NationStates Jolt Archive

VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS


By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.

Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.

But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred *for life * from owning guns.

Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.

Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.

If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act -- misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act -- will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished."

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

Uh oh! Now people who were trained in mowing down large swaths of humans won't be able to snap and pull what Seung-Hui Cho pulled at V-Tech!

Thats just retared. But of course most of NSG will support it as the first step towards making USA gun-free.

Uh oh! Now people who were trained in mowing down large swaths of humans won't be able to snap and pull what Seung-Hui Cho pulled at V-Tech!

You actualy think that Vets, the ones that signed up to protect america, will go out and start randomly killing Americans?

Argh. The U.S. is a hive of blundering mooncalves!

Uh oh! Now people who were trained in mowing down large swaths of humans won't be able to snap and pull what Seung-Hui Cho pulled at V-Tech!

umm yeah...isn't this a good thing...

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Symptoms)

Symptoms can include general restlessness, insomnia, aggressiveness, depression, dissociation, emotional detachment, and nightmares. A potential symptom is memory loss about an aspect of the traumatic event. Amplification of other underlying psychological conditions may also occur. Young children suffering from PTSD will often re-enact aspects of the trauma through their play and may often have nightmares that lack any recognizable content.

One patho-psychological way of explaining PTSD is by viewing the condition as secondary to deficient emotional or cognitive processing of a trauma. This view also helps to explain the three symptom clusters of the disorder:

Intrusion: Since the sufferers are unable to process the extreme emotions brought about by the trauma, they are plagued by recurrent nightmares or daytime flashbacks, during which they graphically re-experience the trauma. These re-experiences are characterized by high anxiety levels and make up one part of the PTSD symptom cluster triad called intrusive symptoms.

Hyperarousal: PTSD is also characterized by a state of nervousness with the patient being prepared for "fight or flight". The typical hyperactive startle reaction, characterized by "jumpiness" in connection with loud unexpected sounds or fast motions, is typical for another part of the PTSD cluster called hyperarousal symptoms and could also be secondary to an incomplete processing, similar to a reflex.

Avoidance: The hyperarousal and the intrusive symptoms are eventually so distressing that the individual strives to avoid contact with everything and everyone, even their own thoughts, which may arouse memories of the trauma and thus provoke the intrusive and hyperarousal states. The sufferers isolate themselves, becoming detached in their feelings with a restricted range of emotional response and can experience so-called emotional detachment ("numbing"). Many Veterans with PTSD may also use avoidance as a technique to avoid losing control and harming others. This avoidance behavior is the third part of the symptom triad that makes up the PTSD criteria.

Dissociation: Dissociation is another "defense" that includes a variety of symptoms including feelings of depersonalization and derealization, disconnection between memory and affect so that the person is "in another world," and in extreme forms can involve apparent multiple personalities and acting without any memory ("losing time").

It seems to me that if someone mentally snaps, or all of a sudden thinks they're back on a battlefield somewhere or is otherwise mentally unstable, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN

Argh. The U.S. is a hive of blundering mooncalves!

for allowing gun owernship, or the law?

You actualy think that Vets, the ones that signed up to protect america, will go out and start randomly killing Americans?

Wouldn't be the first time.

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

And another freedom (innocent until proven guilty) is being tested. I seriously hope that this bill is struck down, as it's nothing but an attack on the civil liberties of those that risked their lives for our country.

To the sponsors of this bill, you should be ashamed. :upyours:

That bill is ridiculous.

It'll never last. *nod*

umm yeah...isn't this a good thing...

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Symptoms)



It seems to me that if someone mentally snaps, or all of a sudden thinks they're back on a battlefield somewhere or is otherwise mentally unstable, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN
I can see banning those currently suffering from PTSD, but those in danger of PTSD?

for allowing gun owernship, or the law?

The law, obviously. I'm a "Classical" Liberal, which means I'm more liberal then liberals or conservatives. Guns should be legal.

Wouldn't be the first time.

I would trust a soldier with a weapon more then anyone else myself.

I can see banning those currently suffering from PTSD, but those in danger of PTSD?

uhh yeah thats what the bill does

The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

Yeah, I think that banning people with a history of potentially violent mental illness from owning firearms isn't such a bad idea.

It'll never last. *nod*

Agreed.

Yeah, I think that banning people with a history of potentially violent mental illness from owning firearms isn't such a bad idea.

I think "banning" anyone from owning firearms is about as effective as "banning" anyone from using drugs.

uhh yeah thats what the bill does

keep reading.
One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.
meaning it's not just being diagnosed with PTSD, but if the Psychiatrists thinks you might have problems... guess what...

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).
and so much for innocent till proven guilty...

I think "banning" anyone from owning firearms is about as effective as "banning" anyone from using drugs.

Well that's just super-nice for you!

