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. Glennx39

    Glennx39 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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
     
  2. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,403
    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.
     
  3. skoro

    skoro Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm a vet.

    I've never received such a latter.

    I chalk it up to bull-loney. :)
     
  4. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  5. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Altho only one person's experience, I think this bears repeating. Esp. the last caveat, which I bolded.
     
  6. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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).
     
  7. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    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


     
  8. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  9. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    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.

    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.
     
  10. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,918
    Location:
    Southern Virginia

    This is what I mentioned earlier. It works!
     
  11. rodinal220

    rodinal220 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,298
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  12. wideym

    wideym Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    929
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.
     
  13. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  14. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  15. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    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.
     
  16. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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 . . .
     
  17. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    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.
     
  18. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    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.
     
  19. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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?
     
  20. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  21. Averageman

    Averageman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    Texas
    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
     
  22. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,061
    Location:
    S.E. Minnesota
    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.
     
  23. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    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.
     
  24. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,542
    Location:
    SW MO
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page