GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2013, 10:07   #1
Raz-n-co
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,294,967,295
Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firea

What's next???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...e-of-firearms/
__________________
Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.
Raz-n-co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:42   #2
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,153


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:
f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Last edited by ray9898; 02-22-2013 at 11:24..
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:44   #3
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
As long as the diagnosis is legit, I don't have a problem with these people being exluded from ownership.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:46   #4
JAS104
NRA Life Member
 
JAS104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,612
Anyone remember Ft.Hood?
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan
JAS104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:56   #5
FullClip
CLM Number 171
NRA Benefactor
 
FullClip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On The Lake in The Maine Woods
Posts: 6,143


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.
__________________
Quando omni flunkus moritati
FullClip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:59   #6
JAS104
NRA Life Member
 
JAS104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by FullClip View Post
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.
I agree. Doesnt really look like its something sent to every veteran, probably only individuals under psychiatric care for PTSD, etc.
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan
JAS104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:17   #7
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,153


Quote:
Originally Posted by JAS104 View Post
I agree. Doesnt really look like its something sent to every veteran, probably only individuals under psychiatric care for PTSD, etc.

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.

Last edited by ray9898; 02-22-2013 at 11:18..
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:23   #8
FullClip
CLM Number 171
NRA Benefactor
 
FullClip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: On The Lake in The Maine Woods
Posts: 6,143


Sorry, but this thread is a 'duplicate'...


link to earlier thread on same subject...

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1473186
__________________
Quando omni flunkus moritati
FullClip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 14:47   #9
nursetim
Senior Member
 
nursetim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: liberalville N. M.
Posts: 6,607
Has anybody YOU know, actually received this letter?
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. - I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
nursetim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 17:49   #10
PicardMD
Make It So!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Star Fleet Medical...
Posts: 2,220
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."
__________________
Peace is not the mere absence of conflicts. It's the presence of Justice.

* Beverly Picard, MD * The SECOND sexiest lady doc I know... (my wife is THE sexiest lady doc I know :cool:, but she wouldn't let me use her name as my handle on a gun board... :supergrin: )

Last edited by PicardMD; 02-22-2013 at 17:50..
PicardMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 18:07   #11
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by PicardMD View Post
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."

Thank you for a well written post that was obviously well thought out.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 20:37   #12
Bushflyr
ʇno uıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
 
Bushflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Western WA
Posts: 4,464
How did you manage to get ~4.3 billion posts?

The Okie Corral
__________________
...the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys.

That which does not kill you has made a tactical error. --Tayler

Last edited by Bushflyr; 02-22-2013 at 22:39..
Bushflyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 21:03   #13
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,153


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushflyr View Post
How did you manage to get ~4.3 million posts?
Strange.
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 22:48   #14
BobbyS
You Talkin ToMe
 
BobbyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Noise
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by PicardMD View Post
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."

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?
__________________
I don't mind shooting, as long as the right person gets shot! - D. Harry
BobbyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 23:02   #15
nursetim
Senior Member
 
nursetim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: liberalville N. M.
Posts: 6,607
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.
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. - I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
nursetim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 23:18   #16
BobbyS
You Talkin ToMe
 
BobbyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Noise
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by nursetim View Post
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.

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.
__________________
I don't mind shooting, as long as the right person gets shot! - D. Harry

Last edited by BobbyS; 02-22-2013 at 23:22.. Reason: ...
BobbyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 00:55   #17
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
As long as the diagnosis is legit, I don't have a problem with these people being exluded from ownership.
The problem I have with it is that there are people who want to kill people that have done them wrong but not hurt others. This in my arguments makes them not dangerous. Why do humans have to act like sheep? If a vet is that bad off he would probably be in the horsepital.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 03:54   #18
Bill Keith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 4,685
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.
Bill Keith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:12   #19
JackMac
Senior Member
 
JackMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 845
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
__________________
Armatissimi e liberissimi
JackMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:36   #20
BlackPaladin
Senior Member
 
BlackPaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 2,437
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.
__________________
niners club #187
moto club #600
Bull dawgs club #55
RIP Ofc. Tommy Decker #6402 CSPD
BlackPaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:48   #21
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,153


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyS View Post
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?

...but this has nothing to do with the average case of PTSD. This is the extreme cases that are the abnormality.
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:44   #22
JAS104
NRA Life Member
 
JAS104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by nursetim View Post
Has anybody YOU know, actually received this letter?
Nope


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan
JAS104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:45   #23
JAS104
NRA Life Member
 
JAS104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by PicardMD View Post
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."
Well said Picard, thanks for posting


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan
JAS104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:42   #24
podwich
Senior Member
 
podwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: MI
Posts: 9,266
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).
podwich is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:03   #25
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushflyr View Post
How did you manage to get ~4.3 billion posts?

The Okie Corral


No fingers just numbs left after that many post
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,519
452 Members
1,067 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42