I think "banning" anyone from owning firearms is about as effective as "banning" anyone from using drugs.

Or banning prostitution and suicide.

Or banning prostitution and suicide.

Or banning people who are making points irrelevant to the topic.

"How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list."

Makes sense, it is a mental illness. Giving someone with mental difficulties a weapon is never a good idea.

They should however allow the individuals that were once diagnosed with PTSD to be re-examined at a later date. If they show a recovery (not sure if this happens, but it might), they should then be allowed to own a firearm like anyone else.

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

There is no such thing as the The Veterans Disarmament Act. That is a label that the OP link author made up.

The actual bill is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Here is a copy. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110vw9x3e:e830:) It doesn't actually do or say what the OP and link claim. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Better yet, here is what the NRA has to say about it (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128). They support it:

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Last week, when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," by a voice vote, some gun owners were confused as to the exact scope and effect of this proactive reform bill. Let’s look at the facts.

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law. Under H.R. 2640, certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving a firearm. Examples are adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required. Also excluded are federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. The latter provision addresses very real concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. Remember that one of the Clinton Administration’s last acts was to force the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a "prohibited" list. H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored. H.R. 2640 will also require all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

This legislation will also ensure—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check¾a NRA priority for nearly a decade! While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire. H.R. 2640 will also mandate an audit of past spending on NICS projects to determine if funds were misused in any way.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.
So why the confusion?

First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is¾given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue¾why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA’s insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

Also troubling to many is the fact that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is a cosponsor of the bill. Carolyn McCarthy is among the most anti-gun Members of Congress. She has introduced another bill, H.R. 1022, which represents the most sweeping gun ban in history. But Rep. McCarthy is not the only co-sponsor of H.R. 2640. She was joined by some of the most pro-gun members of the House of Representatives in crafting this bill, including John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). A few years ago, when Congress passed a bill allowing airline pilots to be armed, one of the lead sponsors was anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.). Sen. Boxer’s support of that legislation did not cause gun owners to oppose it.

Finally, some people have asked why the bill passed on a voice vote. The reality is that there’s nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Even so, the House rules allow any House member to request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

H.R. 2640 is now pending in the Senate. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!

(emphasis added)

Also, here is the NRA's FACTSHEET (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018)about the law. It flatly contradicts some of the assertions made by Larry Pratt, the OP link author.

If for some paranoid reason you don't trust the NRA or your own reading of the law, here is another pro-gun source supporting the law and correcting the misunderstandings about it: Buckeye Firearms Association, The Truth About H.R. 2640 The ''NICS Improvement Act'' (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3803.html)

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

:eek: wow such a biased site there, can we actually have a credible piece of news please?

I don't think soldiers with PTSD should be allowed near guns course it may be possible to make a complete recovery, unfortunately so can criminals but they don't even get the vote so maybe the veterans should of protested about that as well

There is no such thing as the The Veterans Disarmament Act. That is a label that the OP link author made up.

The actual bill is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Here is a copy. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110vw9x3e:e830:) It doesn't actually do or say what the OP and link claim. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Better yet, here is what the NRA has to say about it (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128). They support it:



(emphasis added)

Thanks CT.

While I don't support the bill 100%, it's generally acceptable. What most neglect to mention is that this bill gives the tens of thousands of vets ALREADY disbarred from owning firearms a chance to appeal.

So people who have been trained to kill and desensitized both through training and experience who have a disorder that can cause them to overreact in an ordinary situation or may pose a danger to themselves or others can't buy guns. Nope, not managing to care.

Also, don't get too worked up over this. The government doesn't like to recognize PTSD and much less recognize it as a legitimate medical conditions because it means they have to pay out to people who can prove they have it. Though now that I write that, I bet that is the god damn point. By threatening to take away the firearms of anyone coming forward with PTSD claims, they practically stop anyone from claiming benefits because of PTSD. If it wasn't for the damned gun nuts getting so riled up, all the people who really give a shit about veterans' rights and rights in general could see through the smoke and mirrors.

There is no such thing as the The Veterans Disarmament Act. That is a label that the OP link author made up.

The actual bill is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Here is a copy. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110vw9x3e:e830:) It doesn't actually do or say what the OP and link claim. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Better yet, here is what the NRA has to say about it (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128). They support it:



(emphasis added)

Also, here is the NRA's FACTSHEET (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018)about the law. It flatly contradicts some of the assertions made by Larry Pratt, the OP link author.

Interesting. it does answer some of my concerns. Thanks CT.

So people who have been trained to kill and desensitized both through training and experience who have a disorder that can cause them to overreact in an ordinary situation or may pose a danger to themselves or others can't buy guns. Nope, not managing to care.

