Veterans Disarmament Act

[Makalakumu]

Scary. The government wants to take the guns away from the citizens who know how to use them. I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime...

 

[jks9199]

Only veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD? What next, police officers? Rescue workers? Crime victims? PTSD affects people from all walks of life. Seems to me that with the patriot act and legislation like this, the government is trying to do an end run around the constituion and leading us to a dictatorship in this country.

There are a small percentage of people who have been diagnosed with PTSD that probably shouldn't own guns. They're one end of the spectrum of PTSD; at the other end is the guy who comes back from Iraq or Afghanistan, and startles a little more easily (hypervigilance) than he used to, but takes a couple deep breaths (autogenic breathing, if you want to be technical) and reminds himself that he's home, laughs about it, and has a beer later. He's fine.

I've exhibited some PTSD symptoms; I was working the day that one of our lieutenants was badly injured. He was alone, and crashed a motorcycle. A passing driver (retired law enforcement) got on the LTs radio, and reported the crash. For a while, I couldn't watch several of the videos showing attacks on cops where passerby got on the police radio... Yep -- that's some of the elements of PTSD. A traumatic event, with some reexperiencing of the event, and avoidance of the stimuli. Gee... a couple of years later, and I don't have that problem anymore.

Without reading the entire bill, it's going too far. I just also can't help but consider that the source at the moment is also probably practicing some hyperbole, too.

 

[jks9199]

I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.

Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.

Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?

There is ongoing discussions in Congress about those soldiers who were discharged from the military over the last five years for behavior issues (some 28,000). Many of those discharged may have been exhibiting symptons of PTSD. If a soldier is discharged with a method of 'less than honorable' (such as these behavior problem discharges), he forfits Veterans Benefits, including treatment for PTSD through the VA. There is an extentsive push taking place to retroactively extend VA benefits to these soldiers, for the rest of their lives.

If there service merits the nation paying to support them for the next 6 decades; because they are a danger to themselves or to others, should we really be arguing to give them weapons?

To borrow from David Grossman...

PTSD is not pregnancy. You ain't a "little bit pregnant." You don't get a "touch of pregnancy." Pregancy is binary; you either are pregnant, or you are not pregnant.

PTSD occurs along a spectrum; you have a few people at the far end of the spectrum who are debilitated and dangers to themselves or others. At the other end, you have people that only would get diagnosed because of required exams; they'd go home, have a few beers, and a few sleepless nights, but be fine in the end. You can't handle either end the way you would the other...

For more, I strongly encourage reading any of Grossman's books, especially On Combat and On Killing.

 

[morph4me]

Without reading the entire bill, it's going too far. I just also can't help but consider that the source at the moment is also probably practicing some hyperbole, too.

I didn't read the whole article either, I just rsponded with a knee jerk reaction, I can only hope you're right about the hyperbole, the alternative is vey scary.

 

[AzQkr]

This is not a penalty.

It is an acknowledgement of a mental disorder. If you are diagnosed with this mental defect, the consequences of that defect is prohibition of a firearm.

Let's us suppose that one of us loses our sight. Do we continue to allow that person to operate a motor vehicle? Or do we acknowledge that without sight, one can not operate a motor vehicle safely, and revoke a license.

First, let me be the first to offer that ptsd has nothing to do with being mentally deficient in the majority of cases. Second, soldiers from both world wars, the spanish american war, the war of independance, and every other "war" has brought many many men home who suffered from ptsd in one form or another.

The question is this as I see it.

Did we see ptsd victims of all these wars become a danger to society as a whole group, from each respective war? Obviously, the answer is NO, we didn't. Our grandfathers and their fathers didn't come home and go on a rampage and become a threat to society, they instead came home and got jobs, worked all their lives, and suffered ptsd the whole time they did so.

To think to take a veterans rights away because he is simply diagnosed with ptsd seems overly reactive, something the liberals really like to sink their teeth into from time to time. Why take rights away from the whole because the few on one end of the curve have become dangerous to themselves and others.

Those who thinks to revoke rights of any one very large group based on the actions of a relatively minor few, would not only be creating a travesty to the veterans it affects, but to this country, for allowing it's soldiers to be denied every protection under the constitution they defended.

Brownie

 

[michaeledward]

Brownie,

The legislation is not about taking anyone's rights away, despite the hyperbole of the original post, and the rhetoric coming from the Gun Owners of America.

The NRA supports the legislation.

The Legislation is about making certain that all parties who have information that should be available for the mandatory instant firearms background check can get the information to the correct places in a timely manner.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Michael,

Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong. Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong. Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them. Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.

That isn't the way things are now. If you have been medically diagnosed as being a danger to yourself or others, you can't buy a gun (in CA). I think that it stands to reason that such folks are being disarmed for their own protection and that of others. With the VT stuff, and the actions of armed vets with PTSD recently, I can see how they would have come to this decision. Not sure if I agree, but I get it.

