Will your medical condition prevent you from gun ownership?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:49:44 -0500

It has been in the news a lot lately, and it is a very important topic, across multiple social media sites. It sparks heated discussion on both sides of the fence. Those for and against gun control. I wanted to 'discuss' a certain few conditions that may relinquish your ability to own guns, even though you have shown for 20 years you can operate a gun responsibly.

From what I can gleam from various articles online, and reading various executive orders, that there are is evidence of a blue - print of a plan to disarm any combat veteran...and this includes those with PTSD, Anxiety among other certain medical diagnosis' that will exclude you from legal gun ownership. If the government deems your military service as having experienced 'histoey of violence', this alone could preclude you from gun ownership.

Who will police the police?

I understand now why so many people want to get off the grid.
linking to an article:
http://offgridsurvival.com/guncontrol-mentalhealth/

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 6:02 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:02:08 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member, I'm a gun rights guy, no doubt, but when it comes to mental illness, I think a line has to be drawn. I don't know where that line lies, but I know it must be drawn - by, or at least with the help of, mental health professionals. How many times have we heard that nut-job so-and-so killed a bunch of people. And people knew the person was "not right," but he slipped through the cracks and got his hands on a gun.

A second part of this discussion is the fact that just because guns might not be readily available (for sale, for example) to mentally ill folks, that doesn't mean that those folks can't get their hands on a gun some other way. Still, I think it makes good sense to limit sales to mentally ill people. That's just common sense, right? The question is the definition of mentally ill and who makes the decision.

The blogger at offgridsurvival.com makes some good points. If he's got his facts right, it's cause for concern.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 10 at 2015 6:09 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:09:14 -0500

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member excellent topic to pose. This line is a very difficult one to draw. Surely we agree SOME veterans have debilitating mental illnesses to the point where they should not be armed. Yet the specter of that prohibition being extended to ALL veterans with combat experience is a very frightening one.

Response by SGT Jonathan Williams made Jan 10 at 2015 6:14 PM

SGT Jonathan Williams — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:14:03 -0500

As I understand it, the VA mental health workers can enter the name into NICS if the individual is a danger, or imcompent - in the worker's opinion. That is the law.

But, I would advocate for a system that allows independent judicial review at the Veteran's option.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 6:38 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:38:32 -0500

Perhaps the question above should have included, "Which medical conditions should exclude gun ownership?"

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 6:42 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:42:08 -0500

Federal law states if you are found guilty of domestic violence...you are prohibited from gun ownership. That was a huge step...

Response by SPC Tesha Gaither made Jan 10 at 2015 6:46 PM

SPC Tesha Gaither — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:46:23 -0500

I think it should apply to everyone. Not just the military. Civilians with mental illness shot people too. Why is it always centered on the military as being sick. Civilians have mental illnesses too!

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 10 at 2015 9:55 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:55:31 -0500

I normally think that most stories around this these kinds of topics are exaggerated, but sadly some recent cases show that they are not. Below is a story about a Navy veteran and police officer who had his guns taken away in New York because he checked himself into a hospital with insomnia. All records showed that he was not a threat to himself or anyone else, at least according to the article.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/02/military-vet-sought-treatment-for-insomnia-days-later-ny-police-officers-were-knocking-on-his-door-lawsuit/

Military Vet Sought Treatment for ‘Insomnia’ — Days Later, NY Police Officers Were Knocking on...

U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other officials after his firearms were reportedly confiscated by police after he sought treatment for insomnia. It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 10:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:16:51 -0500

According to VA, as of April 2013, there were 143,580 VA beneficiaries who require a fiduciary on the NICS list, including 83,764 veterans, 42,636 surviving spouses, 2,733 minor children, and 86 dependent parents. Although the NICS reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies, over 99 percent of all names submitted by the federal government to the NICS by reason of mental health have been submitted by VA. That is true despite the fact that other federal agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, appoint representatives to manage benefit payments for their beneficiaries in a manner similar to VA's process.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 1:03 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 01:03:32 -0500

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think this a move to dis-arm those the government feel are a threat to their agenda. Plus, I think it's an early move to dis-arm the entire American populace.

