Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumShould Mentally Incompetent Veterans Retain Gun Rights?
The Washington Post reportsShould veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.
I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us, Schumer said. If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.
Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veterans name in the Criminal Background Check System.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VAs current policy reasonable.
Were talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that theyre unable to manage their own affairs, Gross said. If youre deemed unable to handle your own affairs, thats likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.
Coburn, and his NRA overlords, are really showing their true colors on this one. They have no concern for anything other than pushing gun rights, even if it means returning those rights to the worst of the worst.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VAs policy doesnt appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Can you imagine how incompetent those 185 are? We're not talking about people with mild mental problems who need a little help with their affairs. These are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000.
I find the extremism of the NRA and its minions truly shocking. Don't you?
Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000
ileus
(15,396 posts)to handle their own financial affairs.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)But he has a point here.
In cases where mental capacity to make rational decisions is compromised, the gun permit should be at least suspended.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Mentally incapacitated should NOT be allowed a gun permit under no circumstance. I would go as far as anyone under psychiatric care should have their permit suspended until a doctor deems them stable again.
dballance
(5,756 posts)But I believe you might want to re-think that whole "I would go as far as anyone under psychiatric care should have their permit suspended until a doctor deems them stable again." That's pretty far. There are a lot of people under "psychiatric care" for things like eating disorders who are no threat to anyone if they possess a gun. Hell, they don't even have Twinkies to shoot at anymore.
So I just think you might have been a bit overly broad in your concerns by including anyone under psychiatric care.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's a Pandora box when it comes to psychiatric disorders. What about simple anxiety, should we be allowed to purchase and carry a gun?
I guess I need to retract my statement, I didn't think it throughly.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)If you never speak to one, they can't diagnose you. If they don't diagnose you, they can't punish you. Trust is a difficult thing for people struggling with their own heads, and politicians (especially gun controllers) don't help when they paint every person with a mental disorder with the same brush, as a defective, a psycho, a worthless subhuman whose rights can be revoked at the drop of a hat.
Not to mention that the black mark never goes away. Maybe you'll make it through 2012 just fine. Maybe you'll lose the right to vote in 2014. Or driving privileges in 2016. That's life as a political prop.
Spryguy
(120 posts)what you are saying is that you think people with mental disorders should have guns? Sorry, gotta disagree- a doctor should be able to make the decision that you are too dangerous to yourself or others to possess a firearm.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:23 AM - Edit history (1)
A bill was recently introduced here that would have automatically disqualified a person for gun ownership if they sought treatment for ANY "mental disorder" in the DSM-IV list, including (among others): Anorexia, Bulimia, Insomnia, Transsexuality, Anxiety, Hypochondria, Erectile Dysfunction, Phobias, Dyslexia, Stuttering, or Attention Deficit Disorder. To me, that says that I only get to remain a first-class citizen if I never, ever disclose my problems to a professional. Otherwise, I'm at risk of being legislated against out of society's hatred and contempt for anybody who seeks help for mental problems. It's the same situation for depression, neurosis, psychosis, or any condition that could (not necessarily does) legitimately make me a threat to public safety. HB 730 sends a VERY clear message to me: seeking professional help for mental illness is dangerous, and there are many people who will try very hard to punish you for it.
People like mikeb30200 and fightthegoodfightnow are the reason I am resolved never to speak to a psychiatric professional. Ever.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)such decisions should only be made by the judiciary via due process.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Let's let judges decide who is mentally ill rather than doctors?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the VA should be no different especially what is an individual right under the Constitution. A judge would take evidence from competing experts, like how it works for everyone else.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)What a surprise.
Let's not help the mentally ill?
Let's help them keep their guns?
Is THAT really the best argument you can come up with?
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Gun controllers don't give half a shit about the mentally ill. They're simply a prop they can use to terrify and propagandize others. What I'm saying is that people who would zealously punish ANYBODY who seeks treatment for ANY mental disorder, regardless of type or severity, contributes to the stigmatization and marginalization of the mentally ill, and strongly discourages them from seeking care. I believe it's people like you that grind the mentally ill under your heels in your desire to disarm anybody you possibly can, rather than advocating a fair system, consistent with due process, which treats those suffering mental illness as human beings with a treatable medical condition, rather than political rag-dolls to be whipped and chained as a stepping stone to complete disarmament.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I'm not good at 'comprehension' but you support the right of the mentally ill to own a gun! LOL. Oh, goody...thanks for the insult....good thing us stupid people can have a gun.
Denying anyone mentally ill a gun is no more of a 'crime' or 'punitive' than denying a drunk a drink.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)To you, all mental illness is identical, and all people suffering from it, regardless of type or severity, are defective, unworthy of the benefits of citizenship. And you accuse me of "not wanting to help the mentally ill." You disgust me.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)To you it's all about the personal insult.
I'll leave you to argue the mentally ill should be allowed to have a licensed gun.
No doubt you think I am crazy! LOL!!!!!!!