 

[Doc_Jude]

The NRA supports the legislation.

Makes sense to me. Why would I, a relatively sound-minded guy, want some psych job going on a homicide/suicide rampage to be seen as representative of American gun owners? I don't. Disarming such folks, as unfortunate as it is, protects the public image of gun owners.
The 2nd Amendment is about the Militia, being able-bodied and capable men over the age of 18. Being of sound mind is obviously within the spirit of this qualification.

 

[Cruentus]

How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?

We don't. We let the actions of the individual decide rather then a collective law. Those deemed mentally unfit won't be able to get a concealed carry permit or purchase permit in most states anyway, just the same as if someone had a felony; however, having PTSD does not qualify one as mentally unfit in most cases, however. If you had any understanding of the disorder you would know that. Again, we need to respect people and their rights as individuals.

Or, you could just be a jerk and try to use every possible opportunity to take people's gun rights away because you don't like or carry firearms, and therefore you want to force your opinions and choices on everyone else through the legal system.

At least, proponents of such a disgusting law would go that route, it seems...

 

[Cruentus]

I should clarify, I am fine with the background check part of it; just not the use of medical records to do so.

The problem we have here is we have politicians who have no ****ing idea what PTSD actually is other then what they have heard on TV deciding that if someone is stamped with the disorder at any point in their life, then that they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, same as a mental patient or a violent criminal. This is the part that is BS. PTSD is not a mental deficiency in almost all cases. And when it is, it is usually in conjunction with another mental deficiency that would make one untrustworthy with a weapon. But, people don't take the time to understand things before making decisions.

And this is why our medical records need to be kept private. Did we really need Terri Shaivo to prove to us that politicians are not doctors? If someone is deemed a danger for mental reasons, then this should be done by the courts with procedures we have in place now, not by assumptions from people who aren't doctors looking at our medical records and posturing to make that info available for things like background checks, insurance, and so forth.

And then, of course, we have jerks who want to use the legal system to force their will on everyone else. These jerks happily look for any opportunity to gun grab, and justify it through some other pseudo-rational.

This is the real problem here. The problem isn't background checks, it is the attempt to gun grab by any means necessary...

 

[michaeledward]

Or, you could just be a jerk

... Well, that's a bit personal, isn't it?






The bill, as I read it, is about enforcing the laws on the books, and giving funding to the various organizations who have obligations under the current law.

So much for the idea of "enforcing the laws already on the books", eh?

And I thought "unfundend mandates" used to be a big issue for some folks too. Here is a law that appears to provide funds for the legal mandates. But, Noooo!

 

[Guardian]

b) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribal governments, and state and local courts to establish or upgrade information technologies for firearms eligibility determinations (to be provided electronically to NICS). [/FONT]
Ø [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Provides for penalties for noncompliance by state and local governments, specifically allowing the Attorney General to withhold federal funding that would otherwise be allocated to the state under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including mandatory reductions in federal funding of 5 percent if compliance is not met after three years following implementation of this Act.[/FONT]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Possible Conservative Concerns: Supporters of Second Amendment rights, including the two largest and most prominent gun rights groups in the country, are split on this issue. Gun Owners of America (GOA) is strongly opposed to this legislation, stating:[/FONT]

“the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun… Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun.”


Michael - What you put down here in your own post shows what we are talking about, I've underlined the portion of interest for you to reread my friend. It says it all, there are two (2) portions underlined that hold significant information pertaining to this conversation.

Yes, someone labeled it the Veterans Disarmanent Law or whatever, it's a name only, it doesn't detract from the intent though does it.

Read carefully, I did.

 

[Lisa]

That isn't the way things are now. If you have been medically diagnosed as being a danger to yourself or others, you can't buy a gun (in CA). I think that it stands to reason that such folks are being disarmed for their own protection and that of others. With the VT stuff, and the actions of armed vets with PTSD recently, I can see how they would have come to this decision. Not sure if I agree, but I get it.

See maybe I am not understanding but being diagnosed with PTSD does not automatically qualify you as being a danger to yourself or others. This, however, will make it seem so.

We don't. We let the actions of the individual decide rather then a collective law. Those deemed mentally unfit won't be able to get a concealed carry permit or purchase permit in most states anyway, just the same as if someone had a felony; however, having PTSD does not qualify one as mentally unfit in most cases, however. If you had any understanding of the disorder you would know that. Again, we need to respect people and their rights as individuals.

I agree with your statement and I think that is the crux of why gun owners are upset.

Or, you could just be a jerk and try to use every possible opportunity to take people's gun rights away because you don't like or carry firearms, and therefore you want to force your opinions and choices on everyone else through the legal system.

