Another Army vet denied rights

[U201491]

Army Vet Denied 2nd Amendment Rights Over Minor 42-Year-Old Charge


http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07...endment-rights-over-minor-42-year-old-charge/

Read More

 

[Misterbill]

Who cares if he's a vet?

It's irrelevant to the point of the story, which is that he's denied a fundamental human right based on possessing a plant Mommy Government has decided is "icky." -That the "offense" was 42 years ago just makes it even more ridiculous.

Meanwhile, hundreds of convicted VIOLENT felons are arrested in possession of a firearm EVERY DAY and the Feds won't prosecute even 1% of them.

 

[renfield]

Army Vet Denied 2nd Amendment Rights Over Minor 42-Year-Old Charge


Army Vet Denied 2nd Amendment Rights Over Minor 42-Year-Old Charge

This is because of mental health and suicide risks in returning combat veterans, the US alone one vet takes their own life every hour. If after assessment they are declared unfit to possess a firearm it is probably for a good reason. They can also regain the right to own firearms once they have been declared fit to do so. That usually involves therapy, they get healthier happier lives, and nobody gets accidentally killed by an armed veteran having a flash back in public (which can be frequent and common). Everybody wins. Just because most people CAN own a firearm it doesn't mean they should.

 

[Misterbill]

This is because of mental health and suicide risks in returning combat veterans, the US alone one vet takes their own life every hour. If after assessment they are declared unfit to possess a firearm it is probably for a good reason. They can also regain the right to own firearms once they have been declared fit to do so. That usually involves therapy, they get healthier happier lives, and nobody gets accidentally killed by an armed veteran having a flash back in public (which can be frequent and common). Everybody wins. Just because most people CAN own a firearm it doesn't mean they should.

There is a process in this country before you put someone on a list of people prevented from exercise of their rights. It involves a JUDGE and an ATTORNEY for the person being deprived of rights.

The notion of denying people their rights because a doctor at the VA is worried about their mental state with ZERO due process is an outrageous injustice.

And since we DON'T HAVE an epidemic of returning soldiers killing other people, this is even more pernicious in that the deprivation of fundamental rights is done to protect people from themselves under the sole, unquestioned authority of a government bureaucracy's say so.

I'm astonished that you're justifying such a thing.

 

[renfield]

Sadly people who truly want to kill themselves don't act crazy and don't talk about it, they make a plan and then they go out and do it. Speaking from personal experience, I have friends who have been glad to have someone there to help them see things clearly and realized that being around firearms would not be beneficial to their health. If tough loving my friends helps save their lives, I will take their guns away. Six out of every ten suicides involve firearms, there is logic to the process.

 

[U201491]

There is a process in this country before you put someone on a list of people prevented from exercise of their rights. It involves a JUDGE and an ATTORNEY for the person being deprived of rights.

The notion of denying people their rights because a doctor at the VA is worried about their mental state with ZERO due process is an outrageous injustice.

And since we DON'T HAVE an epidemic of returning soldiers killing other people, this is even more pernicious in that the deprivation of fundamental rights is done to protect people from themselves under the sole, unquestioned authority of a government bureaucracy's say so.

I'm astonished that you're justifying such a thing.

Dead on !
BECAUSE...........................
IT IS ABUSED BY THE LEFT, JUST AS OBAMA ABUSES THE CONSTITUTION.
Denial of rights CANNOT be left to
Beaurocrats

 

[Misterbill]

Sadly people who truly want to kill themselves don't act crazy and don't talk about it, they make a plan and then they go out and do it. Speaking from personal experience, I have friends who have been glad to have someone there to help them see things clearly and realized that being around firearms would not be beneficial to their health. If tough loving my friends helps save their lives, I will take their guns away. Six out of every ten suicides involve firearms, there is logic to the process.

Did you not pay attention to the part about due process and representation by an attorney? Do you SERIOUSLY trust the VA that much?

And if the VA, then how about the doctor at the local clinic? You report being depressed and he has the cops come take your guns away. and you have to go to court to get BACK the rights that were taken from you without any oversight, without any due process and without any opportunity to present evidence on your own behalf that the doctor is wrong.

