Iraq Vet Stripped of Right to Bear Arms.

[dc.fireman]

So, would it be accurate to infer that there needs to be a better system for identifying PTSD, and /or categorizing it? Like the various DHS Threat Condition levels?

"His gun rights were temporarily lost when he was PTSD Red/Orange, but when his condition was downgraded to Yellow, they were restored..."

I'm fully sympathetic to both sides of the issue, on the one hand, the only time our community hears about gun rights restoration, it's typically dealing with convicted felons.

But is this the message or overtone we'd be giving to a veteran of the GWOT? "I know you've served your country with honor and distinction, but you're gonna have to seek restoration for the very rights you stood up for before I can sell/ give you this firearm."

I deal with my own share of trashbags who abuse the system on a daily basis, and know full well that whenever there is any type of system, there's going to be someone who knows how to work it to their advantage, but it still leaves me with a sour feeling in my gut that even one guy who legitimately deserves a medical discharge, and disability compensation for it, who in the end get burned for doing something which most of us have not/could not/would not.

-tc

 

[PT1911]

So, would it be accurate to infer that there needs to be a better system for identifying PTSD, and /or categorizing it? Like the various DHS Threat Condition levels?

bingo... the problem with this however, is that psychology is such a subjective science and each psychologist is different in how they view the severity of a condition... the only absolutes (which many would still call speculative) are the diagnoses. Person X has depression, person Y has schizophrenia. What type of schizophrenia, it is anyone's guess based on the symptoms suffered.

IMO, the definition of PTSD is just too broad. I think it would be best if it were narrowed down to symptoms severe enough to effect someone's waking life. Night terrors and mild anxiety (which may still feel like the whole damn world is ending!!!) should not be enough to land someone a mentally defective diagnosis such as PTSD. Not to make light of the condition, but if you can be treated with some Ambien and Prozac, you do not need a disability check... or the diagnosis for that matter.

 

[benEzra]

I'm sorry ....but if a person declares they do not have the mental capacity to manage their own finances....you think they still posses the ability to determine right from wrong and can carry a gun? I don't think so!

So if you have trouble balancing your checkbook, you lose your right to own a gun for the rest of your life? No thanks.

There are plenty of people who aren't good with numbers who are totally competent with firearms and motor vehicles. Math skills aren't a prerequisite to responsibility.

Having been to Iraq and back, as well as being a strong supporter of gun rights, I have to say that when a man is determined to be mentally unstable, he shouldn't have guns.

The thing is, PTSD is not itself a condition that should cause someone's gun rights to be revoked. PTSD that causes a disqualifying condition, sure. But not plain PTSD; that's a normal human reaction to severe stress, it often improves over time, and normally it shouldn't make you unable to determine right from wrong, although it can certainly screw up your relationships.

 

[rainbowbob]

The fact is PTSD is a mental disorder that can severely diminish someone's ability to judge a situation... it is not inconceivable or improbable for someone with PTSD to draw and shoot someone in a panic for nothing more than dropping a book causing a sound that is someone similar to a gunshot.

Is there any evidence at all that such an incident has EVER occurred?

If so, is this a problem common enough to cause the restriction of self-defense rights for the vast majority of PTSD sufferers who will NEVER discharge their firearm mistakenly?

I suspect that, like most restrictive gun laws, the "cure" is worse than the problem.

 

[wideym]

I am an Iraq war vet who is 100% disabled by the VA for back/neck injuries while in Baghdad. While going through treatment for those injuries they determined I also suffered from PTSD, mainly avoiding strangers, crowds, and anyone who looks like a haji.

I am not violent or have violent outbursts. About a year and a half ago the VA decided the best treatment option for my PTSD was for me to vollentarly commit myself to the VA hospital in Little Rock for 30 days. That angered me enough to avoid the VA for pretty much all treatment since any commitment would most likely bar me from owning or carrying a firearm.

Since that time I have renewed my Arkansas Concealed Carry Permit and bought dozens of firearms without any problem whatsoever.

 

[john wall]

Being a Veteran, and on full VA care, I get two physicals annually. At every one, the good Doc (and he IS a good Doctor) asks me if I have dreams or issues over things that occurred during my Military service. Bad dreams, thoughts of violence, memories, or other issues.

I always look him in the eye, and say (honestly) NO. Also, during every physical, I get a full spectrum urinalysis, with meth, coke, pot and opiates specified. No problem there, but I have a good idea what would happen if I tested positive for drugs, or were to need help for things that happened during my stint in the Military.

 

[PT1911]

Is there any evidence at all that such an incident has EVER occurred?

If so, is this a problem common enough to cause the restriction of self-defense rights for the vast majority of PTSD sufferers who will NEVER discharge their firearm mistakenly?

No instances of which I am aware but you are missing the point...