Yes, that could very well be true. I often wonder why people are so quick to disarm others for things they have yet not done. Makes no sense to me but hey, I am not a US citizen either and perhaps I don't understand completely. I know people with PTSD. I would trust my children with them and if I was ever in trouble they would be the first I would want on my side, hopefully heavily armed. They are no more a danger to themselves or others then a recovering alcoholic is behind the wheel of a car. I wouldn't think taking someone's drivers license away cause they "might" get drunk and kill someone makes any more sense then this would. But that is, I guess apples and oranges, as driving is a privilege where as bearing arms is a right.

Or he could be just stating his opinion, something we are all allowed to do on this board, beit we like what the other has to say or not. If we don't like what they have to say there is the ignore feature. It is a wonderful little thing built into the system. I rather like it a lot and often wish others would use it. It isn't at all like real life where we have to put up with and deal with people who get under our skin. Can't just click them away, yet, I often wonder how often we get into heated discussions with people in RL. It wouldn't be very productive in our every day life and it surely isn't here on the board.

 

[Cruentus]

... Well, that's a bit personal, isn't it?

Sorry... I meant the universal "you" not like you as in Micheal Edwards. But that came out sort of bad... sorry 'bout that.

 

[Cruentus]

As to the problem with this; as I understand it, the problem is that this allows the VA office to turn over MEDICAL RECORDS of vets to the NICS, and non-doctors can decide that because someone was labeled PTSD at one time in their life, that they are now mentally unfit to own a firearm. This would be like a person going to a therepist for anxiety issues, then being labelled as someone with an anxiety disorder and having those records turned over to the NICS to prevent that person from ever owning a gun.

We cross the line from a reasonable background check to now finding any reason or clause to prevent someone from owning a firearm. This would make the process about as fair as insurance companies and their denial process for claims.

So, the problem as I understand it is what I described above. I have no problem with criminal background checks and enforcing the existing laws that are reasonable. But as I understand it, the bill proposed creates these problems, and this should be addressed before pushing such legislation through...

 

[Lisa]

As to the problem with this; as I understand it, the problem is that this allows the VA office to turn over MEDICAL RECORDS of vets to the NICS, and non-doctors can decide that because someone was labeled PTSD at one time in their life, that they are now mentally unfit to own a firearm. This would be like a person going to a therepist for anxiety issues, then being labelled as someone with an anxiety disorder and having those records turned over to the NICS to prevent that person from ever owning a gun.

We cross the line from a reasonable background check to now finding any reason or clause to prevent someone from owning a firearm. This would make the process about as fair as insurance companies and their denial process for claims.

So, the problem as I understand it is what I described above. I have no problem with criminal background checks and enforcing the existing laws that are reasonable. But as I understand it, the bill proposed creates these problems, and this should be addressed before pushing such legislation through...

Nice post and I agree with you 100%.

It seems, at least to me, that some of the laws that the government makes to "protect us from ourselves" usually hurt those that follow the laws that are already in place. At least that is my humble opinion

 

[morph4me]

It seems, at least to me, that some of the laws that the government makes to "protect us from ourselves" usually hurt those that follow the laws that are already in place. At least that is my humble opinion

An opinion that I share. The laws are usually passed by people to deal with issues that they are unqualified to judge. Instead of new laws, I would like see us go the route of consumer education and enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael - What you put down here in your own post shows what we are talking about, I've underlined the portion of interest for you to reread my friend. It says it all, there are two (2) portions underlined that hold significant information pertaining to this conversation.

Yes, someone labeled it the Veterans Disarmanent Law or whatever, it's a name only, it doesn't detract from the intent though does it.

Read carefully, I did.

Guardian,

I did not write the language you copied. I read it. And copied from a page about the legislation.

The underlined portion is language from the Gun Owners of America. They are hardly an impartial group, are they?

Strange, that when you copy the information from my post, you do not copy it completely. ... You leave out the part that says the NRA supports the legislation.

What's your agenda?

 

[michaeledward]

An opinion that I share. The laws are usually passed by people to deal with issues that they are unqualified to judge. Instead of new laws, I would like see us go the route of consumer education and enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.

Despite the hyperbole of the title of this thread, what I can read and understand of this legislation, is that it provides money to organizaitons so that they can comply with laws on the books. This legislation does not appear to be creating new laws in any way. At least as I understand it.

 

[Doc_Jude]

The underlined portion is language from the Gun Owners of America. They are hardly an impartial group, are they?

No, they are not, & I wouldn't want them to be.

See maybe I am not understanding but being diagnosed with PTSD does not automatically qualify you as being a danger to yourself or others. This, however, will make it seem so.

Roger that. It's on the federal forms whenever you purchase firearms. If you're diagnosed as a danger to yourself or others, you're SOL. Mental health issues aren't mentioned as a general disqualifier.