Posted on Jan 7, 2016
SGM Mikel Dawson
7.28K
50
32
6
6
0
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.
Posted in these groups: Disabled vet logo Disabled VeteranEms Medical
Avatar feed
Responses: 12
SMSgt Pavements and Construction Equipment (DirtBoyz)
9
9
0
Edited >1 y ago
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.
(9)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Tom Brown
8
8
0
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.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SGM Mikel Dawson
>1 y
Capt Tom Brown Sir, I've got a couple vet friends who got the symptoms of PTSD and they believe they do have it, but will not go into get it checked because they don't want it associated with their names. I also believe many will go that route
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
>1 y
SGM Mikel Dawson - It is too late for the many thousands who have been extensively documented by the government as being diagnosed with PTSD. The medical questioning about weapons ownership and storage began months ago.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG William Wold
MSG William Wold
>1 y
I've had a physical with VA two months ago and no question came up about gun ownership.
I grew up in a rural community, the 60's early 70's they had a gunsmith class in High School, they taught the hunter safety course in Junior High in the classroom. I was on a shooting team in high school, I shot expert.
My last Reserve unit, I could take an M-16 apart, clean it totally blindfolded, put it back together.
I was supposed to inherit a 30-30 carbine and a shot gun from my grandfather, they were never found till after my father died 4 years ago. Apparently my dad had forgot he put them in the attic crawl space in the 80's to prevent them from being stolen, but merely wrapped them in plastic wrap then forgot he did. After my dad passed on my sister gets the house, a leak in the bedroom came thru, and when they went in the attic to find the leak they find these. But they were so decayed and rusty they were not salvageable. At my divorce 15 years ago what I did have had to be turned in during the procedure because a restraining order was filed, and never got them back, they were "lost", or mis placed..
SO now to get another gun I have to go thru all these hoops, and be subject to all kinds of stuff, especially having 34 years of being associated with the military is going to raise flags and having some compensation from VA.. We shall see soon..
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Stephen F.
3
3
0
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.
(3)
Comment
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
LTC Stephen F.
>1 y
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr - Do you know which states that occurred in?
It seems strange for VA to be the one collecting guns I would expect ATF to be involved in that and using local police or sheriffs to do the dirty work.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen  Sr
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
>1 y
LTC Stephen F. - yes sir i'm positive i saw an article somewhere not sure where now it was a few months back. but it was people from the va now where they thought they had the authority to do so is beyond me. in one case the county sheriff chased them off and told them to come back with a court order and the authority to do so. which they did not do because he was not bothered again. but as high handed as some va personnel are i would not doubt that they have not done so with someone not knowing the law.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
LTC Stephen F.
>1 y
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr - thanks for letting me know.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen  Sr
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
>1 y
LTC Stephen F. - always a pleasure to be of service.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
If I own guns and have PTSD will my ownership rights be effected by Obama's new executive order?
MSgt James Mullis
3
3
0
Yes!
(3)
Comment
(0)
SGT Project Engineer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Would you elaborate? Because I would say no - as in Veterans would not be more affected than others.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
>1 y
SGT (Join to see) - See the above Military.com link.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
MSgt James Mullis
>1 y
SGT (Join to see) - He did not ask if, as a veteran, he would be more affected than others. He asked if the president's new executive order(s) would affect the gun ownership rights of someone with PTSD? I answered "Yes", because it likely will affect the ability of someone with a diagnosed mental illness to purchase a gun.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Project Engineer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
MSgt James Mullis - I hear you and understand. But I disagree that this will be the case. I simply do not think that PTSD alone will be enough - as it hasn't been in the past, like a few years ago when social media started to report about the disarming of veterans with PTSD, and omitted the whole story. As per usual.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
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
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1stSgt Eugene Harless
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
>1 y
1stSgt Eugene Harless in CA a family member can petition for a 'gun violence temporary restraining order' and have a judge impound your guns and prohibit you from constructively possessing a firearm for 21 days.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/1230/California-gun-law-will-allow-families-to-petition-for-gun-restraining-orders
(2)
Reply
(0)
1stSgt Eugene Harless
1stSgt Eugene Harless
>1 y
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - The Judge ( legal system) has the final say in this. I would like to see how many cases are actually pushed.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
>1 y
1stSgt Eugene Harless - Indeed, and until then....hire an attorney and hope the judge's bias favors the accused. It will be interesting watching this play out.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG William Wold
MSG William Wold
>1 y
My spouse was a trauma nurse ER. At one point before she retired, there was a mandate came down to the hospital that doctors were required to ask about gun ownership and the hospital was reviewing guidelines as to the wording of the questionnaire questions that were to be put on the visitation form that asks all kinds of questions like how do you feel, why are you here today, etc, we all know that form. Well the doctor she worked with was also on the board of directors of the hospital and was pushing back against this added requirement. No clue if he won or the mandate won.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Retired
1
1
0
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 (Join to see) 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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
1
1
0
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
SFC Everett Oliver
>1 y
As I have stated many times, "The Anti-gun nuts will use anything they can to take another gun away from an honest citizen. I'm yet to see new legislation or "directives" that would have prevented the shootings in San Bernardino. In fact i don't see where anything is directed towards criminals at all."
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Program Control Manager
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
PO1 Cryptologic Technician Collection
PO1 (Join to see)
>1 y
Nothing to add except I agree with you.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 John Miller
0
0
0
SGM Mikel Dawson
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close