Also, don't get too worked up over this. The government doesn't like to recognize PTSD and much less recognize it as a legitimate medical conditions because it means they have to pay out to people who can prove they have it. Though now that I write that, I bet that is the god damn point. By threatening to take away the firearms of anyone coming forward with PTSD claims, they practically stop anyone from claiming benefits because of PTSD. If it wasn't for the damned gun nuts getting so riled up, all the people who really give a shit about veterans' rights and rights in general could see through the smoke and mirrors.

Wow, you have that tinfoil on extra thick tonight.

The "gun nuts" are trying to get the rights of veterans who've already been prevented from owning back and you blame the "gun nuts" for, well, whatever you're ranting about now.

umm yeah...isn't this a good thing...

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Symptoms)



It seems to me that if someone mentally snaps, or all of a sudden thinks they're back on a battlefield somewhere or is otherwise mentally unstable, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN

Veterans are not criminals. They have a constitutional right to own a gun. You can't deprive them of that right unless they've broken the law and have been through a judge and a jury.

Veterans are not criminals. They have a constitutional right to own a gun. You can't deprive them of that right unless they've broken the law and have been through a judge and a jury.

EDIT: Okay I get what you're saying...

Back to my OP, ANYONE who has a mental illness, like PTSD, should NOT have a gun...

Also it's not like the Gov't is saying "ZOMGZ VETERINZ IZ T3H 3B1L!!!!111!! WE MUST DIZARM THEM!!"

they're saying that some Veterans have been through a lot of trauma during combat and can snap or have a flashback and think that they are back on the battlefield (Like Rambo in that scene in the jail at the start of First Blood where he attacks the cops) and that giving these people who were trained to kill can be extremely dangerous

It's not unreasonable to deprive them of that 'right' when they pose a serious risk to others.

It's not unreasonable to deprive them of that 'right' when they pose a serious risk to others.

And if they're not?

And if they're not?

Anyone with a history of mental illness is a risk.

And if they're not?

No one is saying that Veterans who aren't a danger are going to have their guns taken away...

The bill is about disarming any Veterans who may have mental illnesses

It's not unreasonable to deprive them of that 'right' when they pose a serious risk to others.

And who determines that? The members of Congress who hate the 2nd amendment? You? Who?
Suppose you pose a serious risk of passing AIDS to others? That's a serious risk to others. Should you be banned from ever owning a gun?
Suppose there's a serious risk of someone catching your cold? Should you be banned from owning a gun?

Neither you nor the politicians are in a position to classify a person as a risk. Only the medical community can make that determination if a person is of right mind and for good reason. Otherwise liberals and conservatives would be taking away each others rights and institutionalizing each other just because the other had different belief systems.
The bill bans anyone with PTSD from buying or owning a gun. That means that most American women would be banned from owning or buying guns if it were true. But I have a feeling that women who have been raped will be able to still buy guns but veterans won't. Despite the fact that most women who have been raped have PTSD as a result.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to delete the 2nd amendment without getting the consent of the states or the American people who must vote on such a repeal.

Anyone with a history of mental illness is a risk.

ADD and ADHD are both forms of mental illness. I suppose that anyone with those conditions should be banned from having guns too, because they pose a risk to other people.

ADD and ADHD are both forms of mental illness. I suppose that anyone with those conditions should be banned from having guns too, because they pose a risk to other people.

Hint: Your point would work better if you didn't pick an extremely severe mental illness.

And who determines that? The members of Congress who hate the 2nd amendment? You? Who?
Suppose you pose a serious risk of passing AIDS to others? That's a serious risk to others. Should you be banned from ever owning a gun?
Suppose there's a serious risk of someone catching your cold? Should you be banned from owning a gun?

Neither you nor the politicians are in a position to classify a person as a risk. Only the medical community can make that determination if a person is of right mind and for good reason. Otherwise liberals and conservatives would be taking away each others rights and institutionalizing each other just because the other had different belief systems.
The bill bans anyone with PTSD from buying or owning a gun. That means that most American women would be banned from owning or buying guns if it were true. But I have a feeling that women who have been raped will be able to still buy guns but veterans won't. Despite the fact that most women who have been raped have PTSD as a result.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to delete the 2nd amendment without getting the consent of the states or the American people who must vote on such a repeal.

That's the most retarded comparison I've ever read...AIDS and the Common Cold are NOT MENTAL ILLNESSES

Also the bill would make people who are MEDICALLY mentally unstable with PTSD, not able to have a gun...

Also with women who are raped there is no chance that they will flashback to an old battlefield, see random people as a threat and potentially shoot them...

ADD and ADHD are both forms of mental illness. I suppose that anyone with those conditions should be banned from having guns too, because they pose a risk to other people.

I'm pretty sure they're neurological disorders, but since I'm not an expert I won't put too much stock in that.

