Systematic disarmament of Vets continues.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Sep 5, 2010.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Systematic disarmament of Vets continues.

    This story is a byproduct of those that were suckered into the legislation that occurred after the Cho shootings banning all those that were 'mentally defective'. Among the supporters were the NRA and good handful of members here.

    I wonder if all these supporters really wanted to ban more than 1 in 3 military vets?
    This stat is verified by a nurse that we know personally that works at the VA.

    I find this story to be reprehensible and all supporters of this bill should be ashamed of themselves to say the least.:mad::(


    VA, ATF say no guns for Iraq war vet



    "Iraq Veteran Stripped of Right To Bear Arms," 5 News Ft Smith-Fayetteville tells us.
    Why?

    "A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances...The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone."

    Why would they do that, and what are the repercussions?

    "Irelan has post traumatic stress disorder from the Iraq war, but his wife says he has never been violent...The couple didn't know Wayne's gun rights had been terminated until they went to get a gun out of pawn. Days later Wayne got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his concealed carry permit had been revoked. The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home."

    How did such a state of affairs come to be?

    Why don't we ask that "gun lobby" we're told never compromises?

    This 5 News story seems short on details. I didn't mean to intrude on Fort Smith Gun Rights Examiner Steve D. Jones' turf, so if he finds out anything further, I'll be sure to point it out.

    I do find it interesting that ATF essentially advised that one prohibited person is all it takes to disarm everyone under the same roof. If that's the case, they need to investigate former Westchester, NY anti-gun prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, who claimed she had guns three years before she and her felon husband separated. Maybe they can team up with the local cops and do a "no-knock" gun safety storage check while they're at it.



    ------------
  2. obxned

    obxned New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,342
    What a great way to say "Thanks for your service to our country".
  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    It is a sick and twisted irony that those who have fought for the constitutional rights of us all, should lose theirs. Maybe they should also give up their right to free speech too. I mean after all, those with PTSD may not speak rationally (to those in power).
  4. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    Chip,Chip, Chip....pealing off one group at a time. I can see where this is going...nudge, nudge, nudge. I smell the foul stench of the Obamination Infestation in this.

    Make no mistake, none of this could have happened without the help half of the U.S. Congress. Turn them out and never allow them to ever hold public office even Dog catcher. No offense to Dog catchers.

    Soon no one will be allowed to have guns except the regulators. Wonder how that will work out.
  5. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    Didn't the "prohibited persons" criteria originate with GCA'68? The last I heard, a person was considered to be "mentally defective" if he was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, judged innocent by reason of insanity, or otherwise demonstrated that he was incapable of managing his own affairs.
    Evidently, the "mentally defective" label is now applied if a VA doctor diagnoses PTSD.

    Does the VA recognize various severities of PTSD? 10% disabilty? 50% disability? Or is everybody automatically assigned 100% disability?

    If a person is 100% disabled by PTSD, it might be rational to characterize that person as a "mental defective", at least until he/she recovers and regains control of his/her life.

    What worries me, in today's economy, is that somebody with a minor (ie, manageable) PTSD problem might get laid off from work, and then run to the VA and exaggerate the symptoms in order to get more compensation..... just to put food on the table.... thereby forfeiting his/her gun rights forever.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2010
  6. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    New Mexico
  7. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    Thanks, Marlin, I believe the "Veterans Disarmament Act" was formally known as HR 2640, which became Public Law 110-180 when President Bush signed it in 2008.

    Here's an excerpt from a GOA publication I found at http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

    . . . . . . .

    Each of these terms is defined by Federal regulation at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as follows:

    ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE
    a.A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
    1.Is a danger to himself or to others; or
    2.Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
    b.The term shall include—
    1.A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
    2.Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

    . . . . . . . .

    I understand that HR 2640 allows VA psychiatrists to declare that somebody is a "mental defective"..... but I am trying to reconcile it against the legal definition provided above.
    If a person is incapable of managing his own affairs, or if that person is a danger to others, then yes, I would probably agree. However, I don't believe for a minute that all vets diagnosed with PTSD are walking timebombs or are 100% disabled.

