Veteran Loses 2nd Amendment Rights

[Bill Mattocks]

Not sure the whole story is being told here, but from what I'm reading so far, it doesn't sound right:

http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-...ed-of-second-amendment-rights,0,1708919.story

Iraq Veteran Stripped of Right To Bear Arms

Jared Broyles Reporter
5:48 PM CDT, September 3, 2010
Sgt. Wayne Irelan re-enlisted in the Army National Guard after September 11th.

He was severely injured in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart. But now his second amendment rights have been taken away.

"I really feel betrayed," Sgt. Irelan told 5NEWS.

 

[cdunn]

It's pretty easy to extrapolate from what they told us; imo. The guy has been diagnosed with a mental disorder bad enough that his psychiatrists (and probably the courts) have declared him incompetant - I'd gamble that there's more than simple PTSD at work here. It came up on the NICS system, the way it's supposed to, and he is able to fill out a (reputedly very simple) petition for redress through the BATF, if he thinks the system is in the wrong.

This stuff came up after that kid shot up Virginia Tech, and it's probably the right thing to do; it takes freaking work to get declared incompetant.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I wish there was more told off why his right was taken away. It is hard to make a conclusion on just the few facts given

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree that the news item doesn't properly explain the issues involved. I seem to be getting the tenor that the veteran in question agreed to a diagnosis in order to get VA disability money; now he finds that it has a negative consequence. Not sure if there's a fix for that. However, I posted it in hopes someone would have access to more information; I looked but could not find anything. There's only one other news item I could locate, and it references this story without expanding on it.

 

[Empty Hands]

There is no "right" answer to the problem, it will always be a balancing act. The truly insane obviously shouldn't have guns, but sometimes what goes into the diagnosis is questionable, and psychiatry is a subjective science as it is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is no "right" answer to the problem, it will always be a balancing act. The truly insane obviously shouldn't have guns, but sometimes what goes into the diagnosis is questionable, and psychiatry is a subjective science as it is.

It is also possible that this is a choice driven by necessity. In other words, if you want to get a disability pension from the VA, you have to be disabled. If the disability is due to PTSD or something like it, you may have to accept a diagnosis of serious mental issues. I kind of suspect that's what's going on here. Perhaps nothing to do with the man's 'real' mental condition, and more to do with a diagnosis he was willing to accept in order to receive a disability income from the government.

 

[CoryKS]

I feel for the guy but government assistance always comes with strings attached. If somebody has a case of the yips so bad that it's affecting his ability to function, then yeah, they're probably going to question whether he needs to be handling weapons.

 

[cdunn]

Peeking at Arkansas law:

The Director of the Department of Arkansas State Police shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun if the applicant:
[...]
(10) Has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent;

(Emphasis not in original.)

So, testimony from the VA withstanding, he has to have been placed in the position of mental incompetence not by a random psychiatrist, but by a court of law. It mentions that he went on disability because his 'wife had to take over the finances' - likely he was declared mentally incompetent in the face of the inability to pay a bill, and it's cascading.