If I own guns and have PTSD will my ownership rights be effected by Obama's new executive order?

2016-01-07T11:16:48-05:00

I am trying this question without attachments and rewording the thread as Admin says I violated their rules. I thought we had a great discussion started and would like to continue it with a different question on the same subject.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jan 7 at 2016 11:37 AM

2016-01-07T11:37:12-05:00

Yes!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 7 at 2016 11:42 AM

2016-01-07T11:42:06-05:00

I hope not SGM Mikel Dawson. You should be able to keep the weapons you own. His ficus seems to be on purchasing weapons - at least that is what he and his allies are saying.
POTUS can only do so much by himself. Congress needs to fund his executive action in order for it to be effective.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 7 at 2016 11:57 AM

2016-01-07T11:57:40-05:00

I can't help but feel that this is a very real and valid concern on the part of Vets suffering from PTSD or other forms of mental trauma resulting from any combat. There is no strict objective-type guideline on any level, (that I know of) which sets forth the mental or psychological criteria or procedures, civil, legal, or judicial for declaring someone unable to purchase a firearm.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-01-07T12:46:24-05:00

If you are prohibited from legally buying a gun today because of your PTSD, it should make it more difficult to buy a gun without a background check. If you can legally purchase a gun today, it should have no impact on you. The executive order attempts to expand the definition of gun dealer and make it more difficult to buy a gun without a background check.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 7 at 2016 1:22 PM

2016-01-07T13:22:30-05:00

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ranting-man-shot-obama-guns

Police Fatally Shoot Armed Man Ranting About Obama’s Gun Control Policy

Police shot and killed a California man who opened fire on an apartment building Tuesday night while ranting incoherently about President Obama’s new gun control policy.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-01-07T13:33:50-05:00

you think 22 suicides a day is a high number now, just wait until members stop asking for help with PTSD just so they can stay off of these lists.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 7 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-01-07T14:36:12-05:00

The Executive Order sent out is very vague and will not stand legal scrutiny, In My Humble Opinion. The biggest bugger-bear in this is that it is in violation of Patient Privacy rights. POTUS may have good intentions, that being seeking to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. However, the ownership of firearms is a citizen's right that is based on their conduct as it pertains to the legal system, not their medical condition. A judge is the only person who can void the right of a person to own a firearm, through a criminal ruling or an administrative hearing. In my opinion, a citizen who has been arrested or 5150ed by the police and has commited acts of violence or made threats should be legally banned from owning a firearm.
A citizen who suffers from PTSD, Depression or other mental issues should not have their rights adminstratively taken away because of what they MIGHT do. Physicians, even mental health specialists should not be given the power or forced to give guidance or recommedations to a judge for every patient that seeks mental help. I can see it now, If a Mental Health Specilist is FORCED to check a block on whether or not a person should be able to own a firearm they will check NO every time. Thats why the Order will never fly.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 3:06 PM

2016-01-07T15:06:22-05:00

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Jan 7 at 2016 5:11 PM

2016-01-07T17:11:08-05:00

The VA can decide that a veteran is no longer mentally fit to handle benefits and finances and will then appoint what is called a fiduciary, often a family member but sometimes an outside party who manages their affairs.
The names of veterans who receive that designation are also submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which must be used by gun dealers to run a background check before making a sale. The VA said Thursday that it still reports the information according to the federal requirements in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
The vets must appeal through the VA to regain control of their benefits, which can be a complex and lengthy process. Meanwhile, they may be blocked from buying guns by the database, which is managed by the FBI and falls under [Lynch's] Department of Justice.
[With new EO's, connect the upcoming dots...]
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/17/senator-veterans-still-losing-gun-rights-because-of-va-reporting.html

Senator: Veterans Still Losing Gun Rights Because of VA Reporting

Debate whether vets who can't manage their benefits should be considered "mentally defective" and barred from buying guns resumes.

Response by Sgt Michael Johnson made Jan 8 at 2016 12:16 AM

2016-01-08T00:16:30-05:00

This issue is of great concern to me.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 8 at 2016 4:36 AM

2016-01-08T04:36:31-05:00

It depends. The way I've read this "EO" is, it's not doing or saying anything that isn't already being done.

As far as mental health is concerned... Are you seeking treatment voluntarily? If you are, your health records fall under privacy laws such as HIPAA and cannot be disclosed without your permission. If you are involuntarily committed to a mental health treatment facility you are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 7:39 AM

2016-01-08T07:39:05-05:00

The most important issue with Obama's orders regarding gun ownership and mental illness is the question of who makes the decision? Since the complete effect of this order is not known, all we can do is speculate.

However, we can compare this to a recent bill and see if any conclusions can be drawn. Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife has been trying to make political capitol out of a failed bill to deny gun purchases to anyone on the Terrorist No-Fly list. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? If you can't be trusted to fly in an airplane, you probably shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

The problem with the proposed law is the No-Fly list itself. Some faceless government bureaucrat gets to put you on the list. They don't have to tell you that you are on the list. When you find out that you are on the list, they don't have to tell you why, and they don't have to tell you how to get off the list. That puts way too much power in the hands of a government bureaucrat, and no information at all on what makes him qualified to make that judgement. Given the use of the IRS by the current administration to harass Conservatives, I can't imagine why anyone would think that is a good bill. Even a Liberal gun-hater should be concerned about too much power in the hands of bureaucrats. Couldn't those powers be used against you if Trump wins the election?

I agree that the mentally ill should not have access to guns. But this decision should be made in the open, by medical professionals, and with a clear way of getting the ban removed. There are levels of mental illness and the guy who is startled by loud noises is clearly in a different category than the guy who thinks he is Napoleon.

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member makes an excellent point. Liberals wanted abortion rights so women would not go to unlicensed practitioners with questionable methods and sanitation. If you allow a faceless government bureaucrat without medical training to decide that being startled by loud noises means you cannot have a gun, you will just cause people to not seek help when they need it and push the problem underground.