If someone suffers from some mental disorder which prevents them from being able to hold a job, exist in society without constant debilitating paranoia, and makes them prone to outbursts of emotional actions of which they cannot control, then i do not see them as fit to carry/own a gun. If someone suffers from PTSD to such an extent that they seek the diagnosis and collect disability, then the above definition is what I see.

Seemingly, my problem is with the diagnosis criteria.

If they have a legitimate argument as to whether or not they should be able own/carry a gun, then the diagnosis should not apply to their condition.

Put it this way.. Someone who is capable of dealing with the responsibilities and stresses that come with carrying a gun and potentially using it if/when the situation arises and can make logical decisions even when reminded of their wartime experiences should not be diagnosed with PTSD.

PTSD is NOT simply an anxiety disorder, but it seems to have been downgraded to just that... Loud noises make you nervous? PTSD! You have nightmares about war/your traumatic experience? PTSD!

PTSD is characterized by "flash backs," hallucinations, and delusions. All of which make someone completely incapable of making logical decisions ESPECIALLY when under stress.

 

[crossrhodes]

You need to study PTSD a little more

OK. Many spouses of domestic violence, car accident victims, mugging victims or violent crimes and a lot of Vietnam vets have PTSD. What is the difference...PTSD is PTSD right! so all those people should have their rights taken away...right. Not all those declared with PTSD are the same, nether is PTSD from combat the same. Some are total wrecks and need care, some are just a little more hypervigilant (this day and age that's not so bad) and may not sleep well and don't like crowded areas. Being reclusive is not a crime.

It's a quick and cheap way for them to support the anti gun agenda. Next, if your a recovering alcoholic you will be deemed mentally incompetent because you may relapse, get drunk and drive a car and kill someone. So you might as well blanket every recovered alcoholic as having PTSD....they drink because of a traumatic event in their life.
Unfortunately, many will ham it up and play the PTSD roll for the bucks and the freebies. Don't take away someones rights because of the 10% that abuse the system.
I know a person that runs their own business and was set up to do so by the VA Voc Rehab. That person was diagnosed with PTSD and had a hard time leaving the safety of their home and standing in a crowded factory wasn't the best think for them. Are they dangerous? don't know? but that person runs a pretty good gun shop at home. I have coffee and and go to the range with that person. Oh':banghead: the next one will be that females with PTSD will be sterilized because of the stress of raising a child and they run the risk of abusing the child.

 

[PT1911]

Don't take away someones rights because of the 10% that abuse the system.

Who said anything about that? The problem is taking away everyone's rights because of the 10% or FEWER that may actually suffer their past experiences to require the diagnosis, and, therefore actually be unsafe with a gun.


ALSO, an aside, someone can be declared free from mental defect with a doctor's clearance and have NO issue whatsoever with legally buying, owning, shooting, and carrying a gun.

 

[crossrhodes]

I would think no doctor to declare you "no mental defect" because of the liability. I may have not expressed myself well about the 10%. I'm basically saying that there are the 10% that do more harm playing the roll that has an effect on 90%.

 

[Lee Roder]

Is a psychiatric "diagnosis" equivalent to legal "adjudication"? I don't believe it's that simple.

 

[PT1911]

I would think no doctor to declare you "no mental defect" because of the liability.

It happens more than you may think. I am not sure how difficult the process or what all it requires. I think i see the situation similar to you, though express it differently.. IMO, the 90% that are completely harmless and able to function in society should not have such a diagnosis. Anxiety medications? Sure. Therapy? Definitely.

IMO, the problem is in the freedom with which diagnoses are handed out these days.... every kid that doesnt have ADD has ADHD and everyone that has difficulty dealing with their past experiences has PTSD.

Lets put it this way... I fully believe that there is a large percentage of people with the diagnosis of PTSD looming over their head who are completely able to function in society with a gun on their hip with no risk whatsoever to the safety of those around them. I just happen to also believe that they do not suffer from PTSD.

Am I a doctor? Definitely not and do not claim to have any scientific validity to what I am saying, but PTSD is a mental defect because to some it is incapacitating, as is Depression, mania, bi-polar, schizophrenia, borderline personality as well as a whole slew of others. IF someone truly does suffer from one of these disorders, then they are a real danger to themselves and to others (I know what people are capable of and there is no point of splitting hairs saying everyone is a danger to everyone, that is not what we are talking about.)

If you cannot say that person (A) suffers from Schizophrenia but it is minor enough that they can own and carry a gun while person (B) suffers from Schizophrenia to the degree that they are a danger to themselves and others and cannot own/carry a gun, then you CANNOT do the same with PTSD.


I use Schizophrenia as an example only because it is what many people associate with being the worst mental defect.

 

[crossrhodes]

Agree. Good post

 

[CapnMac]

This will remain an easily-derailed conversation for a number of reasons.