I'll make myself clearer: anyone with a history of mental illness likely to cause violent behaviour should be prevented from owning firearms. Personally I'd keep guns out of private hands anyway, but that's for another thread. By NSG's usual form there should be three gun control threads popping up any minute now.

Suppose you pose a serious risk of passing AIDS to others? That's a serious risk to others. Should you be banned from ever owning a gun?
Reading that made me stupider.

No one is saying that Veterans who aren't a danger are going to have their guns taken away...

The bill is about disarming any Veterans who may have mental illnesses

Ones who aren't a danger are already having their guns taken away due to PTSD. This bill opens up an appeals process.

Here in ontario they have something called the Mental Health Act, which deems anyone who is a safety risk to the public or they may get hurt by the public based on mental conditions to be able to be committed, pending quasi judicial reveiw by a lawyer/psychiatrist and "public person" called the consent and capacity board tribunal. They can appeal to the court after that point. (note though once formed they can be forcibly injected with drugs - and it can take weeks just for the tribunal review, for court appeal times who knows... and until then you are under the needle not that that improves mental state... for anyone ever forcibly medicated with mind altering drugs before..)

The police also have said common law rights to hold individuals who may be or intend to (as far as the police judge) or continue to breach the peace even if not a criminal act that is legislated, whatever that may be, that is act against the public order. Until the situation passes, short of formal charges. (also called arbitrary detention or holdings...)

Of course under the Highway traffic act of ontario, individuals with medical conditions which may pose a hinderance to their ability to drive can be prohibited from being lisenced, and a database tracks this.

There are also oversights to who can own guns. If for medical or if having a criminal record, or court order stating that the person cannot own or possess a firearm they can be barred from using it, based on "public safety" or something of the sort.

Even when applying for the right to own a weapon a background check occurs including the potential of interviewing neighbours etc...

PSTD
symptoms
restlessness, insomnia, aggressiveness, depression, dissociation, emotional detachment, nightmares, nervousness with "fight or flight" tendency. "hyperactive startle reaction", hyperarousal = incomplete processing reflexivity.

Politics - 30% increase in PTSD claims

suicides over loss of losing benefits

72,000+ veterans receiving disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder - so said

defense of automatism may exist due to hyperarousal and other symptoms

M'Naghten Rules

automatism result in an acquittal, since no guilt can be assigned to a party unable to control their actions


diminished responsibility possible rather than insanity - which can hold sentencing. For reduction of sentence



----------
PTSD people seem to be more likely to "freak out" then said "mentally healthy and non disabled people"

so it is in a way a preemption of a potential social risk.


Being someone who has had mental health issues thrown at me in court and dragged through court processes for months while being held on mental health grounds, that in my longest instance being held came back as without mental health context and fit to stand trial self representative I can understand the feeling of injustice when any one group of individuals are deprived of such universal constitutional rights and otherwise common law heritiage rights such as the right to bear arms.

Of course individuals with depression who may be more likely to commit suicide may have potential dangers removed - statistically speaking it appears more common.. if those people trained to kill arn't fit for military service, why is that? Becuse they arn't mentally capable of functioning in a sitution where they have to take orders?


Since I've been so said a psychotic delusional scitzophernic - I totally understand what an unfit label means and I've been force medicated as a result, and at one point was barred from owning weapons (I'm not sure if this still applies... as I havn't contacted the CFO for this area to find out... something I should maybe do just for curiosities sake.

None the less I understand why it's there it's to remove liability and bad press you know the type

What you gave a unstable killer a gun?

--------------

I think that outright barring this may be an issue but here comes the clencher

if you arn't orderly enough for the military- are you orderly enough to own a gun?

If you knew someone who was depressed and agitated and termed "mentally disabled" would you hand them a gun?

anyway I don't think our rights should be removed, but I think that society needs to be protected, and the only way for that is to ensure our liberty, if someone thinks they are responsible enough to use a gun? Are they... in Canada that may be up to the CFO and their criterias for determining that.. regardless of individual circumstances such as military PTSD... although anyone whether military or not that fits criteria by the firearms officers regardless of being veteran's is universal law...

but once again being an "at risk person for driving rights or firearms usage rights being enforced against me I understand the issue. I feel I'm in generally sound mind - although I do have impared memory and goal orientation (I'm not a driven person - I accept life for what it is and am not PC to self survival being the highest life priority)

If you are fit to use a gun you are fit to use a gun.. I understand in the US this may be more lax than in Canada.

Anyway... I hope that it works out for the best for everyone.

But really what do you need a gun for? can't you use a crossbow for hunting....or something...

but once again I'm sort of in the same boat... not veteran but still getting disability and benefits as permanently disabled.


I can't imagine what I would need a gun for though.. I'm vegan... self defence is there to but why the hell would I need to deal with home invasions? I'm in a dorm for crying out loud -- while I do own swords for more of a identity and swordplay reason (as I dig history) I can understand how the guns may connect them to the things they like.. but I would think they might also serve as a reminder of their "undesired traumas...."

