Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

[Lurker66]

Thanks for supporting our vets rights there Lurker!

Has nothing to do with supporting fellow vets. If a person, vet or civilian, has mental issues and has access to firearms there could be a danger. If theres a way to "flag" them so it could be looked at, im kinda ok with that.

As far as being adjucated vs diagnosed, im ok with either.

I say this esp because of our vets and PTSD. I couldnt find a vet guilty of a gun crime if they were diagnosed with PTSD.

So in my mind its protecting Vets to a certain extent.

 

[Lurker66]

Pretty big door being opened there, everyone on "meds" has been "diagnosed", should they all be treated as "adjudicated"?

Im not sure. I know its tough conversation to have on a gun board. Im pro gun and Im not afraid to discuss or debate the issue esp if minds are kept open.

 

[Billybob]

Im not sure. I know its tough conversation to have on a gun board. Im pro gun and Im not afraid to discuss or debate the issue esp if minds are kept open.

Some would contend that not having the conversation is what has lead to these vets having their 2nd Amd. and due process rights violated.

 

[Lurker66]

Some would contend that not having the conversation is what has lead to these vets having their 2nd Amd. and due process rights violated.

I agree. Its hard to have a conversation when our rights continue to erode. People tend to get defensive at the very mention of changeing or modifying any gunlaw. Esp when the conversation might lead to denying gun ownership.

 

[Billybob]

I agree. Its hard to have a conversation when our rights continue to erode. People tend to get defensive at the very mention of changeing or modifying any gunlaw. Esp when the conversation might lead to denying gun ownership.

But again it could be said that the lack of attention to the issue allows the erosion of rights. I would note that those who have done this didn't want to have the discussion regarding mental health issues or changing the gun laws either, so they just acted illegally to do what they thought best.

 

[Billybob]

Theoretically by allowing and continuing this course next they could simply say that everyone on meds has been diagnosed with "mental issues" and should be denied gun ownership without due process or adjudication(which would be highly and ironically hypocritical).

 

[Lurker66]

But again it could be said that the lack of attention to the issue allows the erosion of rights. I would note that those who have done this didn't want to have the discussion regarding mental health issues or changing the gun laws either, so they just acted illegally to do what they thought best.

Yes, they acted illegally but i think they acted to protect the patient as well as society.

I like to think proactive with regards to gun rights. I try to imagine how a anti gunner might argue. In this case the VA is flagging certain Vets for being mentally incompetent because they cant handle finances.

The anti's could argue that Dr.'s ought to be able to flag a patient. We have thousands of vets being treated for mental illnesses and while the Law says each one must be adjudacated(sp), since no law has been broken and its not realistic to drag every Vet with a mental illness before a Judge, Doctors could determine to "flag" or not. Besides flagging only alerts authorities and stops the purchase for the time being. Time that allows for some investigating.

This begs the question; If VA Dr.'s can do this with Vets, why cant civilian Dr.'s do the same with their patients?

Are we pro gun owners ready for these arguments? Do we keep the law loose and allow mental patients a legal loophole to buy guns like the CO shooter.

Do we keep convicting Vets, who suffer from PTSD? Hundreds have already been convicted and a few have been sentenced to death.

This issue is bigger than simply flagging a few Vets who cant handle their finances.

 

[Billybob]

Yes, they acted illegally but i think they acted to protect the patient as well as society.

I like to think proactive with regards to gun rights. I try to imagine how a anti gunner might argue. In this case the VA is flagging certain Vets for being mentally incompetent because they cant handle finances.

The anti's could argue that Dr.'s ought to be able to flag a patient. We have thousands of vets being treated for mental illnesses and while the Law says each one must be adjudacated(sp), since no law has been broken and its not realistic to drag every Vet with a mental illness before a Judge, Doctors could determine to "flag" or not. Besides flagging only alerts authorities and stops the purchase for the time being. Time that allows for some investigating.

This begs the question; If VA Dr.'s can do this with Vets, why cant civilian Dr.'s do the same with their patients?

Are we pro gun owners ready for these arguments? Do we keep the law loose and allow mental patients a legal loophole to buy guns like the CO shooter.

Do we keep convicting Vets, who suffer from PTSD? Hundreds have already been convicted and a few have been sentenced to death.

This issue is bigger than simply flagging a few Vets who cant handle their finances.

So some are above the law because of their intentions?
And then we're going to turn over control of peoples 2nd. Amd. rights to doctors opinions?
Many gun accidents and intentional shootings involve alcohol, many people think that people who drink shouldn't have guns so should we let civilian Dr.'s "flag" their patients who in their opinion drink to much?
We should remember that "flagged" in this article meant being put on the denial list and requires the person "flagged" to pay to fight the legal presumption that they pose a danger or are a threat.

 

[Billybob]

It wasn't a "legal loophole" that allowed the Colorado shooting, some would contend it was malpractice or protecting the University like in so many other cases of tragedy...

"Dr. Lynn Fenton, a University of Colorado psychiatrist treating Holmes, called a university police officer and said she was concerned because Holmes had been talking about killing "a lot of people." Sources say that Fenton asked the officer to run a background check, which revealed that Holmes had no criminal record. In a second call, the officer asked Dr. Fenton if she wanted Holmes to be detained for a 72-hour mental health evaluation. Fenton said Holmes had given notice that he was withdrawing from the university, so that wouldn't be necessary."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/12/doctor-psychiatric-hold-for-james-holmes.html

 

[Lurker66]

Thats why its a hard conversation to have. I dont want Dr.'s flagging anyone. In fact I dont want a judge trying to determine mental competence either.

If VA Dr.'s cant flag patients are we "ok" with known diagnosed mental patients buying or owning guns?