JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
ive seen letters like that myself. i have friends who have been diagnosed with PTSD a couple faked it to get extra benefits(which i disagree with on principle) and others genuinely with issues caused by combat. now PTSD is a serious mental problem and should be treated as such. sadly those with war driven PTSD do some terrible things when they are not cared for as they should be and letting them have weapons in many (not all) cases can be a very bad thing.

if its a genuine problem a person is having, they should seek help and try to move through the problem. people can be healed and with time this right can be restored to you. for those using it as a meal ticket; to hell with you, you dont deserve rights anymore.

my brother has not been told he will not be able to buy a weapon, he has just recently ended his time in service and has been told no such thing. this is not something that is being sent to all vets. its a bullbubblegum story.
 
I am a veteran, receiving disability benefits from the VA and Army. I have received no such letter, but my disability is a physical one, not a mental one.

As a former VA employee, I can say that I have seen a great number of veterans who shouldn't handle fire arms because of PTSD. For the most part, these guys know they shouldn't, and don't. I also know of one vet who is 100% disabled for PTSD and somehow passed a background check and has a CPL for Texas...and is terrorizing his ex-wife...

Do mistakes happen and the wrong guys get banned? Probably, the system isn't perfect. But, there is a way to get it changed, if you go through the steps involved. This is one of those cases where they err on the side of caution, and I'm not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing, it just is.
 
When we focus on mental health in the fight over the 2A this is what will becoming out as a result. We talk about people that have been placed under great stress and life threatening conditions - it would only be fair to consider that they may need a little help in getting over thier old style life and adjusting to a more civilian life style. One minute its kill or be killed a week later it is against the law to shoot anyone - I cannot think of two more extreme situations to be in. When I left the Navy I wanted nothing from Uncle Sam except to be left alone - I was fortunate - many others are not. To me this is a temporary solution as I want to hope that our bravest and finest have not cost themselves thier rights by serving our country. Today thier are many that still dont talk about what they did in the service.

James Ruby
 
Watch this one carefully. If the attempt to disarm goes beyond those with PTSD then it only supports my hypothesis that the DHS is evolving to the new SS.

Peter
 
One way to fix this issue is to have health care professionals and legal types sit down and agree on ICD 9 codes that, when diagnosed and entered in a record by a health care professional, would require law enforcement notification to preclude that individual from purchasing a firearm....this would take alot of coordination and still would not be a perfect fix....there will never be a perfect fix....but could help.
 
I am a retired vet. 22 years in the Army with multiple combat depolyments. Currently receive VA benefits, have a diagnosis of PTSD and receive weekly treatment/Counseling for the same. I have inquired about this directly with my benefits counselor, clinician, and VA advocate and this is Bubblegum. The statue pertains to those individual who have been found by a VA board and a Court of Law, legal incompetent do to Mental or Physical disability. The status is reviewed annually as well and can be challenged by family or by the individual annually as well.
Do not knee jerk on this. It is in place to help our brother and sisters from being harmed or being taken advantage of.

Cheers,
Timothy Hall
MSG Ret. US Army
 
I am fully behind the idea that he mentally ill should not possess firearms.

However --

I am fearful on what and how that gets determined. If you are depressed, something that most people experience for a period of time during their lives, should you have to give up your firearms? If you sought out treatment, would the government be notified?

It is an important issue.

We can't have something which is a blanket case. Nor can we have it be permanent. Nor can we tolerate a situation where seeking help would put you at risk for loosing your firearms.

The "domestic" provision is bad enough - over reaching.
 
This is NOT a new thing. The VA has been alerting authorities for years now when someone voices a threat. Not a new thing at all.

We can't have it both ways. We can't say "crazy people shouldn't own guns" and then not want the VA to report on people who shouldn't have them.

Also, remember, there IS an appeal process. This isn't a one strike and you're out situation....


Anyway....
 
I am a veteran, receiving disability benefits from the VA and Army. I have received no such letter, but my disability is a physical one, not a mental one.

As a former VA employee, I can say that I have seen a great number of veterans who shouldn't handle fire arms because of PTSD. For the most part, these guys know they shouldn't, and don't. I also know of one vet who is 100% disabled for PTSD and somehow passed a background check and has a CPL for Texas...and is terrorizing his ex-wife...

Do mistakes happen and the wrong guys get banned? Probably, the system isn't perfect. But, there is a way to get it changed, if you go through the steps involved. This is one of those cases where they err on the side of caution, and I'm not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing, it just is.

Infringing upon someone's rights to "err on the side of caution" is exactly why our Constitution was written. It's NEVER acceptable to infringe upon the rights of someone because you want to be cautious. Even the SCOTUS has said that someone else's fear is not an acceptable reason for the infringement of rights.

What's scary is that that guy is from the Portland Area. That letter is from the Portland VAMC and is obviously violating his 5th and 6th Amendment rights.
 
Infringing upon someone's rights to "err on the side of caution" is exactly why our Constitution was written. It's NEVER acceptable to infringe upon the rights of someone because you want to be cautious. Even the SCOTUS has said that someone else's fear is not an acceptable reason for the infringement of rights.

What's scary is that that guy is from the Portland Area. That letter is from the Portland VAMC and is obviously violating his 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

You have to remember that every vet doesn't get this letter. These letters don't just appear from nowhere. There is a "cause and effect" before these letters go out....yes, it is an administrative issue, but in the long run, if it is an error it will be corrected.
 
You have to remember that every vet doesn't get this letter. These letters don't just appear from nowhere. There is a "cause and effect" before these letters go out....yes, it is an administrative issue, but in the long run, if it is an error it will be corrected.

With all of the hub bub that's been flying around about weapons it's no surprising things like this come up. A year ago stuff like this wouldn't have been as big of a issue.
 
I agree that this has been overhyped. Having said that, I am concerned that someone who might have had a temporary anxiety or depression situation that resulted in a DSM4 diagnosis or prescription for a temporary time, might be later barred the right to possess a firearm, or have to prove they are now fit. I also don't like the fact that all such diagnoses wind up in an FBI database. It is common to give smokers trying to quit Xanax and use an anxiety diagnosis to get insurance to cover it, for example.

But what really struck me is that this letter is telling someone that would be declared MENTALLY INCOMPETENT that they would be held criminally liable if they "knowingly" broke this law. Would you expect an officially declared incompetent person to be held criminally liable? Does this sound strange to anyone else?
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top