TexasCHLforum.com

http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/arti ... gun-rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact, thanks to executive actions that are already in effect, more than 150,000 veterans have had their names added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (or NICS, as it’s commonly called).

I'm missing something. The website is obviously one-sided (not a criticism), but it's missing some important info.

It claims 150,000 vets have already been "added to NICS" - which I assume (but it doesn't specify) means they are now banned from buying guns? Why? For how long? Forever?

It then states 30% of returning vets have PTSD and Holder could add PTSD as a disqualifying factor - meaning PTSD is NOT YET a disqualifying factor.

So the 150,000 vets were some other disqualifier, but what?

I'm very interested in this and DO NOT want vets unnecessarily or without due process denied their RKBA. But this web site is a bit short on the necessary details.

A-R wrote:I'm missing something. The website is obviously one-sided (not a criticism), but it's missing some important info.

It claims 150,000 vets have already been "added to NICS" - which I assume (but it doesn't specify) means they are now banned from buying guns? Why? For how long? Forever?

It then states 30% of returning vets have PTSD and Holder could add PTSD as a disqualifying factor - meaning PTSD is NOT YET a disqualifying factor.

So the 150,000 vets were some other disqualifier, but what?

I'm very interested in this and DO NOT want vets unnecessarily or without due process denied their RKBA. But this web site is a bit short on the necessary details.

Did these veterans brandish a weapon at someone? Did they commit a gun-related crime? Were they seen in some public forum swearing violent intent?

No, these are patriots who, for some reason or another, had to have their finances handled by someone else as they sought help after serving our nation. The Veteran’s Administration – and the higher-ups who determine Administrative rules – decided that this was enough to strip veterans of their God-given rights to self protection.

{....SNIP....}

If the gun control liberals get their way, how many veterans do you think will avoid treatment for their PTSD instead of potentially having their rights taken away?

That last sentence is a direct reference to Item #4 on Obama's list of executive actions, and expresses a fear of my own. I know of at least one member of this forum who has gone through sheer hades due to a severe case of PTSD acquired after two combat tours in Iraq. He is a productive citizen, a wonderful dad, a loyal husband, and a godly man. He competes regularly in IDPA and owns several firearms. He is a hunter and a reloader, and a student of the arcane search for the perfect hunting load. He is calm, kind, considerate, and genuine. It would seriously chap my butt if some agenda driven VA head shrinker with an axe to grind suddenly told him that he no longer had 2nd Amendment rights.

I have no idea about the credibility of that website or several others people have been quoting recently. However, what is often not reported on these sites are benefits that are obtained by veterans with certain mental disorder diagnoses that involve incompetency. These benefits are available only if incompetency is claimed and that's a big difference from simply having PTSD.

Chas.

A-R wrote:I'm missing something. The website is obviously one-sided (not a criticism), but it's missing some important info.

It claims 150,000 vets have already been "added to NICS" - which I assume (but it doesn't specify) means they are now banned from buying guns? Why? For how long? Forever?

It then states 30% of returning vets have PTSD and Holder could add PTSD as a disqualifying factor - meaning PTSD is NOT YET a disqualifying factor.

So the 150,000 vets were some other disqualifier, but what?

I'm very interested in this and DO NOT want vets unnecessarily or without due process denied their RKBA. But this web site is a bit short on the necessary details.

This is all about due process. As many here pointed out in quiet thoughtful discussion, the ability to label someone as "troubled", is fraught with danger, the VA has, without due process done exactly that and provided the info to BATFE and it has been added to NICS.
This article from the Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/0 ... gun-rights#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , has most of the facts, just ignore the conclusion they arrive at in the last paragraph. The right leaning/neutral sites all seemed bombastic on this issue hence this link.

The Annoyed Man wrote:[It would seriously chap my butt if some agenda driven VA head shrinker with an axe to grind suddenly told him that he no longer had 2nd Amendment rights.

COPY THAT!....

Back in the 1950's a person had cancer. People didn't ask what kind or anything like that, today they know there are many different kinds and levels. I think this is the same for PTSD, only people try to lump it all together as one thing when it's not. Back in the 50's they would say he acts like that from loud noises from shell shock, now they know it as a type of PTSD.

MeMelYup wrote:Back in the 1950's a person had cancer. People didn't ask what kind or anything like that, today they know there are many different kinds and levels. I think this is the same for PTSD, only people try to lump it all together as one thing when it's not. Back in the 50's they would say he acts like that from loud noises from shell shock, now they know it as a type of PTSD.

