Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Vets unsuitable to be gun owners?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by dbp, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,290
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    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.)
     
  2. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ah, the government, always creating another problem by creating another solution.

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

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
    '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:
     
  4. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  5. Deer_Freak

    Deer_Freak Member.

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  6. oldbear

    oldbear Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    South East Coast
    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.
     
  7. jcwit

    jcwit Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,993
    Location:
    Great state of Indiana
    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.
     
  8. Torian

    Torian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    920
    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.
     
  9. stumpers

    stumpers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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.
     
  10. stumpers

    stumpers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  11. Torian

    Torian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    920
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  12. stumpers

    stumpers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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."
     
  13. Torian

    Torian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    920
    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.
     
  14. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    All vets are insane. They were crazy enough to believe the government would take care of them and not abuse them. :rolleyes:
     
  15. montgomery381

    montgomery381 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  16. stumpers

    stumpers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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.
     
  17. montgomery381

    montgomery381 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  18. Coop45

    Coop45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    Texas
    Before we all get our panties in a wad, check out this site.
     
  19. Coop45

    Coop45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    Texas
    OOPs double post
     
  20. stumpers

    stumpers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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.
     
  21. FMF Doc

    FMF Doc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    582
    Location:
    NC
    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.
     
  22. dbp

    dbp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    SC
    No harm done. Thanks. Just trying to get other opinions of the article.
     
  23. DMN

    DMN Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Fayetteville, NY
    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.
     
  24. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
  25. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,798
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page