Posted on Jan 24, 2016
Does the ongoing discussion regarding gun possession and seeking psychological help for PTSD seem like a Catch "22" to anyone else?
6.82K
69
41
17
17
0
It takes the courage of a warrior to seek help. It takes the stroke of a political pen to send those who need help back into hiding if we want to own weapons; this seems to me like it could easily turn into a witch hunt, something like the Salem witch trials. Broken down to the most basic question: are you willing to permanently turn in your weapons to get help for PTSD?
Posted in these groups: 
PTSD
PTSD
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 15
1
1
0
Congress took away the protection of HIPPA for those with issues such as PTSD, with passing this newest legislation. Specifically expressing the lawfulness of doctors to disclose to NICS "the identities of individuals who are subject to a Federal “mental health prohibitor” that disqualifies them from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm."
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
CPT (Join to see)
So say a veteran is being treated for PTSD. Can they now be declared incompetent based solely on a diagnosis of PTSD, and have their guns confiscated?
So say a veteran is being treated for PTSD. Can they now be declared incompetent based solely on a diagnosis of PTSD, and have their guns confiscated?
(0)
(0)
Your positon and belief on this topic is accurate, not new and a common response....And not likely to change my opinion on that in my life time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The laws about the VA reporting vets who have been ruled incompetent hasn't changed since 1998. I believe what the new executive order relates to is making it so the social security administration can also report to the database people receiving disability payments for having been ruled mentally incompetent.
The issue about the VA reporting is that if you have been determined to be incompetent to manage your affairs to the point that they need to appoint a guardian, then you are reported. But many vets have complained that people who need a guardian because they mentally can't manage things like their financial arrangements shouldn't be lumped together with people who are determined to be a harm to themselves or others. I suspect the same issue would arsie with SS disabilities.
But there has been nothing new added to any law about what makes you ruled incompetent, and certainly simply getting treated for PTSD doesn't trigger it, as it hasn't since 1998. Unfortunately, some gun rights activists are using that as a scare tactic, and by misinforming the vets as to what has and hasnt changed, they may well indeed scare some away from treatment.
The issue about the VA reporting is that if you have been determined to be incompetent to manage your affairs to the point that they need to appoint a guardian, then you are reported. But many vets have complained that people who need a guardian because they mentally can't manage things like their financial arrangements shouldn't be lumped together with people who are determined to be a harm to themselves or others. I suspect the same issue would arsie with SS disabilities.
But there has been nothing new added to any law about what makes you ruled incompetent, and certainly simply getting treated for PTSD doesn't trigger it, as it hasn't since 1998. Unfortunately, some gun rights activists are using that as a scare tactic, and by misinforming the vets as to what has and hasnt changed, they may well indeed scare some away from treatment.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
PO1 John Miller - There are lots of vets that get treatment for PTSD that aren't determined to be mentally incompetent. Most, in fact, I would guess. But VA doctors do have the authority to make that determination and don't need to go to a court. My understanding of the process is that if they do make that determination they notify you in writing and say you have the right to appeal that determination. If you don't appeal or do and still found incompetent then they can confiscate your guns.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
PO1 John Miller - It's subjective. Under this final rule, only covered entities with lawful authority to make the adjudications or commitment decisions that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for NICS reporting purposes, are permitted to disclose the information needed for these purposes.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
CPT (Join to see)
Still... "Oh, John was in a bad mood when he came in for his mental health appointment today. I'm going to declare him incompetent." I find it scary that decisions of incompetency can be legally determined based on one instance of a veteran having a bad day.
This is just an example, I personally do not receive mental health treatment.
Still... "Oh, John was in a bad mood when he came in for his mental health appointment today. I'm going to declare him incompetent." I find it scary that decisions of incompetency can be legally determined based on one instance of a veteran having a bad day.
This is just an example, I personally do not receive mental health treatment.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
??? so where did the gun come in on this??? Last time I check ... there are a lot more way to kill oneself or others and far convince than guns too.
This is a mental illness issue, and got nothing to do with guns.
This is a mental illness issue, and got nothing to do with guns.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kim Patterson
It was an if/then question commenting on political pull regarding weapons possession and how easily they can make it for every veteran and first reponder, as well as sportsman, to be labeled at risk and take our weapons. The headlines from the recent mass shootings have been committed by people who should have been receiving mental health care. Political logic says if they committed this due to mental illness, we can do 2 things, identify those receiving care and remove their weapons. Problem solved.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Maj Kim Patterson - it is a mental issue, and got nothing to do with knife, or ice spike, or car, 16 wheeler truck ... whatever your pick and can claim to be a weapon, in this case .... GUN. So are you going to take everything away from them? They are crazy anyway, lets take away their free speech too, right?
It is a mental illness issue, so stop trying to use this to justify more knife, ice spike, car, 16 wheeler truck or free speech "control".
It is a mental illness issue, so stop trying to use this to justify more knife, ice spike, car, 16 wheeler truck or free speech "control".
(0)
(0)
SCPO Carl Wayne Boss
PO3 (Join to see) - Major Patterson, isn't in any way doing what you're accusing her of PO Thong...
What I believe she's saying is... in many cases, various possibly debilitating acts or alleged behaviors or other psychiatric or medical justifications are being stretched or "inflated" in a way that unjustly seeks to use them to remove various rights from Service Members... whether said "justifications" are factual or not... Which is in essence the same thing you're trying to put forth... Is that not correct?
What I believe she's saying is... in many cases, various possibly debilitating acts or alleged behaviors or other psychiatric or medical justifications are being stretched or "inflated" in a way that unjustly seeks to use them to remove various rights from Service Members... whether said "justifications" are factual or not... Which is in essence the same thing you're trying to put forth... Is that not correct?
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SCPO Carl Wayne Boss - Yes, but the whole point is why only guns? it is a false choice. "it is like do you give up your 16oz size of COKE to help obesity." Catch the platform yet? The whole discussion is just like will you give up your mustang to help speeding? or will you give up jack denial to help drunk driving? or will you give up your bathroom privacy for terrorism? (ok the last one is too far off lol).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I couldn't answer because to me, it's not an either/or. Who has been asked to submit their weapon in order to get help? Why do you have to do one or the other? Where is that occurring? Hmmm.....
(0)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
SP5 Christine Conley - i read one story where the people of a town and it's sheriff intercepted va personnel who had come to take the mans guns.since they had no court order or the authority to come take them he sent them packing. from what i remember he had seen a shrink at the va and he checked something off in his report that red flagged the guy which had nothing to do with his ability to own guns.and that the guys sent had nothing to do with the va police.he was sent to the shrink for a general health check i do find it odd that they would send a vet to the psych dept for a general health check though.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
SP5 Christine Conley - it was in an article i read if i can find it i will post it for you.
(1)
(0)
SPC Dee Bartlett
For me, this is not a simple question. After the military, I went to work in law enforcement/corrections. I have seen the voluntary submission of weapons work for and against those with mental health issues, veterans or not. There are so many factors that affect the outcome of a situation like that, it's mind boggling. I have seen it go well, and I've seen all the best intentions completely derail the veteran's attempts to feel safe.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kim Patterson
SPC Dee Bartlett - I agree, it is not a simple either/or. There exists a very wide gray area. But looking at history, Hitler started with a few "good ideas." I might recommend to those going through counseling to state clearly at each and every appointment that you have no plans to hurt yourself or others and don't mention possession of any weapons. As someone said earlier in this thread, there are so many easier ways to die or hurt others. Until they move onto the next "hot topic" I think it's best to lay low.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google