Not least of which is the fact that APA tries to both be definitive in its use over words even as it is mealy-mouthed about any confining declarations using those same words. So, we get this mish-mash of conditions, diagnoses, and even declarations. By the strict letter of APA guidelines that "D" in a condition is supposed to have meaning. It is supposed to mean an acute situation that prevents normal interaction with peer groups. It is more than a complaint and less (sort of) than a psychosis. Psychosis used to be the standard to define whether a person ought to be separated from society or not. Per APA, that "D" is supposed to mean the same thing whether appended to AD or PTS. APA lists a great raft of things that can cause PTS. It's not supposed to be PTSD unless there is an inability to function in society. But, that's the letter of it.

The other problem is that the psychiatric community is as likely to be afflicted by the media barrage of "broken soldier" (that all military service causes some sort of mental damage--no matter the service) syndrome as any other group. Thus, they may have biases they do not even recognize. There will be a cohort that has no idea that all of these psychiatric medications or treatments that are now considered temporary might, in future, be adjudged permanent.

It must also be acknowledged that APA members are going to be far less familiar with military service, and just what is "normal" in that life as is. Equally few who understand the rigors of farming or ranching, and equally ill-equipped to judge those people as well. yet, they are allowed to make judgments that will affect other people's lives and lifestyles with little or no consequence.

Lost in all this is that other question, that one we can never quite neatly define--how long is a dangerous person dangerous? With mental illness, it's a bit like anti-submarine warfare, usually your first indication is when a ship gets torpedoed. But, you cannot just depth-charge every submarine (or whale or pod of shrimp) in the ocean "just in case." Which gets us back to the messy arguments about post-incarceration felons. Just because a person has ever been diagnosed with PTS (or PTSD), does that mean they have to let people break into their homes; jack their cars; assault them on the streets?

 

[Cap'n Jack Burntbeard]

Which gets us back to the messy arguments about post-incarceration felons. Just because a person has ever been diagnosed with PTS (or PTSD), does that mean they have to let people break into their homes; jack their cars; assault them on the streets?

To deny one the means to a right is to deny one the right itself.

 

[ms6852]

I am retired military and glad to say I don't collect medical disability. Yet on a daily basis I see all kinds of soldiers who are getting ready to retire start getting all kinds of exams in hopes to document an injury or illness just to collect disability. What is really disheartening is that a larger majority of the population are officers. I work at a military hospital and this just turns my stomach. Aside from the serious injuries I see daily there are those that have no shame. I must agree that if an individual does not have the mental capacity to lead a normal life because he is mentally ill than he / she should not own a fire arm. There are a lot of cracks in the system which is not perfect but he is getting a stipend. We do not care for our government which tries it's best and is still the greatest in the world until we need it. We hate cops until they need their help. We hate every thing until we need it, than we curse it and complain because response was to slow!!!

 

[Demitrios]

PT1911 says:

I have personally seen vets with PTSD swerve across 3 lanes of traffic to jump into a ditch as a result of hearing a vehicle near them backfire.

So you've actually seen more than one veteran swerve across three lanes of traffic into a ditch? Hell either we need better restrictions pertaining to exhausts on motor vehicles or we need to strip anyone who's ever been in a traumatic situation from their licenses.

Last I checked it's not always a victim or war vet who can have PTSD as well. Consider doctors and nurses who've worked in hospitals with high trauma cases.

I myself have a mental disorder, it's called ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity. . . . **STARTS DIALING A PHONE AND GIGGLING AT BUTTON SOUNDS**. . . Disorder. All joking aside does this make me unfit or unqualified to handle or own a firearm? That would mean that as of 2005 4.1% or 106.7 million adults (ages 18 - 44) in america would be deemed as mentally unfit to possess a firearm (facts taken from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml See autism http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_NP01&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name).

Then let's get into those pesky domestic violence cases. Have a brother or sister? Ever had a fight with them? Guess what, that's domestic violence by definition and just because you haven't been convicted of it doesn't mean you aren't in violation and therefore you need to have your right to bear arms stripped away. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban andhttp://www.domesticviolence.org/definition/)

In short it's just not right to declare away someone's rights before studying and understanding that there are extenuating circumstances to just about every given situation and that even though there may be a lawful reason to deny someone the rights given by our founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution written by them it's our duty as Americans to research and pass along information before passing judgement.

**STEPS OFF SOAP BOX**

 

[PT1911]

I apologize, i will correct my post.

VET with PTSD

Demetrios, I think you misunderstand my intentions and opinions.

In my opinion, the problem is the ease with which someone is diagnosed with PTSD. If someone legitimately cannot interact with society because of the severity of their symptoms (see my previous example of the VET jumping in a ditch in response to a vehicle backfire) then they are unsafe to carry/own a gun. No different than someone who hears voices and wears a tin-foil hat. Different conditions, same result. Someone who cannot , as a result of their specific defect, be relied on to make responsible decisions, especially in high stress situations, and someone who is more likely to be impulsive and act purely on emotion.