I dunno I wouldn't pass it.. for public safety I would NOT even dare mention the word veteran and make a generic NON medically specific criteria for the CFO to use to determine safety for use. But as said gunlaws are laxer in the uS and it may not be possible to actually implement something like a screening officer without the NRA and the rest of america going mad on gun restriction....

I think case incidents are relatively low of this type of thing.. and is more of a deprivation of rights.. but I don't have the statistics on suicides and homicides and assualts and injuries by individuals suffering from PTSD.

Ones who aren't a danger are already having their guns taken away due to PTSD. This bill opens up an appeals process.

No where in the article (and I use that term loosely) did I find it say that...Perhaps I missed it...but I'd like to see you back up that claim

No where in the article (and I use that term loosely) did I find it say that...Perhaps I missed it...

The article itself doesn't say it. I'm not supporting the GOA position on this. Just to be clear. Even I consider them to be "gun nuts".

Read CT's post. It presents the bill itself plus more slightly less biased info on the bill.

The fact of the matter is, that over 80,000 vets have already been put on the list during the 90's w/o any recourse. The Violence Policy Center opposes this bill for the express reason it opens up an appeals process.

Edit:

From the horses mouth:

The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html

Initially I was going to post in protest, but thankfully I had the sense--unlike many posters--to read most of the thread, and when I stumbled upon Cat Tribe's post, I knew I was going to actually favor the bill.

It's sensible, really. I can tell you this much: I plan on going into the Navy, and if I ever experienced PTSD, I'd ask that any firearms be taken away from me, because I understand just how serious it is. It's not something you mess with.

The article itself doesn't say it. I'm not supporting the GOA position on this. Just to be clear. Even I consider them to be "gun nuts".

Read CT's post. It presents the bill itself plus more slightly less biased info on the bill.

The fact of the matter is, that over 80,000 vets have already been put on the list during the 90's w/o any recourse. The Violence Policy Center opposes this bill for the express reason it opens up an appeals process.

Edit:

From the horses mouth:

The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html

Okay...so I guess that "article" is pretty messed up...anyway the bill still seems to be a good idea it'll let people who got their guns taken away have them back and prevent people who are mentally ill from getting guns

Okay...so I guess that "article" is pretty messed up...anyway the bill still seems to be a good idea it'll let people who got their guns taken away have them back and prevent people who are mentally ill from getting guns
As w/ any bill, it has potential problems, but, as I said earlier, I generally support it.

There was quite a bit of discussion on the various gun blogs between the "absolutists" and the more "moderates" over the issue.

I think "banning" anyone from owning firearms is about as effective as "banning" anyone from using drugs.

If you make guns harder to get, more premeditation is needed before they're used. Someone wigging out from PTSD isn't going to go and illegally buy a gun and then use it.

Veterans are not criminals. They have a constitutional right to own a gun. You can't deprive them of that right unless they've broken the law and have been through a judge and a jury.

Where does that argument come from? I'm no expert on America so maybe they actually did something about this at some point, but when did "right to bear arms" become the same as "right to own a gun". Arms refers to any weapon, from sharpened sticks to ballistic missiles. Did someone somewhere in the legal system clear that up at some point because I'm confused.

If you make guns harder to get, more premeditation is needed before they're used. Someone wigging out from PTSD isn't going to go and illegally buy a gun and then use it.



Where does that argument come from? I'm no expert on America so maybe they actually did something about this at some point, but when did "right to bear arms" become the same as "right to own a gun". Arms refers to any weapon, from sharpened sticks to ballistic missiles. Did someone somewhere in the legal system clear that up at some point because I'm confused.

If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, Arms are considered those that are in common use, ie rifles, handguns, etc. Not heavy weapons.

If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, Arms are considered those that are in common use, ie rifles, handguns, etc. Not heavy weapons.

It's really rather controversial, and it doesn't stop there. Many feel that due to the odd wording of the amendment it means that it gives the power to own arms to those of the militia--or the military--rather than the average citizen. Careful reading is required to correctly interpret it.

If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, Arms are considered those that are in common use, ie rifles, handguns, etc. Not heavy weapons.

Early lawmakers really annoy me, they were always writing really vague stuff. That amendment is one line, using several words with multiple definitions and no explanation. And look at what it's caused.

If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, Arms are considered those that are in common use, ie rifles, handguns, etc. Not heavy weapons.

I disagree with this.. arms are a means to exercise your honour and do what is right for the good in God's name, that is to support your beleif in fundamental justice.

There are no set limits on this.. right to arms would very much include nuclear weapons should you be able to maintain and act in defence of the law to uphold honour and justice, in the name of god.