Are you getting it now?

These are HUMAN RIGHTS. You don't get to just strip someone of them without due process of law. Even if you get hospitalized on a three-day mental health hold, if they want to keep you any longer, they have to take it to a judge. This is HOW you get adjudicated mentally defective.

I'm fine with making them prohibited persons if they go through that whole process. I'm not OK with stripping people of their rights based on the opinion of ONE doctor, with nothing in the world stopping them from making arbitrary or even spiteful decisions that make someone a second-class citizen with little or no recourse short of spending money they don't have hiring an attorney to restore what shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

This country has a very dark history of the abuse by doctors involuntarily committing people to mental institutions for little or no, or outright evil reasons. We have the processes we have today as a result of that very dark, shameful period.

As a gun owner, I'm again, utterly shocked that you think this is a good idea. Not to mention the fact that taking someone's guns is sure as Hell not a substitute for getting vets the help they need, when they need it.

 

[renfield]

Dead on !
BECAUSE...........................
IT IS ABUSED BY THE LEFT, JUST AS OBAMA ABUSES THE CONSTITUTION.
Denial of rights CANNOT be left to
Beaurocrats

I'm glad you were able to see both sides of that clearly Taku. If any of my friends decide to commit suicide, I'll point them in your direction for a FTF sale. I'm assuming you also support same sex marriage, the legalization of marijuana, women's rights to choose to have an abortion, and you're fighting to have Guantanamo closed, petitioning for the right for released felons to be able to vote, and possess firearms, which truly are infringements on basic human rights.

 

[U201491]

I'm glad you were able to see both sides of that clearly Taku. If any of my friends decide to commit suicide, I'll point them in your direction for a FTF sale. I'm assuming you also support same sex marriage, the legalization of marijuana, women's rights to choose to have an abortion, and you're fighting to have Guantanamo closed, petitioning for the right for released felons to be able to vote, and possess firearms, which truly are infringements on basic human rights.

Just a tip,
Someone really short circuited your brain, you might want to have that checked. Never heard a pile of garbage like that come out of one person before

 

[PiratePast40]

Sadly people who truly want to kill themselves don't act crazy and don't talk about it, they make a plan and then they go out and do it. Speaking from personal experience, I have friends who have been glad to have someone there to help them see things clearly and realized that being around firearms would not be beneficial to their health. If tough loving my friends helps save their lives, I will take their guns away. Six out of every ten suicides involve firearms, there is logic to the process.

Have you ever thought of reading the topic before you reply? Are you seriously saying that smoking pot over 40 years ago makes a person suicidal?

 

[renfield]

Just a tip,
Someone really short circuited your brain, you might want to have that checked. Never heard a pile of garbage like that come out of one person before

Which part? I'm curious.

 

[renfield]

Have you ever thought of reading the topic before you reply? Are you seriously saying that smoking pot over 40 years ago makes a person suicidal?

I don't recall saying that. I was drawing a comparison between a spectrum of human rights. Smoking pot is considered a god given right by a good number of people.

 

[renfield]

Just a tip,
Someone really short circuited your brain, you might want to have that checked. Never heard a pile of garbage like that come out of one person before

Indeed they did. It was one of several IED's, and personal attacks are uncalled for really, we're not in the playground. And its a poor way of avoiding a question.

 

[renfield]

Did you not pay attention to the part about due process and representation by an attorney? Do you SERIOUSLY trust the VA that much?

And if the VA, then how about the doctor at the local clinic? You report being depressed and he has the cops come take your guns away. and you have to go to court to get BACK the rights that were taken from you without any oversight, without any due process and without any opportunity to present evidence on your own behalf that the doctor is wrong.

Are you getting it now?

These are HUMAN RIGHTS. You don't get to just strip someone of them without due process of law. Even if you get hospitalized on a three-day mental health hold, if they want to keep you any longer, they have to take it to a judge. This is HOW you get adjudicated mentally defective.

I'm fine with making them prohibited persons if they go through that whole process. I'm not OK with stripping people of their rights based on the opinion of ONE doctor, with nothing in the world stopping them from making arbitrary or even spiteful decisions that make someone a second-class citizen with little or no recourse short of spending money they don't have hiring an attorney to restore what shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

This country has a very dark history of the abuse by doctors involuntarily committing people to mental institutions for little or no, or outright evil reasons. We have the processes we have today as a result of that very dark, shameful period.