I think you misinterpret my position on the subject, should someone with a Legitimate case of PTSD be able to own carry a gun IMO? NO... because a person with a severe enough case of PTSD to be diagnosed as such SHOULD be suffering from delusions and hallucinations. Very similar to someone with schizophrenia. To date, psychology fails to differentiate between the severity of many mental disorders, someone has them 100percent or they do not. there is no 87 octane PTSD or economy Schizophrenia. With the current system we have in place those who are mentally defective cannot own a gun. Would you have this wiped away completely? Where should the line be drawn?

On the subject of domestic violence (bit off topic for this thread) I agree with you! But much like the above there is just a huge gray area that no judge/official wants to mess with.

What about an 18 y/o guy that gets drunk and takes a leak behind a tree.. If caught, he is a sex offender for life. Not only can he not buy a gun, his picture is posted everywhere he goes with SEX OFFENDER under his name, often with no specifics.


The lesson? Things arent fair and something needs to change. IMO that something is the LABELING and not the rule. Someone who is mentally defective should not own a gun, someone who has committed a felony should not own a gun, someone who has committed domestic violence should not own a gun!!!!

The problem is the broadness of the definitions of mental diseases/defects, felonies, and domestic violence.

those are the things that need to be addressed.

On the subject of ADHD, I have never seen someone with ADHD hallucinating that someone was trying to kill them or fall into a delusion that they were back in the war.. If ADHD is dangerous, it is because you will be jittery at the trigger .
In all seriousness though, if someone were to suffer from ADHD to the extent that they were unable interact with society, they would likely be considered as MANIC and that could lose them their right to own a gun (if only temporarily.)

 

[PT1911]

another aside, if anyone here has never seen people who legitimately suffer from mental diseases/defects, I would recommend you take the opportunity to do so. Each one is terrifying in a completely different way.

 

[ATBackPackin]

I agree it's not right to make a blanket ruling that if you have PTSD you cannot own firearms. PTSD is just too broad and for it to disqualify you without some sort of due process is so wrong.

Not saying everyone with PTSD should be allowed to have firearms.

Just saying that having PTSD should automatically disqualify you from having firearms.

Shawn

 

[ironhead7544]

This seems to be a good reason not to join the military. It will soon become "obvious" that anyone in the military is crazy. Its another anti-gun thing. Laws do not prevent a person from obtaining a firearm. Guns show up inside prisons. It might be better if they have guns and not decide to make improvised weapons. There was a case where a guy killed 94 people with a dollars worth of gasoline. Also, once you lose your right to a firearm for mental reasons, I dont think you can get it restored. Anyone know of a case where that happened?

 

[leVieux]

As an old physician and medical school faculty member, I have been watching this entire "labeling" of persons develop for several decades. "Autism", "anti-social behavior pattern", PTSD, dyslexia, etc, are all being abused so that bureaucrats can categorize people and do bad or questionable things to them.

Any law which negates a person's basic constitutional rights without full due process is bad and is likely part of some bureaucratic scheme to control and dominate another segment of our population, a la Orwell's predictions.

We must stand TOGETHER. Divided, we will all fall under bureaucratic slavery.

leVieux

 

[The Sarge]

So if you have trouble balancing your checkbook, you lose your right to own a gun for the rest of your life? No thanks.

There are plenty of people who aren't good with numbers who are totally competent with firearms and motor vehicles. Math skills aren't a prerequisite to responsibility.

If you think for one second to be found mentally incompetent is a math exercise your in for a big surprise! The VA defines mental incompetence as "the inability of a person to make or carry out important decisions regarding his or her affairs."
So if I have been diagnosed under these guidelines......and I understand your checkbook post....you are saying I still should have a gun strapped on my waist? That I can make decision concerning life or death but do not have the mental capacity to manage my own affairs? Let's agree to disagree here then friend.

 

[leadcounsel]

Nope. This rule would and likely does have a chilling effect on folks with legit problems. Many are likely to NOT seek the help and treatment they need. The bottom line is that someone should not be penalized if they self-identify.

The converse would be that he would keep his guns AND have untreated problems! That is where the real problem is.

 

[Azb]

I have personally seen A VET with PTSD swerve across 3 lanes of traffic to jump into a ditch as a result of hearing a vehicle near them backfire.

And I bet he didn't lose his license.

We hand out driver's licenses like they're nothing more than little pieces of paper, yet many times more people are killed by cars every year than guns. But we don't hesitate to infringe upon someone's constitutional rights based on what they "might" do.

The only real difference here is that driving a car is an acceptable behaviour, and the collateral damage that comes with it is just part of life.

Az