Arm's are anything which enable use of force to accomplish that aforsaid goal..

but generally falls back to handheld weapons for personal use. Which could be heavy weapons.. but artillery is just a heavier bore... there is no real difference.. as the military is a form of militia which forms out of those rights.. it is just obscured in republican nations as they get rights from the constitution rather than only common law rule or political rights or monarchical orders of the monarch etc..

but the right to bear arms is the right to exercise your rights by use of force, in accordance with fundamental justice and honour.

It's really rather controversial, and it doesn't stop there. Many feel that due to the odd wording of the amendment it means that it gives the power to own arms to those of the militia--or the military--rather than the average citizen. Careful reading is required to correctly interpret it.


US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13,
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

so, let me see here. This is a law designed to keep guns out of the hands of severely mentally ill people who suffer from a disorder that makes them prone to extreme and irrational bouts of violence..

What the fuck is the problem here exactly?

US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13,
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Yes, thank you, that clarifies exactly what the militia is.

Was that the only reason you posted it?
so, let me see here. This is a law designed to keep guns out of the hands of severely mentally ill people who suffer from a disorder that makes them prone to extreme and irrational bouts of violence..

What the fuck is the problem here exactly?

The problem was some confusion and misinterpretation of certain parts of the bill as outlined by The Cat Tribe's on page one(presuming a setting of forty posts per page, which is my setting. Your page numbers may vary.)

One of the misinterpretations I had initially planned to post against was the idea that anyone who has been diagnosed with any sort of mental disorder such as PTSD would be banned from ever owning a gun again, the idea of which is absolutely ludicrous, because it does not give them the chance to show they have recovered and no longer present a danger when armed.

That, and of course, as the title says, the main idea of veterans being disallowed weaponry that they've been trained with...if anyone could use a gun safely, believe you me, it'd be someone from the military.

so, let me see here. This is a law designed to keep guns out of the hands of severely mentally ill people who suffer from a disorder that makes them prone to extreme and irrational bouts of violence..

What the fuck is the problem here exactly?

basically the problem is that some folks are saying..."THEM GURRMENTZ ARE GONNA TOOK UR GUNZ!!!!!"

which is always the problem whenever there is a thread with the word "gun" in it

Generally I would believe that the presence of a mental disorder causing extreme and irrational bouts of violence would supercede any training he received.

If anything, if and when a PTSD with military training DOES snap, he'll do so far more efficiently than your average person. Which, I would imagine, makes them even more dangerous.

True.

I meant to be more specific: as I said, one of the misinterpretations was that any sort of ruling of mental disorder by any physician--even if something very temporary--would be enough to get a veteran barred from owning a firearm for life, which was what I was going to complain about.

BUT

As I said also, it's a misinterpretation and is not what the bill states.

That, and of course, as the title says, the main idea of veterans being disallowed weaponry that they've been trained with...if anyone could use a gun safely, believe you me, it'd be someone from the military.

Generally I would believe that the presence of a mental disorder causing extreme and irrational bouts of violence would supercede any training he received.

If anything, if and when a PTSD with military training DOES snap, he'll do so far more efficiently than your average person. Which, I would imagine, makes them even more dangerous.

Generally I would believe that the presence of a mental disorder causing extreme and irrational bouts of violence would supercede any training he received.

If anything, if and when a PTSD with military training DOES snap, he'll do so far more efficiently than your average person. Which, I would imagine, makes them even more dangerous.

Eh. It's pretty easy to get diagnosed with PTSD. I wouldn't mind temporarily barring gun sales to people who've been institutionalized from PTSD-related mental illness, but that's something else.

As I said also, it's a misinterpretation and is not what the bill states.

True, but then again, around here, when have such things as facts gotten in the way of righteous indignation?

True, but then again, around here, when have such things as facts gotten in the way of righteous indignation?

That's not just around here...that's everywhere.

And the indignation is not wholly misplaced...if the facts were correct, the indignation would be justified. Since they're not, however, it's only partially justified in the sense of "this is how I would feel if this were true."

Uh oh! Now people who were trained in mowing down large swaths of humans won't be able to snap and pull what Seung-Hui Cho pulled at V-Tech!

Seung Cho was ethnically Korean, a member of a minority.

The suspects in the murder of an infant in California last week are also minorities, as are a great number of other dangerous criminals.

Why should we look to ban guns when the presence of ethnic minorities is equally instrumental to many crimes?

Why should law abiding minorities get a free pass while law abiding gun owners get their rights trampled?

How is the argument that ethnic minority rights should be eliminated different from the argument that gun rights should be eliminated?

After all, if there were no ethnic minorities in America, then none of the crime committed by ethnic minorities would be possible, and it would be a safer place to live.

I'll make myself clearer: anyone with a history of mental illness likely to cause violent behaviour should be prevented from owning firearms.