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)These guys are INCOMPETENT. The NRA and their minions want them to enjoy gun rights like everybody else.
dballance
(5,756 posts)It's nice to see folks here be reasonable and be able to reflect on what they said rather than just raise their backs and get defensive. I need to remember to do the same.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)murder-suicide is "guns don't kill; he was mentally ill." And here if legally declared mentally incompetent, and the NRA still wants to arm them.
Being a veteran should afford one the utmost respect. But that doesn't mean endangering other people's lives (or the veteran's). Maybe it's time for others to protect the veteran.
no_hypocrisy
(46,117 posts)My SO's late brother was a Vietnam Vet with mental problems and an alcoholic. His world revolved around weapons, especially rifles. He couldn't hold a job due to his mental and drinking problems. We discussed having his yellow card revoked and taking away his guns, but realized that it would be a waste of time for our goals. He had enough contacts where he could buy or get a gun outside of commercial establishments (through social associations, gun shows, on the street) and he'd find a way.
You might slow down the process but my guess is that these vets will attain their weapons one way or another.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)...then where does he get the money to buy a gun? That judgement would be made by the person who is administering his affairs. So the veteran's gun buying is already being closely supervised by someone who knows him well.
You assume that the 185 who want off are the worst of the worst. Maybe they have improved to the point that they can manage their own affairs now. If they have to mental competence to file a petition to be taken off the list, then they may well have to competence to have their 2A rights.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)From the article:
"Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms."
There is no record anywhere of what guns I own.
On a side note, my ex who has made multiple suicide attempts can purchase a gun at a gun shop by simply lying on the questionnaire. Her name would not show up on a back ground check because of medical confidentiality laws.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I know a few people who voluntarily divested themselves of firearms after being diagnosed with clinical depression. It's incumbent on the person who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or that person's caretakers, to comply with the law.
On a side note, my ex who has made multiple suicide attempts can purchase a gun at a gun shop by simply lying on the questionnaire. Her name would not show up on a back ground check because of medical confidentiality laws.
That's a hole in the system. I suggest writing to your representatives in Congress to get the problem corrected. But once again, compliance with the law as it stands now is voluntary. A person who lies on the form and signs it risks a lengthy stay in prison if he or she is subsequently caught.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Why don't YOU write YOUR Congressman to protect the life of others?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)How about you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)No matter what subject I write about in my communications to her, I always get back the same form letter or email saying "Thank you for contacting Senator Feinstein about gun safety..."
Seriously, I can write about Navy officer salaries or Middle East policy and get the same response every time.
msongs
(67,413 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
DonP
(6,185 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Do you consider it a violation of the Second Amendment for a police officer to disarm someone that's being arrested? The 2A doesn't have any restrictions on account of being under arrest or incarcerated, either. Nor on account of a violent criminal history, threats of violence, or presence in a courtroom. These are restrictions which aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but which are definitely valid under strict scrutiny. There are some people whose mental illness makes them a threat to public safety if permitted to possess a weapon as effective as a firearm. As much as I want to see them healed and have their rights restored, I don't want to just ignore a dangerous situation (for them and others) out of stubbornness.
jody
(26,624 posts)mental institution; " 18 USC § 922
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Is your obvious bias and intellectual dishonesty.
the " incompetent" 185 are those that are lucid and and understanding of bureaucratic procedure enough to jump through the hoops to attempt to regain the rights they fought for. You don't find 127,000 people reported as incompetent a little troubling?
I am sure no Dr. with an anti gun stance would abuse his position and report as many Vets as possible.
The NRA has no comment, so you arbitrarily give them a position via Coburn. And this position of Coburns? "All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,
Damn. the article you link even brings up that it could be harmful to recovery as stigmatized vets refuse to seek help, out of fear of arbitrarily losing their rights.
I am sure you support the idea that all of our other enumerated rights are also at the mercy of the medical INDUSTRY, right?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)_ational Rifle Association word.
Stigma is vital to prohibitionists.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When and where did that happen since WW2?
Do you honestly believe our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting to preserve the US Constitution and BoR?
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)and swore/ affirmed an oath, yes most believed when they joined they fight to protect America and its core principles. Where they fight is not in their control, nor is it even remotely relevant to what they as individuals fight for.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)SQUEE
(1,315 posts)a chance to travel the world, to see governments work in other societies. to see other cultures in action and to fight for other peoples chance to live ...So for me and many other people really, really well.
Did you know some people have come home from war and still believe they did the right things and that their country is still a beautiful place and are actually proud to have served?
poor misguided fools
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)..."they are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000..." BECAUSE they want their RKBA restored.
Just more nonsense from the king thereof.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You ask.....
You try voting under such circumstances!
You try owning property under such circumstances!
How about a few un-enumerated rights?
You try driving under such circumstances.
Heck, you try JOINING the armed forces with a MEDICAL determination of mental illness (or flat footless)!!!!
But heh....... Let's give the mentally ill a gun. Good grief!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)owning property isn't one of them, neither is joining the military
Driving is always described as a privilege.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Property Rights and Voting
Clames
(2,038 posts)...a paragraph to show your disdain for veterans.
Can you imagine how incompetent those 185 are? We're not talking about people with mild mental problems who need a little help with their affairs. These are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000.
