Should weapons be taken or denied to veterans under the PTSD/Mental Illness blanket?

SPC Alejandro Martinez — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:44:00 -0400

If a veteran is mentally ill or has PTSD, should that fact be enough to deny him/her e weapon or remove them from his/her home? What do you think are the implications of mental health workers asking patients if they have access to a firearm? I don't have one and replied no; BUT, what if I had and replied yes? Would the police have come to my house to search and seize my cache of firearms? Should weapons be taken from or denied to veterans under the PTSD/Mental Illness blanket?

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 8 at 2015 3:48 PM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:48:49 -0400

SPC Alejandro Martinez No, unless they threaten direct harm to someone or themselves.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jul 8 at 2015 4:08 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:08:59 -0400

I received a call about a person following a suspected terrorist. It turned out to be a soldier, veteran who suffers fromPTSD. The veteran was following an imaginary person in an imaginary vehicle but carrying three very real hand guns loaded. Initially his firearms were taken from him while he was being treated but he petitioned to get them bsck. It could have gone sideways way to quick.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 8 at 2015 4:09 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:09:11 -0400

As Firearm Ownership is a Civil Right, suspension of said Civil Right should only be done with Due Process.

My personal opinion is that it should involve a Judge, as opposed to an Administrative Process. Doctors can act as credible witnesses, but not "deciding officials" and bureaucrats should not be acting as either.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 8 at 2015 4:24 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:24:14 -0400

I'm going to go with LTC John Shaw. There are difference cases with PTSD. Unless they are displaying acts of aggression, violence, and want to harm others or themselves, veterans should be able to possess firearms.

Response by SSG Jeremie Embrey made Jul 8 at 2015 5:48 PM

SSG Jeremie Embrey — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:48:24 -0400

Only disqualifies should be if they intend to hurt themselves or others. No need to disqualify them otherwise

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Jul 8 at 2015 6:00 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:00:03 -0400

If a Veteran has PTSD and knows that they may be unable to control themselves when confronted with "triggers" they should look to voluntarily turn in their weapons until they are in reasonable control of their actions.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 7:39 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 19:39:40 -0400

Not only NO, but HELL NO!!! When will we ever stop stereotyping veterans with PTSD.

Response by CPO David Welsh made Jul 8 at 2015 10:16 PM

CPO David Welsh — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:16:52 -0400

The definite answer is, it depends. In Texas, a firearm may be confiscated by police, if the person is in possessionof weapon, and the person is taken to mental health facility for treatment under emergency detention. Other states have different laws. There is a method for the return of the firearms or their seizure through due process in the court. In Texas(only) no physician can force a patient to relinquish their firearms, not even the VA doctors.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 8 at 2015 10:18 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:18:52 -0400

Seriously? Has anyone reading this discussion ever availed themselves of the services of a psychiatrist/psychologist? Would anyone trust them to predict the behavior of a patient? Seriously?

I can see now scientific evidence that any doctor of any discipline has ever successfully predicted any behavior. Their track record isn't even as good as economists who predict market trends and then explain why whatever happened even though it didn't happen in the manner which they predicted.

I have often suggested that economists should adopt the weatherman's "trick" of predicting weather as a likelihood (% chance). I wouldn't suggest the same for psychiatrists/psychologists.

And, has anyone ever met the children of a psychiatrist/psychologist? They are the most screwed up kids you'll ever meet. Why? They were raised scientifically (using the same kind of science that would be used in explaining why veterans should be disarmed).

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 10:32 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:32:47 -0400

This is a hard question. It is my thought that they do not have the right to take or with hold fire arms. However I feel that there is fine line if the veteran is deemed suicidal or homicidal then at that point I feel that something should be done. I feel tho that most veterans who have PTSD are neither.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jul 8 at 2015 11:19 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:19:52 -0400

No. There are many variables with ptsd, somewhat like menstruating women, different flows n cramping for each woman. Not all menstruating women kill men although they might have come close or scared you.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 8 at 2015 11:46 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:46:53 -0400

I will take this seriously when civilians get the same treatment!

