expressed my perspective about the VA 'bureaucracy' being frequently useless, from what I have read in the media and heard personally (but not exclusively...if I'm to remain honest).

Not sure that going back into deployment and finding release as an adrenaline junkie are the same thing. Your PSG finds a way to cope by re-enlisting.....that doesnt mean he is dealing with his PTSD in a healthy way that allows him to integrate back into society. You are right that everyone deals differently....the VA Drs know that, as does the VA bureaucracy....the issue that not enough is being done (at least IMO) to address this.

Averageman
February 26, 2013, 01:49 AM
I retired from the Military with the opinion that they would take care of my disabilities.
I didn't want a free ride, I had some issues, but no combat related PTSD.
When younger Guys I had met had claimed PTSD, I warned them, that they (The VA and BATFE) would take the 2nd amendment rights away from them
If we let this go, we only further screwed these guys..and where is the NA on this?

If you have a Vet with an issue, Lets help them, lets not let their right fall to the wayside

zxcvbob
February 26, 2013, 01:51 AM
Isn't veteran status also one of the red flags for a domestic terrorist in that DOJ flier that was going around? Like paying cash for things and having more than a couple weeks food in the house?

Yep. Whether commissioned or enlisted, they took a oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, and usually meant it. Meanwhile, politicians took a very similar oath and yet do their best to circumvent the Constitution every chance they get -- might put them in the "domestic enemy" category, doncha think?

But I don't think being flagged for some watchlist is what we are talking about in this thread.

Ehtereon11B
February 26, 2013, 11:46 AM
I already expressed my perspective about the VA 'bureaucracy' being frequently useless, from what I have read in the media and heard personally (but not exclusively...if I'm to remain honest).

The second part of my post about VA bureaucracy was not directed at you but a different poster. Everyone has their own method of what works for them. The worst part about that is it may not be what is safe for society. A soldier who has been in the Army 7 years and has spent 5 of them in Afghanistan "daisy chaining" deployments will work fine for him until he finally comes back stateside. This is why divorce and homelessness is 5 times higher than the national average for vets.

I recall seeing the memo that says Vets were the top security threat. It was released by the DOD if I remember right, don't recall the DOJ being attached.

Tirod
February 26, 2013, 12:11 PM
Ok, if a determination is made - which presently includes a mental health evaluation, right? - then the name will be passed on to NICS to flag as a purchaser.

So, the person is considered not able to manage their financial affairs, is receiving money from .Gov. Buying a new firearm thru retail channels at that point signifies - ? Maybe the money manager squandering the funds? Yes, it can happen, lots of counties have a local representative designated to manage money and pay bills. Why are they then approving the purchase?

I still don't read where said vet can't already own guns. Nobody has said anything about him giving up his previously purchased firearms, and there is no current mechanism to prevent his purchasing one from a private individual. If there is cash hoarded back, no appointed financial officer would even know. In fact, current legislation is stalled on that issue - the anti gunners insist somebody keep a record of the transaction between private sellers for future research - not just make the normal NICS check and move on.

Therefore, saying "VETS CAN'T HAVE GUNS" is really a stretch. If someone took the guns away from a vet, consider that on a case by case basis. I suspect the car keys went with them, too.

The determination pretty much might stop a new gun sale, and that's it; if someone is mentally adjudicated incompetent, I wouldn't get my underwear in a wad about it yet. It's rare and doesn't happen often.

Only dealings I've seen with an individual so declared, the bank repo'd the home, and got a shell appraised at 50% of the loan. Scammed them, and guess what, not responsible! Adjudicated incompetent. Which makes you wonder how they missed that little detail.

As for vets who might already own firearms, and getting help from the VA, sadly, I've known one. I even moved to the town he formerly lived in before he chose to end his life. I don't think the drugs helped him any, either.

If you enjoyed reading about "Vets unsuitable to be gun owners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!