Guess I should take my tinfoil hat off and realize that the water isn't contaminated.

Response by MSG Robert Mills made Jan 11 at 2015 1:02 AM

MSG Robert Mills — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 01:02:43 -0500

No way this should ever be considered at any level PTSD or not, this regardless of anxious behavior that other people think may or could possibly become a problem is pure speculation and has no basis what so ever. Controlling someones rights is simply out of the question unless you have been judged accordingly by many professionals over a demonstrated pattern of issues over lenthly period of time. I would never advocate viloence for the sake of stupidity and criminal activity, however since those people are prevelant in society and many criminals, thugs and just plain idiots have not been diagnosed with PTSD, rather sociopathic , pyscopathic weirdo syndrome why pick on the vets, if I was good enough to carry a rifle for them they must be required to stand up for my rights now PTSD or not, and the last read there were no medical diagnosis inscribed or written in the Constitution of the United States which they want to violate for a gun control agenda. I say simply thanks for your concern, no you may not have my guns and move out swifty.

Response by SPC Leisel Luman made Jan 11 at 2015 7:33 AM

SPC Leisel Luman — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 07:33:48 -0500

The VA new program to give away free gun locks is part of the new VA federal gun registry for vets. This is linked to your military service medical record and VA medical record since these are combined now. If you were violated in some way. This same information can and will be used against you in court. Once you express your feelings about the violation your only means of defending yourself will be removed. Anyone out there feel like talking anymore? Ask me again why I trust my dog more than humans.

Response by SPC Jack Hunt, JR made Jan 11 at 2015 1:44 PM

SPC Jack Hunt, JR — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:44:09 -0500

If someone is going to harm another person they don't need a gun. Honestly almost anything someone can get their hands on is a weapon. When they take the guns they should take drivers license away because a car can do more damage than a gun. If we allow out weapons to be taken we are only opening the door for any and every right we have to be infringed upon. Just my two cents.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jan 11 at 2015 2:00 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:00:06 -0500

This is an interesting subject for me. My father was a police officer. I grew up around guns. I've had guns all my life. I spent five (5) years in the U.S. Marine Corps. I'm proud of my service to my country. However, I served from 1969-1974 to include a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam from September 1970-June 1971. During my tour in Vietnam, I was exposed to Agent Orange. The effects of this toxin did not start to affect me until I turned fifty-five (55). At the age of 59, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's and Lewy Body Dementia. The VA did an evaluation of my condition and determined I was incompetent to handle my own affairs. They also demanded in the letter that I dispose of any firearms in my possession. I had a Colt Python 357 Magnum with a 2 1/2 in barrel that my father had given me. Needless to say it was painful parting with the jewell. I am a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I feel naked without a weapon in my home. However, I also have a sense of security that I will not someday do harm to my lovely wife or myself. It was a difficult decision to adhere to, but the safety of my family was my first priority.

Response by Cpl Charles Thompson made Jan 11 at 2015 3:49 PM

Cpl Charles Thompson — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:49:59 -0500

Well, I was in middle of a divorce that's sense has been reconciled , But her lawyer filed a order of protection.Using PTSD as the reason and I had to turn over my F.O.I.D. and either sell or hand over my rifle and hand gun my grand dad's shot gun is still in the possession of the P.D. in my city

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Jan 11 at 2015 9:48 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:48:36 -0500

This presumes that one lives in a state run by a bunch of socialist hand-holding nannies. This also presumes that said veteran has been through the system.