As a gun owner, I'm again, utterly shocked that you think this is a good idea. Not to mention the fact that taking someone's guns is sure as Hell not a substitute for getting vets the help they need, when they need it.

I agree taking someone's guns away I'd not equal to help. However do you think its right s fair to allow someone who suffering from PTSD to have access to firearms that they may use to take their own lives.

 

[hermannr]

This is because of mental health and suicide risks in returning combat veterans, the US alone one vet takes their own life every hour. If after assessment they are declared unfit to possess a firearm it is probably for a good reason. They can also regain the right to own firearms once they have been declared fit to do so. That usually involves therapy, they get healthier happier lives, and nobody gets accidentally killed by an armed veteran having a flash back in public (which can be frequent and common). Everybody wins. Just because most people CAN own a firearm it doesn't mean they should.

Are you trying to say this persons life is worth less than someone that can properly defend themselves? If they are a danger to society they should be under care (that is locked up) where they can be protected by others. Otherwise, they should not be denied the ability to protect themselves

 

[renfield]

Are you trying to say this persons life is worth less than someone that can properly defend themselves? If they are a danger to society they should be under care (that is locked up) where they can be protected by others. Otherwise, they should not be denied the ability to protect themselves

They're not being denied the right or ability to protect themselves, there are many ways to protect yourself without a firearm. Personally I have carried and don't feel the need to.

 

[U201491]

Indeed they did. It was one of several IED's, and personal attacks are uncalled for really, we're not in the playground. And its a poor way of avoiding a question.

I responded in the same sarcastic manner that I was responded to. There are 3 or 4 here that can't seem to refrain from that.

 

[U201491]

This is because of mental health and suicide risks in returning combat veterans, the US alone one vet takes their own life every hour. If after assessment they are declared unfit to possess a firearm it is probably for a good reason. They can also regain the right to own firearms once they have been declared fit to do so. That usually involves therapy, they get healthier happier lives, and nobody gets accidentally killed by an armed veteran having a flash back in public (which can be frequent and common). Everybody wins. Just because most people CAN own a firearm it doesn't mean they should.

UNBELIEVABLE
This article had nothing to do with mental issues. You DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE.
READ BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS WHY THE LINK WAS THERE.
He was denied because of a 42 year old report he had a baggie where no charges were even made, just a report.
How the H. Did this go off on friggen mental issues.
He was a good citizen since and an honorable vet and civilian and no record, yet he was denied.
How this thread made it to Jupiter, I am still scratching my head...............

 

[renfield]

UNBELIEVABLE
This article had nothing to do with mental issues. You DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE.
READ BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS WHY THE LINK WAS THERE.
He was denied because of a 42 year old report he had a baggie where no charges were even made, just a report.
How the H. Did this go off on friggen mental issues.
He was a good citizen since and an honorable vet and civilian and no record, yet he was denied.
How this thread made it to Jupiter, I am still scratching my head...............

Admittedly I didn't read the article, largely because it skipped around the fact that the guy committed a crime (a mediocre crime yes, but one that broke upset his judge enough to ban him from owning firearms, and one that occurred at a time where crime involving narcotics were still relatively new), which prevented him from owning a gun and played on the fact that he is a veteran. There are plenty of dishonorable people wearing uniforms, the fact that he is a veteran is irrelevant.

On the other hand. This story is far more shocking: <broken link removed>

 

[clambo]

Forget about the ancient charge. Once more, the V.A. is NOT your friend. If you are a veteran and you can afford to go somewhere else for help, by all means do. As for playing God and " protecting " someone from themselves.....quit playing God. That man has rights. Rights which supersede your well meant but arbitrary, untrained, feel good about yourself help. If I knew someone that got screwed out of their guns and was not a LEGALLY prohibited person I would probably help too, by rearming them. America, what a country ! The solution to every problem is not new legislation. Especially when someone like me is gonna toss a monkey wrench into the spokes. Legally of course.