2nd Amendment and PTSD?

Yes, so long as he or she has not yet been involuntarily institutionalized for any mental or psychiatric issues.

Yes, so long as he or she has not yet been involuntarily institutionalized for any mental or psychiatric issues.

Click to expand...

PTSD is a mental disorder, and the prohibitions say nothing about being "institutionalized" being necessary. It's an "either-or" situation

They say "adjudicated" which seems synonymous with "judged" or "declared" as in "declared incompetent"

http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

Section 922(g)(4) of 18 U.S.C. makes it unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to possess firearms or ammunition.

This prohibition covers two classes of persons—those who have either been (1) adjudicated as a mental defective; or (2) committed to a mental institution.

Click to expand...

ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE

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:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

Click to expand...

I doubt there is a category for "disabled but otherwise mentally stable"

If a veteran is diagnosed with PTSD symptoms by a competent medical authority and determined eligible for appropriate VA disability compensation for that condition, but otherwise 'mentally stable', is he/she still fully entitled to 2nd Amendment rights? In other words, obtain a CHL, possess firearms, etc.?

Click to expand...

Yes.

A diagnosis of PTSD by itself has no effect on Second Amendment rights. i'm a veterans advocate. i know dozens of veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD. None are barred from owning guns: Many hunt, shoot, and pack.

Nonetheless the perception by some is that declaring PTSD will eventually affect their rights.

The more the Administration talks about taking away guns from those getting checks the more reason to stay away from treatment. Those trying to offer help know this and it's a major thorn in their side to hear it. They know for a fact because it's coming from those who do finally ask.

Those who suffer finally make a judgment call that losing their gun rights is less of a problem than the condition. There's another issue, too - you can raise your hand, go online and click boxes on the VA site, and nothing happens. Not even a brochure or email. Even being honest won't get any help - because the system isn't trying, it's telling people they have to conform to what has been instituted to get it.

You have to be willing to get "institutionalized" to get help - go see their counselors, at their location, on their schedule, as they see fit. And those counselors are for the most part not combat veterans who can relate to the issues - they are often those of almost opposite point of view, and that only makes things more objectionable.

Very few choose to attend counseling under the guidance of a Hillary Meat Puppet when the issues are all about watching your buddies die in combat, or how you were injured, etc. And not everybody likes to talk it out, either. It's already a known fact that "clients" who responded to questionnaires over stress were about evenly divided between those who needed touchy feeling conversation and those who were extremely sensitive to any intrusiveness whatsoever.

We are NOT all the same, and the current system is alienating many and ignoring about half because they will not participate in the ways counselors prefer. Fail. And "doctor-patient" confidentiality won't cut it when there are too many numerous examples of when that isn't maintained. Doctors are required to "rat out" those who might verbalize some of their more difficult to understand thinking and throw a red flag of detainment into the mix.

The system isn't even trying, it's non functional, much less broke, and many veterans wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's hard to get a balanced picture if someone only talks to clients who are participating. It completely ignores those left out.

Snyper, PTSD is indeed a mental disorder. However, there is nothing in the US Code declaring that a diagnosis of a mental disorder disqualifies one from firearms/ammo possession.

Go back and re-read the section you quoted. An adjudication of being "mentally defective" is NOT the same as a diagnosis of a "mental disorder." Diagnoses are issued by clinical practitioners. Adjudications are issued by judges of the courts.

Nonetheless the perception by some is that declaring PTSD will eventually affect their rights.

Click to expand...

This is a false perception driven by internet conspiracy theory trash being disseminated by the likes of Alex Jones. Sadly, many misinformed veterans with medical problems avoid the VA because of it.

Beeker as a Texas vet diagnosed and being treated for PTSD I can tell you unless you are declared adjunct it has no effect. I have my CHL and have renewed it since the treatment has began.

Quote:
Nonetheless the perception by some is that declaring PTSD will eventually affect their rights.
This is a false perception driven by internet conspiracy theory trash being disseminated by the likes of Alex Jones. Sadly, many misinformed veterans with medical problems avoid the VA because of it.

Click to expand...

Definitely this. I've never heard anyone officially tied to the white house, DOD, or the VA say this. What I have heard is parroting on social media by chicken littles with no sources.

OP, thanks for your service. I hope you do what's needed to take care of yourself and live well from here.