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jul 8 at 2015 11:59 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:59:50 -0400

SPC Alehandro Martinez this really hit home with me. I am a Vietnam Veteran who is rated 100% Disabled due to my exposure to Agent Orange. In 2010 I was diagnosed with Dementia and Parkinson's. Of course these automatically produce depression and anxiety. I was diagnosed by both civilian and VA doctors. After running a series of test it was determined that I was mentally incompetent to handle my affairs. I am not allowed to drive. I cannot make financial decisions over $50.00. My wife is the Executor of my affairs, fortunately for me I have a good woman whom I trust. I also had to get rid of my Colt Python 357 Magnum.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment.

I am also a firm believer in taking care of my family.

Knowing how Dementia can affect the mind, I decided to comply with all of the requirements.

Dementia can have a person appearing normal one moment and total lost the next.

I decided that the safety of my family is more important than my Second Amendment rights.

I just have to depend on God to protect us. Which is a pretty good thing!

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Jul 9 at 2015 4:04 AM

Cpl Chris Rice — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 04:04:22 -0400

The short answer to your question is no, had you answered yes most they are going to do is consider the environment that they are sending you back into. Currently with our psycho gun laws in which we cannot do anything with guns, ever. Usually most Clinicians can start a legal hold if you state that you are a threat to others or yourself, and then depending on the state a Physician has to see you within 12 hours, and then they can hold you for 72 hours (Starting when the original began), at that point it takes a court of law to hold you.

The most I have ever heard of is a counselor asking that the person give their weapons to a family member, or close friend. That gentlemen killed himself with those firearms, I will leave it at that for privacy sake, but had the counselor been able to it may have saved his life, we had another PTSD suffering veteran killed by police when he pointed a weapon at them, but he was receiving counseling at the time, again if his counselor been able to intervene at this level it may have even caused a delay in there events. I am not saying that it is the answer, but the current question is not to take your gun, and it is really ineffective at this time.

Personally I think (big emphasis on think) that all who have a mental difficulty that has proven history of increasing likely violence should not have weapons, but if not having that threat ensures people report problems, then maybe it is worth the losses, because we would lose them anyway.

Response by SGT Jim Barrows made Jul 9 at 2015 10:49 AM

SGT Jim Barrows — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:49:15 -0400

I am a service connected veteran. When I applied for my VA benefits, because of my PTSD, I had to assign a Federal Fiduciary to handle my benefits. Because of this, I had to be considered incompetent, and lost the right to keep my firearms. I don't feel that because of the PTSD I should lose my right to bear arms. I fought for my rights, and everyone else's rights, but now I am denied....I have never been in any kind of trouble, never threatened a person...I stay at home. There is a stigmatism that goes along with PTSD that causes more harm than good. It is bad enough I can't function like I used too, but I am being told what I can and can't own...that is wrong. Why do they not tell you when you are applying for your benefits this is gonna happen, instead this is sprung on you after all is done
.. Wrong!!!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 9 at 2015 10:51 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:51:58 -0400

Yes.....but only if PTSD or mental illness disqualifies them from owning/operating other dangerous items like cars, knives, bats, etc. You can't drill down and say one is more dangerous than the other, when all of the above mentioned can be used for mass murder or suicide.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Jul 9 at 2015 11:11 AM

CPO Jon Campbell — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:11:35 -0400

There are sometimes good reasons to remove weapons from the control of a person who has an illness like dementia. In any situation like this, the weapons should not be 'seized' by police. They should be 'adjudicated' instead (i.e. Lawfully given to a family member or person designated by the owner. )This removes any incentive for over reach by the police. There have been several laws proposed for this type of thing. Seized weapons are either sold or destroyed by police. Many police departments also hold weapons that are voluntarily turn over to them by people who are seeking help for temporary medical conditions, but the laws and policies are a patchwork and vary from place to place.

Response by SPC Tanya Cummings Boozer made Feb 5 at 2016 9:45 AM

SPC Tanya Cummings Boozer — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:45:05 -0500

Where are they asking if you have access to a firearm? That is none of their business and you do not have to answer.
The only time they can take your guns is if you are declared mentally incompetent and not able to handle your own affairs, not just if you have PTSD or some type of mental illness, personally I do not think PTSD should be in the mental "illness" category.

