Vets unsuitable to be gun owners?

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

Click to expand...

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.)

Ah, the government, always creating another problem by creating another solution.

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

'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."

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.

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.

are you speaking about the author of the article?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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."

Click to expand...

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.

All vets are insane. They were crazy enough to believe the government would take care of them and not abuse them.

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.

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.

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.

Before we all get our panties in a wad, check out this site.

OOPs double post

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.

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.

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.

"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

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? 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