Many informed Veterans avoid the VA - because it's the VA. I know I do. I went there one time in 1973. I'll never go back.

Many informed Veterans avoid the VA - because it's the VA.

Click to expand...

Not this veteran. i'm a service connected disabled vet currently rated at 80 percent. The VA has improved greatly over the past ten years.

i retired from the US Army in October, 1979. Except for seven years working overseas most of my health care since has come from the VA. By and large i have no problem with the VA. The VA is short on medical specialists and it may take some time for an eye appointment, etc.

i also have Tri-Care for life. The enrollee pays for Medi-Care part B and Tri-Care picks up the co-pay. i see a civilian docter infrequently.

Medi-Care is being gutted; they are now refusing to pay for many procedures and tests.

2nd Amendment and PTSD

I did two combat tours in Vietnam, and there is no way I would ask for help from the VA for PTSD even if I suffered from it. I do not trust the VA or my government honoring my 2nd Amendment rights in todays political climate. Thank God for the NRA.

The new spelling of mrs. Clinton's name is:

Hitlery!

Tirod said:

The more the Administration talks about taking away guns from those getting checks the more reason to stay away from treatment. Those trying to offer help know this and it's a major thorn in their side to hear it. They know for a fact because it's coming from those who do finally ask.

Click to expand...

This. There are far too many veterans that I know who won't seek treatment, VA or otherwise, because of rumors floating the net. Whether the rumors turn out to be credible now or in the future, it doesn't help the stigma about PTSD and treatment.

I will freely admit I don't bring up PTSD at my own VA appointments. I do not want those letters following me for the rest of my life.

The new spelling of mrs. Clinton's name is:

Hitlery!

Click to expand...

And that has what to do with the topic at hand again?

Hasn't effected my rights (yet). I haven't been back to the VA in about 4 years, since they closed up shop with me and my wife still sitting in a room. They weren't doing anything for me anyway so I just deal with the pain.

Snyper, PTSD is indeed a mental disorder. However, there is nothing in the US Code declaring that a diagnosis of a mental disorder disqualifies one from firearms/ammo possession.

Go back and re-read the section you quoted. An adjudication of being "mentally defective" is NOT the same as a diagnosis of a "mental disorder." Diagnoses are issued by clinical practitioners. Adjudications are issued by judges of the courts.

Click to expand...

I didn't say a simple "diagnosis" alone was enough to matter

It's the "declaration of incompetence" that makes all the difference

The power to "adjudicate" isn't limited to a judge in a court:

ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE:

Quote:
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:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

Click to expand...

Right now anything anti vet is a third rail politically, the problem isn't today but what happens tomorrow. A vet diagnosed with PTSD can still be suffering from some other affliction or just plain evil intent just like the rest of us but if the crime is serious enough and the opportunity to exploit is great enough PTSD will be used if it furthers the agenda.

The power to "adjudicate" isn't limited to a judge in a court:

Click to expand...

This is a disturbing problem with the current system. The VA, Social Security, etc. all have the power to "adjudicate" you mentally defective without you ever seeing a courtroom. Some jurisdictions have taken the view that a temporary hold for observation is "adjudicated mentally defective" even if the process for this is nothing more than two doctors on duty agreeing you need to be held for further observation after a cop drops you off.

As much as I don't want the dangerously mental ill to have access to firearms, it concerns me greatly when we start stripping people of protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights without any type of adversarial hearing.

Snyper, I stand by my assertion that PTSD, in itself, is a clinical diagnosis, and not an adjudication of someone as being "mentally defective."

Now, can a person with PTSD be further declared to be "mentally-defective" due to effects or other attributes of the disorder? Certainly, but then we're dealing with that declaration, and not with the initial diagnosis of PTSD.

Earlier, you made the snide comment of:

I doubt there is a category for "disabled but otherwise mentally stable"

Click to expand...

Why should there be? The section of code to which you were referring identifies prohibited persons, not those excepted from those prohibitions. A person with a disability, but who is not identified as a member of one of the two prohibited classes of which we are discussing, is not among those prohibited. The law stipulates who is prohibited, not who is not.

In the scenario described by Bartholomew Roberts above, the two doctors agreeing to hold a person for further observation (assuming it's against the will of that person) meets the "involuntary institutionalized" criteria, perhaps even before any diagnosis is made, or any declaration of incompetence/defectiveness is made.