    So, my question remains - does the VA recognize various severities of PTSD? 10% disabled? 50% disabled? Or is everybody automatically assigned 100% disability?

    Does anybody here know?
  8. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I'll find out about the percentages, but once you are defective, I do believe that you are defective until proven otherwise in court.

    But the above quoted is really scary if you think about just who can be a lawful authority.

    How about the highlighted from the story, "The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home."

    So if a person lives with somebody that has PTSD, it is now illegal for any arms to be in that house no matter who owns them? It appears that is the stance that the ATF has taken.
  9. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,720
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    To answer your question ofitg, the VA awards varying percentages of disability based on certain descriptive criteria just like for any other service connected condition. It could be 10% or it could be 100% and all points in between. There are clearly defined symptoms which must be present to qualify for a certain percentage of disability. For example, maybe to qualify for a 30% disability the person must suffer memory and concentration problems, obtrusive thoughts, and flashbacks. At 70% the person, along with the previous mentioned symptoms must exhibit diminished impulse control.

    I can tell you this much from my personal experience. Very rarely will a vet with PTSD be so severely incapacitated that they are a serious threat to others. More likely the most severe cases could be a threat to themselves. Yes there can be anger issues, and some can be violent if provoked, just like a lot of other people. But most all still know right from wrong and can exercise enough self control not to resort to gun violence. There's a big difference between punching someone in the face that is threatening or harrassing you, and pulling out a gun and shooting them. Some are under the impression that if a person has ever demonstrated any level of violence in their past, then they aren't safe with a gun. Bull! If that were valid I bet a lot of folks on this forum wouldn't own guns.

    I'll repeat a strong appeal I've made before on this forum: Please stand up for those who've stood up for you, under circumstances many can't even imagine. Do not allow the gun grabbers to use PTSD as an excuse to deprive veterans the constituitional rights that they've fought to preserve.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010
  10. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    Thanks, RunningOnMT, that answers my question. My experience with the VA is limited - just some minor hearing loss when I got out of the Air Force 30 years ago.

    If a person is not profoundly incapacitated (eg, 100% disability), I don't see how a PTSD diagnosis could possibly meet the legal definition of "mental defective" quoted in my earlier post.

    This leads me to wonder about the details of the Irelans case, and the exact manner in which he was declared to be a "mental defective". You have confirmed that the VA's evaluations are quantitative - perhaps only the most severely disabled PTSD patients are at risk of losing their gun rights?

    Going one step further, sometimes I have doubts about the whole concept of "prohibited persons" introduced by GCA'68. It may be argued that it is tantamount to a Bill of Attainder, which is specifically prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. As HR 2640 demonstrates, the list of "prohibited persons" can be expanded at any time. It's probably even more insidious than the "sporting purposes" language in GCA'68.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010
  11. Jay

    Jay New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,286
    Location:
    Indiana
    I just retired from the VA last May. A Veteran may be service-connnected for several conditions at the same time. I'm service-connected for PTSD, hearing, combat wounds, agent orange-related conditions. All of those total 70% according to the formula used by the VA.... (don't know how that formula works) I worked in health information, and I know that I never saw any medical info go anywhere outside the VA. I truly think there other things involved in the Irelan situation, but I don't know.

    Might look at HR 2640 Section 101 (c)

    (c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010
  12. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    This seems to indicate that an adjudication cannot be based solely upon a doctor's diagnosis.

    It would have to include 'an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority'....... or it would have to be based upon some criminal case being deferred because of the subject's mental disability.
  13. Jay

    Jay New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,286
    Location:
    Indiana
    There ya go. Thank you sir, that's the only point I was trying to make.
  14. xm774u

    xm774u Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    beond the great abiss
    thank you for my lrp training
  15. xm774u

    xm774u Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    beond the great abiss
    also all is well no problems here
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum the UN's guide to disarmament Nov 25, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands Mar 18, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Vet disarmament act ramifications Jan 9, 2008
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Veteran's Disarmament Bill coming. Sep 13, 2007

Share This Page