I know a number of veterans *NEED* to seek treatment for their mental health. And that's fine. I applaud, endorse, and support that. I'm not one of them. I have no intention -- not now, not next year, not ever, not even if they drag my fat erse into a line -- of submitting myself to any sort of rigorous examination of my mental well-being. Nor do I intend -- again, not now, not next year, etc -- of letting anyone haul me before some investigatory body that will determine whether or not I'm suitable for owning a firearm.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jan 12 at 2015 8:15 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:15:40 -0500

l read the other post and this validates that I made the right decision. I fully understand and respect those who feel their 2nd Amendment Rights are more important than the safety of themselves and their families. I choose to protect my family by getting rid of a easily accessible weapon that I could use to harm those that I love. I would never do that in my right mind, but the illnesses I'm dealing with you never know when you mind will cause you to act out of character. The love for my family goes deeper than the love for my 357 Colt Python with it's 2 1/2 inch barrel.

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Jan 13 at 2015 9:57 AM

TSgt Kevin Buccola — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:57:33 -0500

Since the new healthcare law I have been asked if I own weapons while at the doctors office, and when I went to purchase some items I was denied. I do not have a criminal record.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 15 at 2015 12:00 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:00:59 -0500

Reading the responses to this question have left me feeling sad. Even those who cling to their guns and Bibles are wont to find some excuse to reconcile the behavior of those who would tear down the Constitution and disarm us.

There is no excuse.

There is no attempt to create a "nanny state".

There is no underlying interest to protect us from ourselves.

There is no intent to protect citizens from those who cherish their guns.

There is only one reason that the government seizes guns.

Control.

Frustrated in their attempts to repeal or ignore the Second Amendment, the government chips away at our right to bear arms with "reasonable limitations".

Disarm criminals. Yeah, that works. Jurisdictions with the toughest gun laws (in violation of the Second Amendment) have the highest incidence of criminal use of guns.

Disarm those who may possibly be subject to a fit of rage such as a man enmeshed in a bitter divorce or child custody battle.

Disarm those who have served in combat. Surely they're all inured to killing and are likely to continue the habit after returning home.

Disarm those who have committed felonies. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? Then how about penitentiary misdemeanors. Also reasonable. Well then, how about simple misdemeanors. Those are like gateway crimes and the people who commit them are likely to escalate into felons, right? Vandals? Delinquents? Every skip a class? Ah, the slippery slope. Obviously, I'm a nutter and should be dismissed, right?

Maybe I should be disarmed...

Well then, why shouldn't everyone?

What does history tell us?

No tyrant ever successfully subjugated an armed populace.

Every successful tyrant began subjugating a populace by disarming them.

So what... history, schmistory...

How about the experience of modern nations that have disarmed. Haven't you read the propaganda distributed by the people who would disarm us? England, Australia, and others are heaven on earth, free of guns and violence. Right. Take a look at the raw data freely available on the FBI website as well as the websites of the Home Offices of those other nations. I have. It's not a pretty picture if you analyze it carefully. US urban centers account for most gun (and other violence) despite the fact that they have the most restrictive gun control measures in place. Urban centers in other lands are equally vicious. If the incidence is higher in the US overall, it is because the US has far more such urban centers. When you extract them and compare non-urban areas of all nations, violence is lower in the US (where the citizens are more likely armed). Home invasions in places like Great Britain and Australia, where home owners have been stripped of defensive weapons, is rising dramatically.

Then look at the statistics for gun violence in those jurisdictions in the US which have made concealed carry permits more available. Gun violence and other forms of violence drop dramatically.

Sorry to go on so long, but it's frustrating to see so many fooled by the propaganda and even those who are not fooled by it attempting to make excuses for the people who would disarm us.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Jan 15 at 2015 2:49 PM

PO1 Aaron Baltosser — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:49:01 -0500

The attempts are from those that want to prevent those with mental conditions from owning guns. The priblem is not all conditions are long term or debilitating in regards to owning a gun. The most dangerous line of thought from the left recently is the attempt to add PTSD to a list of disqualifying conditions for ownership. That woukd effect a disproportinate number if veterans. I am an advocate of ownership, having an understanding of the direct corrolation between increased private ownership and decreased victims of violent crime. All of that beside, I find it mentally relaxing to be shoting and pausing everything else to be in that moment. I deal with anviety issues from time to time but that dies not effect judgement with firearms. I hope these attempts to dusarm the population best suited for ownership fails and we continue to enjoy our Constitutionally protected rights.