|
Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firea
|
Of course....this is nothing new and is a longstanding diagnosis. Anyone who is adjudicated as "incompetent", veteran or not, is the very definition of what is considered a seriously mentally ill person. Not only can they no longer own guns but they can no longer make any decisions for them self, a caretaker will be placed in charge of all their affairs including finances and other important life decisions. These are the people who would have been institutionalized just a couple of decades ago.
This is not some lax standard they just throw around, it is a very serious diagnosis which must be proven and may be contested. Very few people reach this level and it pretty much encompasses the very top end of the scale which includes people who just cannot function in society in their present state. It is what is referred to in question F on the Federal 4473. Quote:
|
As long as the diagnosis is legit, I don't have a problem with these people being exluded from ownership.
|
Anyone remember Ft.Hood?
|
I tried reading the clip from the VA letter and am left a little confused. I'd like to be able to see the letter in it's entire form.
I'm a veteran. I never saw anything close to combat (other than fights between us engine room crew members against the 'forward pukes' about what movie would be played that night) during my stint in the Navy. But if this letter sounds like it is to a vet who is getting VA benefits for PTSD or some other mental issue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not simply those being treated for PTSD, depression, ect....this is the most serious cases where the person is so ill a caregiver must be appointed for them because they cannot function in society by them self. |
Sorry, but this thread is a 'duplicate'...
link to earlier thread on same subject... http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1473186 |
Has anybody YOU know, actually received this letter?
|
This is a mental health issue, not a veterans issue.
Being a veteran does not give one any special rights to circumvent mental health prohibitions in gun ownership. Using VA's and veterans in this way to promote gun rights is dishonest, and no better than the anti-gun crowd's dishonest tactics. A 70 yo guy with dementia and paranoid behaviors should not be allowed to own guns, for the same reason he shouldn't be allowed to drive or be left alone in a house with working stoves. I don't care if he is a highly decorated war veteran with a chest full of medals. I am grateful for his service to our country and I will do everything medically possible to help him. But no, he shouldn't own guns and he shouldn't be paraded out by us for "gun rights." Doing so is just as bad as Obama dragging Newtown or Aurora victims out for his gun control agenda. A 36 yo guy with severe PTSD who is prone to violent outbursts should not be allowed to own guns. I don't care if he was a Tier One operator who has kept our country safe by killing many terrorists. I am grateful for his service to our country and will do everything I can to help him. But no, he shouldn't own guns at this point and shouldn't be used as a puppet by us for "gun rights." |
Quote:
Thank you for a well written post that was obviously well thought out. |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What about the 36 yr. old guy that doesn't have PTSD who is prone to violent outbursts? Nobody has any paper on him. Those are the guys to worry about. The thousands upon thosands of military PTSD people obviously have not went out and killed thousands of people. If they were so volatile, as it appears most think they are, why haven't we seen the thousands of killings that their numbers would bring? |
Bobby, I don't think Jean Luc was being as general as you are. He seems to be making a specific point. His point is, and correct me if I'm wrong Jean Luc, anyone with serious mental health issues does not need to have access to guns. Be they Audie Murphy or joe smuckatelli. Thank you for your service, now let us take care of you and help you get better. If we don't, then shame on us.
|
Quote:
I want to know how the hell you knew I was Audie Murphy. Edit: I also agree with both of you that people that ARE whack jobs should not have a gun. I just have issue with the generalization that all these vets people talk about are all whacko. |
Quote:
|
A determination of incompetency is made by a court and is not that easy to get. Incompetent means "Incompetent"
either through severe mental illness or physical disability such that you can't manage your own affairs. |
A court should make the call, not the VA. A judicial official should, based upon the evidence, decide whether the person is a danger to himself or others, not the VA. If you are a vet and have a ptsd diagnosis and have a person appointed to handle your $, typically your spouse, then expect a Brady letter brother. There was a bill introduce two years ago by NC Senator Burr....the Veterans' Firearms Rights Restoration Bill or some such name. Never went anywhere
|
I am a Veteran, this is not a Vet issue it has already been discussed.
What is important everyone, is LOOK AT THE OPs POST COUNT. Holy frick. |
Quote:
...but this has nothing to do with the average case of PTSD. This is the extreme cases that are the abnormality. |
Quote:
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire |
Quote:
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire |
Doing a little reading, it seems the issue here is a rating of incompetency for a veteran managing his own benefits. By law, if the VA rates a veteran as incompetent to manage his benefits, he is also ineligible to own a firearm.
In general, I agree that a mentally incompetent person should not own firearms. The concern is that this issue through the VA appears to be a determination of a veteran being rated as incompetent to manage his benefits, not a court-determined finding of mental incompetence. Further, from what I've read, it seems this process may be started by as little as a veteran stating his wife pays the bills when asked who manages the finances at home (leading an examiner to check a box indicating the veteran can't manage his own finances). There is then a proposal to appoint a fiduciary for the veteran, followed by an opportunity to contest this. If the opportunity is ignored, the finding of incompetency may be made (which then includes ineligibility to own firearms). In short, being denied firearms ownership due to actually being incompetent/mentally defective is appropriate. Being denied firearms ownership due to some weird VA process is inappropriate (and awful). |
Quote:
No fingers just numbs left after that many post :rofl: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:54. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2011, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.