This is a perfect analogy. The NRA is fully aware of the nuances of so-called "mental disorders" and we are making every effort to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who have a diagnosed mental disorder, including veterans. This is not the time or place for me to go into detail, but as I mentioned earlier, there are certain financial benefits available to veterans only if they are incapable of doing certain things because of a mental/emotional disability. They have to make this claim and it has to be confirmed as a diagnosis. In essence, these people do not have a physical disability that keeps them from being able to work and care for themselves, they have a mental/emotional disability. When someone makes this claim, whether truthfully or to get benefits, it creates significant legal issues for them and Second Amendment rights are among those issues.

Of course, people like McCarthy and Schumer want to deny Second Amendment rights from anyone who has ever had a nightmare, but their goal isn't protecting the public, but removing guns from American citizens. We are fully aware of how their ilk will stretch and twist current knowledge (or lack thereof) of mental/emotional disorders to achieve their gun control goals. The NRA won't buy into that garbage and we will never agree to expanding the disqualifying definition of a mental/emotional disorder to something so politically motivated.

I've used this comment in other contexts, but it seems especially appropriate in this setting. You can't burn a housewife and mother, but you can burn a witch. So when you want to destroy someone, you do everything you can to convince the public they are a witch. This is what anti-gunners are doing with any and all mental/emotional disorders regardless of the person's propensity for violence.

Chas.

I always appreciate the insight you provide Mr. C.
Not only does it help me to understand the nuances of what's being discussed, it also helps me feel better knowing that competent folks are paying attention to the details and holding the decision makers accountable.

PTSD is not exclusive to combat veterans. Victims of violent crimes, crash survivors, survivors of natural disasters, and many other trauma survivors can and do have PTSD. PTSD is a coping reaction to something horrible that's happened in your life.

I had a tough time following the article because it read like a sales pitch instead of news.

Do I understand right that they're not putting people on the list unless they get themselves declared incompetent so they can get more benefits?

The most common occurrence of this happening is when a veteran has a fiduciary appointed to manage their finances/benefits. When a fiduciary is appointed, the veteran is considered to be mentally incompetent and is entered into NICS. For a long time this wasn't an issue as fiduciaries were generally assigned only to veterans that couldn't care for themselves much less manage finances. Several years ago it became more common for veterans to request that their spouse be appointed as their fiduciary even if they were capable of managing their finances and caring for themselves. This process was often recommended by VA counselors because it allowed payments to be made directly to the spouse. It also allowed the spouse to collect a fee (4% of paid benefits) in return for serving as a fiduciary. The problem was that these veterans were not warned/informed that having a fiduciary would prevent them from owning a firearm.

confused
what does added to the nics check database mean or imply?
i am a veteran, and would assume that when i buy a firearm the nics check has my name in it, and assume its ok?
the article seems to imply a whole lot more than what is real or unreal or truth or untruth
how would one find out what is listed in the national database whether its good or bad

also as a vet that is 100% disabled.....with or without some issues that may or may not disturb some, depending on my internal attitude at the time.
i do remember nancy pelosi wanting to have all veterans listed as possible/strong contenders to be home grown terrorist based on what we may or may not have seen in our careers and further ban the war machines from owning firearms once we were no longer needed or on active service.
sort of like put all vets in a box with a sign that said break glass in case of war, but otherwise we were deemed unsatisfactory citizens

This article explains it a little better. http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/10/ ... -veterans/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically, the VA is declaring some vets mentally defective and reporting them to the NICS database, which results in their being unable to purchase firearms and/or obtain a CHL.

This is a bill introduced by a Senator to correct the abuse. http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm ... 49f67a94cc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the NRA-ILA's press release about it. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-th ... 22&st=&ps=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's happening is that, if a veteran appoints a fiduciary for any reason they are reported to NICS as mentally defective, which means they cannot purchase firearms of any kind. There could be a ton of different reasons a vet might do that. As Charles points out, it's in their financial best interest and may even be financially beneficial. But the VA is not telling them that when they do that, they arbitrarily forfeit their 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm a vet. I hate the VA. I wouldn't use them if they were the last resort on earth. In my opinion, this government owes wounded and disabled vets lifetime support at the highest level possible. What the VA gives them wouldn't be satisfactory for gutter worms. And now they've found another way to screw them.

MoJo wrote:PTSD is not exclusive to combat veterans. Victims of violent crimes, crash survivors, survivors of natural disasters, and many other trauma survivors can and do have PTSD. PTSD is a coping reaction to something horrible that's happened in your life.

Just a point of clarification, PTSD is a reaction, not a coping reaction.

For reference: Current definition of PTSD:
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pag ... r-ptsd.asp

Future (DSM 5) definition of PTSD:
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pag ... _dsm-5.asp