Response by SFC Stephen Smithers made Feb 11 at 2016 2:20 PM

SFC Stephen Smithers — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:20:24 -0500

For you firearms to be taken from you because of PTSD or any Mental illness. You have to be declared incompetent by a Judge. If the Medical and Judicial Systems declare you can't manage your everyday life and has to assign someone (Fiduciary), you might not need access to firearms.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2016 11:00 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:00:41 -0500

We all serve or have served, and in the current society most who swear the oath to protect this country know the inherent risks. I do not think just because somebody has PTSD it warrants the removal of their second amendment rights! Yes individual cases may very, however it will be a cold day in hell before I allowed somebody to come into my home and remove my weapons. I am lucky enough to have a fantastic support system from my family. My wife knows what my triggers are, as does my immediate family. We work to control and mitigate as much as we can. I realize everybody doesn't have a good support network, and some are not proactive in their mental health. That does not mean the mass should suffer because of the sins of a few. We as SMs need to be watching out for our battle buddies and making an active effort to let them know we are here for them and that we understand what they are going through and how they feel. However, it is up to the individual to swallow their pride and admit that they cannot handle this on their own.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2016 7:05 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 May 2016 19:05:02 -0400

well suicide is one, if you said yes back it up, i hunt one of the pleasures i still have

Response by MSgt John McGowan made May 14 at 2016 10:49 PM

MSgt John McGowan — Sat, 14 May 2016 22:49:54 -0400

SPC Didn't Senator Boxer just say all veterans had a mental illness?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2016 12:57 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 May 2016 12:57:42 -0400

hell f'n no i'm a hunter been one sice i was 11 ysold, this is an activity that i enjoy, it keeps me in a safe place, although if your psychotic then maybe

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2016 6:34 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 May 2016 18:34:58 -0400

I would love to see someone take a weapon from a Marine combat veteran with PTSD

Response by SSG Vik Polivka made May 17 at 2016 9:30 AM

SSG Vik Polivka — Tue, 17 May 2016 09:30:59 -0400

It is a case by case basis. One of the issues I have, which I actively seek treatment for, is the ever popular, or dreaded PTSD. I didn't try to get treatment for it, but rather on my second to last deployment, I went to the TMC to get something to help with sleep. After a couple months of playing with trazadone, and eventually ambien, etc, I was sent to behavioral health. I was in therapy, and medicated for a couple years while on active duty, and yes, the Command did take my firearms away. Something to keep in mind, for those who are making comments about "free money", I never tried to get treated for PTSD, I just wanted to fall asleep, and stay asleep. I'd trade my VA rating (monetary payment) for being able to have a normal life, and get a license to practice EMS in Texas (yup, behavioral health records can hinder that process, in my experience, I need two years of 'emotional stability' to move forward).

Addressing the weapons issue, having to give up a primary means of protection only made matters worse. It's like taking someone who can't swim while they're in the ocean, and taking away their flotation device. Doesn't calm them very much.

Going to a range is relaxing, and calming, for several reasons, one of which is that it's good to do something you are good at. It's relaxing (I never understood the fireworks thing, I have a friend who has issues with it, but fireworks don't sound like incoming SAF to me, and nothing at all like mortar fire), it helps. Same for going to a self-defense gym, it physically hurts, and I have limited range of motion, but I get to work out anger issues on a bag, or sparring partner, rather than at home, or randomly in public.

For those who call it a weakness, maybe, that is possible. If you have so much more direct combat, time wrestling a saber tooth, and other manly displays of bravado, I applaud you. Do you feel better commenting on how emotionally, and physically superior you are?

Response by SrA Steve Susumu Monas made May 18 at 2016 2:57 PM

SrA Steve Susumu Monas — Wed, 18 May 2016 14:57:56 -0400

Depends on the trauma associated with the disorder and what medication is being used to treat the problem.
If a citizen soldier is squared away he should be able to have a weapon.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 6 at 2018 10:09 AM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 10:09:22 -0500

Hell Yes, if they couldn't serve because of a mental disorder, they have a mental disorder. period

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 6 at 2018 10:15 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 10:15:44 -0500

"If a veteran is mentally ill or has PTSDShould weapons be taken from or denied to veterans under the PTSD/Mental Illness blanket?"
Your question is too broad for a specific answer. So as asked? NO.