As a firearms owner, I will agree with that. What I have a concern with is, making sure that the people that are denied are proven to have mental illness, and proven to be a danger to themselves or others due to the mental illness (suffering from PTSD at one point in their lives, but not a danger to themselves or others shouldn't cut it for denial of rights).

By NSG's usual form there should be three gun control threads popping up any minute now.

There are, in various forms.

If there were no humans in America, then none of the crime committed would be possible, and it would be a safer place to live.

Fixed.

Also that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't want to sound rude but post trauma stress disorder by the means of modern war, known as shell shock in the past, isn't a walk in the park. In involves people getting their mind being completely overwhelmed from the constant fear of unavoidable death and destruction. It is arguable that not a single person can ever complete recovery from PTSD. After all those are not exactly the types of experience a person can forget. That's why PTSD need to be given benefit in the first place because their can no longer engage in society or function in a job. So saying they should own a gun in that kind of mental condition is just ridiculous.

Although the whole "might have PTSD" thing a completely different matter. But that will have a lot more to do with what clinical psychologist today consider PTSD risk rather than the banning gun itself.

I don't want to sound rude but post trauma stress disorder by the means of modern war, known as shell shock in the past, isn't a walk in the park. In involves people getting their mind being completely overwhelmed from the constant fear of unavoidable death and destruction. It is arguable that not a single person can ever complete recovery from PTSD. After all those are not exactly the types of experience a person can forget. That's why PTSD need to be given benefit in the first place because their can no longer engage in society or function in a job. So saying they should own a gun in that kind of mental condition is just ridiculous.

Although the whole "might have PTSD" thing a completely different matter. But that will have a lot more to do with what clinical psychologist today consider PTSD risk rather than the banning gun itself.

Really? My father was in Vietnam, and was diagnosed with PTSD. After he got back, he worked for the same company for over 30 years (as an electronics technician), until the company went bankrupt. Now he does the same thing, but for a different company. The only symptoms of PTSD he shows is periods of insomnia and sometimes a detachment from other people.

Of course, he doesn't own a firearm, but I don't think he'd have the time to go to the range to shoot anyways (my parents house needs constant work).

Really? My father was in Vietnam, and was diagnosed with PTSD. After he got back, he worked for the same company for over 30 years (as an electronics technician), until the company went bankrupt. Now he does the same thing, but for a different company. The only symptoms of PTSD he shows is periods of insomnia and sometimes a detachment from other people.

Of course, he doesn't own a firearm, but I don't think he'd have the time to go to the range to shoot anyways (my parents house needs constant work).

In that case like I said we should consider look at how clinical psychologist label people as PTSD. It's a double edge sword really. If a person can function and get a job in society, then they shouldn't get post war PTSD benefits. If they are too overwhelmed and can't fucntion in society, then they shouldn't own a gun.

I know about the history of shell shock and PTSD but honestly I have no idea how clinical psychologist practice these days. Seems like they are going through the system labeling people with disorder that isn't exactly true to what it actually is.

If a person can function and get a job in society, then they shouldn't get post war PTSD benefits.
.

They could be functioning but having to struggle to do so as a result of PTSD. Why shouldn't they be compensated for this effect of the problem?

There is no such thing as the The Veterans Disarmament Act. That is a label that the OP link author made up.

The actual bill is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Here is a copy. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110vw9x3e:e830:) It doesn't actually do or say what the OP and link claim. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Better yet, here is what the NRA has to say about it (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128). They support it:



(emphasis added)

Also, here is the NRA's FACTSHEET (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018)about the law. It flatly contradicts some of the assertions made by Larry Pratt, the OP link author.

If for some paranoid reason you don't trust the NRA or your own reading of the law, here is another pro-gun source supporting the law and correcting the misunderstandings about it: Buckeye Firearms Association, The Truth About H.R. 2640 The ''NICS Improvement Act'' (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3803.html)

ANother good debate ruined by facts. :p

They could be functioning but having to struggle to do so as a result of PTSD. Why shouldn't they be compensated for this effect of the problem?

Actually that would depend on the definition of "struggling", which is impossible to judge since everyone can claim struggling, that's why I continuously refer to the responsibilities of the clinical psychologist in this issue. Also as the word suggest, struggling means they are mentally unstable, and if they are struggling they really shouldn't be bearing arm. Gun Manufacturers' argument was that his father is mentally healthy enough to bear arm, and surely in that case it makes no sense for the same person to also be receive PTSD benefits.

Frankly, the bill will never hold up. The NRA will have a field day smashing that law down, as most of their members are veterans ranging from WW1 to the Gulf War, and some are even younger because of family ties.

I hate the average american voter for electing these kind of fucking morons... if I want to vote for someone I at least pay attention to thier record and all that jazz, in fact, because I pay attention to these records I rarely vote for the encumbant, or either of the guys on the main party tickets these days. In this country nobody listens to you unless your older than 35 and stupid....

