Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

[DirtyDawg]

How would you address the issue?

End the unconstitutional wars, bring our soldiers home, close down our 200+ military bases around the world, and, mind our own business.

PTSD and out of control military spending solved.

 

[dennishoddy]

The only thing I could see that it would affect is if they could afford to buy a gun on a military disability pension.

WTF, is wrong with this?
Some vet with a hearing disibility can't own a gun?
Explain?

 

[dennishoddy]

I say they should be prevented from owning guns due to the diagnosis, not because they cant manage their finances.

If a soldier is so bad with finances they have to seek help from the VA and the VA has to appoint a family member due to being incompetant, theres prolly something bigger going on than just being unable to manage a checkbook.

Bullcrap. There is a large portion of people in this country that can't manage their
Money and are not veterans.

 

[Billybob]

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.

I agree with both of your concerns, and the fact that Constitutional Rights are being denied by administrative means without due process by people that have sworn the oath.

 

[Glocktogo]

Has nothing to do with supporting fellow vets. If a person, vet or civilian, has mental issues and has access to firearms there could be a danger. If theres a way to "flag" them so it could be looked at, im kinda ok with that.

As far as being adjucated vs diagnosed, im ok with either.

I say this esp because of our vets and PTSD. I couldnt find a vet guilty of a gun crime if they were diagnosed with PTSD.

So in my mind its protecting Vets to a certain extent.

Yes, it does. "mental issues" is a ridiculously broad term that encompasses far to many diagnoses to leave it up to a doctor on whether to restrict peoples rights or not.

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.

Absolutely! Why? Doctors and medical facilities should NOT be allowed to take away someone's rights based on a simple diagniosis. Why? Look up medical misdiagnosis or medical error and you'll have a perfect answer.

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

So long as they haven't been adjudicated mentally incompetent, absolutely!

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.

And you think it's going to increase the odds they'll get help or treatment if you take away their rights like a common criminal? If a medical diagnosis was all it took to have my rights taken from me, there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'd ever talk to a doctor about anything in my life, ever!

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

Yes, it's a bad thing. It's so bad they should be stripped of their license to practice medicine for it. If you think a vet is so bad off that they shouldn't be allowed to legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer, but you don't have them involuntarily committed for their own safety, then you just committed malpractice in my book!

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.

No. If the vet is so bad off they're a safety hazard to themselves or others, they should undergo a mental evaluation. If that evaluation agrees, then they should be referred for a mental competency hearing. Anything less is a disservice to the vet.

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

See above

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?

Exactly! This is why we don't allow doctors to make legal decisions for their patients. They aren't certified to do it and they make way too many mistakes to be trusted with that responsibility. Losing one's rights is a HUGE deal and it shouldn't be taken lightly.

End the unconstitutional wars, bring our soldiers home, close down our 200+ military bases around the world, and, mind our own business.

PTSD and out of control military spending solved.

DING, DING, DING! We have a winner!

 

[cmhbob]

Where do you draw the line on "mental issues?" Acrophobia? Hydrophobia? Cynophobia? Remember, any phobia is an abnormal fear of something, so someone with a phobia is obviously unbalanced. See how easy it is to expand that idea to include anyone?

Adjudication requires solid evidence, and a hearing, and the "accused" has an opportunity to defend the claim. None of that exists when a doctor is the sole arbitrator, and when you're talking about Constitutionally protected rights, that's nto good enough.

 

[Glocktogo]

Where do you draw the line on "mental issues?" Acrophobia? Hydrophobia? Cynophobia? Remember, any phobia is an abnormal fear of something, so someone with a phobia is obviously unbalanced. See how easy it is to expand that idea to include anyone?

Adjudication requires solid evidence, and a hearing, and the "accused" has an opportunity to defend the claim. None of that exists when a doctor is the sole arbitrator, and when you're talking about Constitutionally protected rights, that's nto good enough.

I do think we should draw the line a hoplophobia. Those that suffer from hoplophobia probably shouldn't be buying guns.

 

[Billybob]

I the Gov. was really worried about mental health issues effecting our society and not just restricting guns they'd be checking on and dealing with the professions with the known highest rates of depression and substance abuse issues and the professions that are known to draw the most psychopaths.
Google those subjects, you might,(or might not be surprised).

 

[SMS]

Adjudication requires solid evidence, and a hearing, and the "accused" has an opportunity to defend the claim. None of that exists when a doctor is the sole arbitrator, and when you're talking about Constitutionally protected rights, that's nto good enough.

+1. That's the issue at hand...and it's not unreasonable. The VA should not be able to do the adjudicating....they should be able to recommend it, and have it go through due process in a court of law with both sides represented.

 

[Billybob]

Don't be bothering the U.S. government with the Constitution

~ Archie Bunker