Let's examine what was actually stated:
The number of veterans directly affected by the VAs policy doesnt appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Now try and weasel word your way into an explanation of how those 185 are the worst of the worst out of 127k for trying to get their rights back when you don't have a damned clue what the circumstances are that got them put into the NICS in the first place.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...by a court of law as mentally incompetent should not be allowed to acquire a firearm, or a driver's license.
I oppose making an exception for veterans.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Some people want to skip that inconvenient step....
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Nor should anyone's Rights be removed without full utilization of the Fifth Amendment.
There must be a court and judge involved, not merely the whim of a beauracracy.
Nor should one have to navigate a labrynth of administration to get to that court.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Nor in the least bit relevant.
You jumped the shark long ago.
petronius
(26,602 posts)them from firearms ownership (and many other things) for the duration of that incompetency. But I think that there needs to be a very cautious and just way of making that determination, and people judged incompetent should always have a fast and fair way of contesting that judgment. And, I don't think veterans should be treated any differently - neither more harshly nor more leniently - than anyone else in this regard.
The article, however, seems a little unclear; it sounds as though the VA has a mechanism for declaring people incompetent that isn't available to the general mental health community. I have concerns about that in two ways: I don't like the idea of incompetency declarations without strict judicial (or clearly equivalent) oversight, and I don't think vets should be treated differently.
I'm not sure what the correction needs to be, though. If vets are being treated in a more strict and less protective way than non-veterans, then that needs to stop. But if the VA has developed a better, fairer, equitable, more efficient approach to competency determinations, then perhaps we should be exploring how to expand that mechanism to the general community...
lyingsackofmitt
(105 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's not that complicated.
If some people said that being put on a list by a non-judicial government agency took away your right to vote, privacy, abortion, equal pay, free speech, jury trial, legal representation, and to confront your accuser in open court, there would be a riot.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Yea...it's more complicated than that!
The 'right to vote, privacy, abortion, equal pay, free speech, jury trial, legal representation, and to confront your accuser in open court' are all subject to restriction and subjective interpretation depending on jurisdiction.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)if you're otherwise eligible (over 18 to vote, etc.), none of these rights can be taken away without legislation (which is subject to legal challenges) or a court order. No agency can declare a person's rights to be void unless they are specifically empowered to do so by the legislature. That's what due process is about -- preventing arbitrary and malicious use of government power against an individual or group.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Oh Give Me a Break!
Yell Fire in a theater, invoke the first amendment and tell me what jail to visit you in.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)That scenario was created as an example of speech that would not be protected by the 1st Amendment. It was created by the Supreme Court in Schenk v. United States when a statute restricting speech was challenged and upheld by the courts. Certain speech was deemed criminal by an act of Congress. Shouting "fire" in a theater (assuming there isn't a fire) is only punishable if there is a relevant statute, passed by the legislature. This is all consistent with due process.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)All are subject to restriction, including those enumerated in the first and second amendment!
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)and not subject to restriction by the legislatures and courts?
You're just vomiting nothings.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)If legislation is introduced and passed saying ANY citizen declared mentally incompetent to own a gun by a physician, you would approve?
Good...not unlike requiring someone to see before they get a driver's license! Agree!!!!
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)or at least of responding coherently and honestly to them. I decline to discuss further with you.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Run away!
Fast!
Quickly!!!!
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Try actually answering the question....
Good...not unlike requiring someone to see before they get a driver's license! Agree!!!!
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Please use the ignore feature in preferences so we can both move on.
Otherwise.....see you again when you articulate better arguments.
LOL.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)?
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)You're ignoring the fact that there's a huge chasm between "subject to restriction" and "subject to revocation".
And you're also ignoring the fact that this non-judicial government agency, by definition, is not due process.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The problem is that the VA currently wants to bypass federal law.
spin
(17,493 posts)In fact I know one and to best of my knowledge, he is not receiving any treatment.
The danger is that we should never wish to deny all combat veterans the right to own firearms. I have known a number of combat veterans who own firearms and handle them in a very responsible manner. Of course some have an intense dislike of firearms because of their war experience but some do not.
I used to shoot with a WWII vet who landed in Normandy and fought his way across Europe. He was a competitive shooter in trap and skeet and also enjoyed shooting .45 Colt handguns at the pistol range where I shot. He was also an electronic engineer who worked on numerous NASA space programs and was an excellent computer programmer. He was a very intelligent individual and was one of the most gentle and kind men I have ever met. He was also one of the few that I have known who had actually killed other men in combat.
Of course I would imagine that he went through some tough times when he returned from his war experiences. Like most true combat vets he didn't really like to discuss what he had seen.
We do need to be willing to spend the money to evaluate those who our nation has sent into harm's way and be willing to offer help to those who need it. All too often the ruling 1% in our nation are more than willing to send the lower classes into questionable wars but our nation often fails to provide the proper care for the health and mental issues they face on their return from their service.
We can and should do better.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)a cop on the rubber gun squad can't hang on to a weapon why should anyone else.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)As therapy they should be given keyboards and Internet access.