Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

[Billybob]

Thats why its a hard conversation to have. I dont want Dr.'s flagging anyone. In fact I dont want a judge trying to determine mental competence either.

If VA Dr.'s cant flag patients are we "ok" with known diagnosed mental patients buying or owning guns?

I agree that Dr.'s shouldn't be flagging anyone without Articulable evidence of a threat. And a Dr.'s flag should trigger due process and required adjudication for a denial.
As for allowing "diagnosed mental patients" owning guns why not? We let them fight our wars, make our laws, run our Gov., care for our children, etc.

 

[Lurker66]

The CO shooter was a mental patient, so was the guy who shot the congressman(gabby).

I think we're only few more "mental" killings away from another gun ban of some type. So just "following" existing laws is going to give anti's better arguments.

As for the "why not" part of your question, thats the sort of typical logic that will cause us to lose rights. Knowbody, Im aware of, knowingly, lets diagnosed mentally incompentent people fight our wars, run our gov, or care for our children.

Anti's should not be underestimated. Some of their arguments for,some or more, gun control are both sound and compelling. Having a sound and compelling argument, along with public support, tends to be a good thing when presenting a change in laws.

 

[Lurker66]

Is that the argument you would present to the SCOTUS, that since we let diagnosed mentally incompetent people "fight our wars, run our government and care for our children, ect", that we should allow Vets to buy guns as well, and not flag them?

If thats the best you got we could be in trouble.

 

[Billybob]

The CO shooter was a mental patient, so was the guy who shot the congressman(gabby).

I think we're only few more "mental" killings away from another gun ban of some type. So just "following" existing laws is going to give anti's better arguments.

As for the "why not" part of your question, thats the sort of typical logic that will cause us to lose rights. Knowbody, Im aware of, knowingly, lets diagnosed mentally incompentent people fight our wars, run our gov, or care for our children.

Anti's should not be underestimated. Some of their arguments for,some or more, gun control are both sound and compelling. Having a sound and compelling argument, along with public support, tends to be a good thing when presenting a change in laws.

Yes the two shooters mentioned were mental patients who should have been deemed potential threats but weren't yet not managing your finances should?
We are headed to the "sound and compelling argument" that all mental patients,(those on meds) should be denied gun rights and lead to making mental patients and incompetent synonymous which leads to the point I was trying to make about having mental patients, (not incompetents) running things.

 

[Lurker66]

So we're back to the OP's question? Should a Vet who has been diagnosed as being "too mentally incompetant" be allowed to buy guns? Again the argument isnt about being able to manage finances or who flags them.

Are you "ok" with a diagnosed mentally incompetant person, Vet or not, owning or buying firearms?

Do a little google foo and see how many Vets commit suicide, kill loved ones or commit murder and have been diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses. The stats are piling up. Theres been tons of research and stats from the Viet Nam war as well. Mental illness, whether its called mental incompetance or not, is something very serious in our returning Vets.

VA Dr.'s flagging them, while illegal, might not be a bad thing. Thats why we need to have this conversation.

Should a VA Dr. automatically send the Vet before a Judge? A judge isnt a Dr. but he would prolly rely on the Dr's testamony and diagnosis.

Should a Dr. even report it to anyone? Just stay quiet and mind his business? Let the chips fall where ever?

 

[Billybob]

Is that the argument you would present to the SCOTUS, that since we let diagnosed mentally incompetent people "fight our wars, run our government and care for our children, ect", that we should allow Vets to buy guns as well, and not flag them?

If thats the best you got we could be in trouble.

No my argument is that we shouldn't let Dr.'s illegally restrict someone's rights based on a subjective opinion because they can't manage their finances which has nothing to do with being a potential threat.
And that if (when) they try to expand those restrictions to all mental issues requireing meds which would seem logical to some those restrictions would then arbitrailly cover a large segment of our population without evidence of potential threats.
And if they wish to make that argument then it needs to be noted how many active duty troops (including those in combat) are on meds as well as many others in important positions in society. My point being that it would be hipacritical (and blatant backdoor gun control) take gun rights over mental issues(being on meds) while still letting them drive cars(potentially dangerous), serve in the Gov., be Dr.s's, teachers etc. because that appears to say that the gun is the potential threat not the person with mental issues which was their original argument.

Any clearer?.

 

[Billybob]

So we're back to the OP's question? Should a Vet who has been diagnosed as being "too mentally incompetant" be allowed to buy guns? Again the argument isnt about being able to manage finances or who flags them.

Yes the argument is specifically about finances(the stated reason for flagging) and who flags them, these vets have been appointed fiduciaries to handle their finances not deemed legally incompetent in court, there's a big difference. There was a show the other night about a vet suffering brain injuries(IED blast), he can't articulate words well or do math anymore but is fine otherwise, should he be restricted?

Are you "ok" with a diagnosed mentally incompetant person, Vet or not, owning or buying firearms?

Are you o.k. with a Dr.'s opinion being made a fact of law without due process?

Do a little google foo and see how many Vets commit suicide, kill loved ones or commit murder and have been diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses. The stats are piling up. Theres been tons of research and stats from the Viet Nam war as well. Mental illness, whether its called mental incompetance or not, is something very serious in our returning Vets.

I understand and acknowledge these facts and believe the first issue should be helping these people(which we're doing a piss poor job of) not automatically restricting their rights just because they're in that group. Just like with crime will gun laws help?

VA Dr.'s flagging them, while illegal, might not be a bad thing. Thats why we need to have this conversation.

When we say usurping the rule of law for one issue is o.k. it opens it up to others.

Should a VA Dr. automatically send the Vet before a Judge? A judge isnt a Dr. but he would prolly rely on the Dr's testamony and diagnosis.

If he believes and can articulate why the vet is incompetent yes, and shouldn't that vet have his day in court to plead his case? What if the vet gets a second opinion that disagrees with the Gov. Dr.?

Should a Dr. even report it to anyone? Just stay quiet and mind his business? Let the chips fall where ever?

Report what?, that a person has mental issues or that they're a potential threat?
The ironic problem I see is that in the Colorado case and others potential threats were not reported(which could have prevented something) and nobody is held accountable. Yet now the argument is that everybody with mental issues should have their rights violated "just in case" which may or may not prevent something from happening.

We should also remember mental issues can be subjective and change, homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness and some Dr.'s think religion should be made one.

P.S. sorry for the delayed response.

 

[Lurker66]

Good responce.

I enjoy a good debate, but i cant really argue from the anti's point. Its getting too un-natural, even for me.

I have 2 concerns with this thread and topic.
1. The psych/mental arguments for more gun control is a weak spot in the Pro 2A armour. It needs to be addressed.

2. PTSD is unjustly killing our vets. Too many are committing crimes and getting locked up because of PTSD.

 

[okiebryan]

Here's another rub on this issue. If person A has a treatable mental illness... say depression, for example. With medication to stabilize mood, and therapy to change some thinking patterns, the success rate is very high. They can get their help and live a very normal life. Many only need the meds for a year or three.

I know that if I needed help of this type, and if I knew that I'd automatically lose my RKBA if I sought help, I'd be VERY unlikely to seek help. Do we want to create a disincentive for people who are suffering an illness to seek help?

 

[Lurker66]

How would you address the issue?