Asked as If a veteran is mentally ill and presents a desire to harm self or others..- After medical determination (Which can not be done in a ER room 10 min physic exam) confirms and adjudication ..well of course, no different then a mail man, teacher, McDonald's worker

Response by PVT Mark Brown made Mar 6 at 2018 11:01 AM

PVT Mark Brown — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:01:19 -0500

Unfortunately, mental health professionals have been charged with responsibilities much akin to law enforcement. These requirements/abilities regarding certain mental health issues can lead to direct infringement of our civil rights without due process. The mental health folks must, by law, report any person to law enforcement authorities an patient exhibiting or professing a long list of miscreant ideas. These professionals do so at their sole discretion, the decision to notify authorities is purely subject and on a patient by patient basis. When I recently established a relationship with a new mental health team, a psychiatrist and psychologist, I immediately made sure I understood the ground rules whereby each one of those folks would feel duty bound to bring in VA or civilian law enforcement. This was necessary, in my mind, to protect myself, to establish the ground rules and understand the boundaries within which I must confine my trust in counseling sessions. I own many firearms, have an FFL license, hold a CCW, have a small gunsmithing and reloading business, all of which would disappear in an instance were my mental health professional so inclined. When I started seeing these two men I think I was interviewing them as much as them considering me. I know there are situations wherein certain ideations or patient prior acts that would warrant a call to local law enforcement, however, I feel that bar must be quite high as the damage a single call like that would inflict would be massive. Someone that is given this power could misuse that power simply to retaliate or punish a patient. Suppose a practitioner happens to be a far left liberal, anti-gunner, you know the type, one that believes the only good gun is a melted down gun, took offense to gun ownership in general and gun ownership by a mental health patient specifically as an evil worthy of eradication. Once we agree to parameters established between a provider and patient, the patient becomes bound by those ground rules. Then trust becomes the issue. For myself, I am fully aware of the power these folks have and approach sessions with that fully in mind. We must practice caution when speaking and fully understand that the doctor-patient confidentiality we used to know is gone and our privacy thus becomes tenuous at best. Approach with caution. I do. I have too much to lose. If I were about to go over the edge and the doctor hears that from my lips and it is a credible threat then he should speak out. In the case of sexual or physical abuse of a child, the doctor should speak out if it is necessary to protect the abused one from further violation. Otherwise, the confidentiality must remain protect and "what you hear here must stay here." Bottom line, I may sabotage my recovery/healing but fearing what are taboo subjects, that is where knowing your provider comes in. At the VA having the same team for the long term is indeed a luxury not many of us enjoy. At Mather VAMC mental health was a swinging door operation. If one was able to see the same psychiatrist more that one or two times one was indeed lucky, Individual counseling was a rare commodity and only open to a very few people and then appointments were set at extremely long intervals yielding next to nothing in terms of tangible results. To me, this is not quality care and the VA has dropped the ball. However, I have switched to a nearby satellite facility, The McClellan VA Outpatient Clinic where I have found consistent care with providers I trust, providers who were willing to work with me in establishing guidelines could all agree with and agree to act accordingly. I have no regrets about that move as I am now able to become treatable, actually have become treatable.

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Mar 6 at 2018 1:05 PM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:05:30 -0500

Perhaps because we do not 3want guns in the hands of people who are mentally unstable?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2018 1:38 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:38:30 -0500

Constitutionally protected rights cannot be infringed upon except by due process of law by way of judicial proceedings. If a medical professional has reasonable suspicion, he should contact law enforcement officers and let a judge make the decision in the presence of the individual and his legal counsel. Our 4th and 5th amendment rights are just as important as our safety.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Mar 6 at 2018 3:39 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:39:59 -0500

Depends on the severity of the problem. JS.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Mar 6 at 2018 5:21 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 17:21:56 -0500

It is case by case. Not every veteran with PTSD should or should not be permitted to carry a gun.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 6 at 2018 6:24 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:24:41 -0500

It is slated as a mental health disorder, if it were a Psycosis they would already have your guns and might be putting you in a padded cell. Your rating is the percentage of your ability to function normally. I have been haunted by my ghosts since 1983. It cost me several jobs and provided fuel for my enemies. The idea that you can be disabled and still be normal has real problems

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 6 at 2018 7:05 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:05:20 -0500

While Bill Clinton was President the board revising the DSM tried to change PTSD to a Psychosis. With that almost anyone with any rating would have been banned from buying, or owning. Needless to say that got a major smackdown

Response by PO2 Don Schwebel made Jun 15 at 2019 7:56 AM

PO2 Don Schwebel — Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:56:07 -0400

No. Were not crazy. We just have a problem of reliving things that happen. Especially in aa war setting.