This quite frankly is blatant stupidity at one its finest hours. This bill even if it somehow would manage to pass I hope would be overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional as this is one of the most blatant attacks on the second amendment ever concieved. These morons have no documentation to support that any of these veterans are dangerous enough to warrant not letting them have firearms... and if they shouldn't have firearms then they shouldn't have knives, or forks, or sporks, or spoons, or chopsticks, or toothpicks, or even a fucking plastic bag as they can also become a dangerous weapon in the hands of a dillusioned man who beleives he is fighting for his life.

How to turn the Average American into an even more easily manipulated puppet:
Step 1: Take guns from veterans
Step 2: Take all guns

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution garantees the right of citizens to bare arms. Part of this reasoning as described by the creators of the bill of rights was as a way of protecting themselves, from each other, from invaders, from natives (not a problem anymore I know), and from the US Government.

^^^ Did you read the whole thread?

Also
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/barearms.jpg

Frankly, the bill will never hold up. The NRA will have a field day smashing that law down, as most of their members are veterans ranging from WW1 to the Gulf War, and some are even younger because of family ties.

As The Cat-Tribe already pointed out http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128

As a firearms owner, I will agree with that.
And this is why I take the ACLU seriously but not the NRA.

Actually that would depend on the definition of "struggling", which is impossible to judge since everyone can claim struggling, that's why I continuously refer to the responsibilities of the clinical psychologist in this issue. Also as the word suggest, struggling means they are mentally unstable, and if they are struggling they really shouldn't be bearing arm. Gun Manufacturers' argument was that his father is mentally healthy enough to bear arm, and surely in that case it makes no sense for the same person to also be receive PTSD benefits.

My father doesn't receive any PTSD benefits from the government (I don't think he'd accept them if the government offered them to him anyways).

ANother good debate ruined by facts. :p
No worries, now it is just about whether people with PTSD should be able to own guns.

I was all ready to be up in arms over this until I read the article ... I think people diagnosed with a mental illness may be a group that we should legitamatly shy away from arming.

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

That's good. We do not need these people owning guns.

And another freedom (innocent until proven guilty) is being tested. I seriously hope that this bill is struck down, as it's nothing but an attack on the civil liberties of those that risked their lives for our country.

To the sponsors of this bill, you should be ashamed. :upyours:

Its for those who suffer from PTSD Gun Manufacturers. Nothin wrong with that.

There is no such thing as the The Veterans Disarmament Act. That is a label that the OP link author made up.

The actual bill is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Here is a copy. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110vw9x3e:e830:) It doesn't actually do or say what the OP and link claim. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Better yet, here is what the NRA has to say about it (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3128). They support it:



(emphasis added)

Also, here is the NRA's FACTSHEET (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018)about the law. It flatly contradicts some of the assertions made by Larry Pratt, the OP link author.

If for some paranoid reason you don't trust the NRA or your own reading of the law, here is another pro-gun source supporting the law and correcting the misunderstandings about it: Buckeye Firearms Association, The Truth About H.R. 2640 The ''NICS Improvement Act'' (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3803.html)

Thank you for the Info Cat-Tribe. Case close.

umm yeah...isn't this a good thing...

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Symptoms)



It seems to me that if someone mentally snaps, or all of a sudden thinks they're back on a battlefield somewhere or is otherwise mentally unstable, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN

I agree 100%

Hint: Your point would work better if you didn't pick an extremely severe mental illness.

:rolleyes:

And who determines that? The members of Congress who hate the 2nd amendment? You? Who?
Suppose you pose a serious risk of passing AIDS to others? That's a serious risk to others. Should you be banned from ever owning a gun?
Suppose there's a serious risk of someone catching your cold? Should you be banned from owning a gun?

Neither you nor the politicians are in a position to classify a person as a risk. Only the medical community can make that determination if a person is of right mind and for good reason. Otherwise liberals and conservatives would be taking away each others rights and institutionalizing each other just because the other had different belief systems.
The bill bans anyone with PTSD from buying or owning a gun. That means that most American women would be banned from owning or buying guns if it were true. But I have a feeling that women who have been raped will be able to still buy guns but veterans won't. Despite the fact that most women who have been raped have PTSD as a result.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to delete the 2nd amendment without getting the consent of the states or the American people who must vote on such a repeal.

:confused: Most American Women suffer from Post-Trumatic Stress Disorder?

Allowing people with shell-shock to carry guns in densely populated areas makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

Because clearly all veterans have PTSD. (sarcasm!)

Would you give a gun to a mentally unstable person?

I can see banning those currently suffering from PTSD, but those in danger of PTSD?

Where is that happening?

Where is that happening?

In certain unspecifiable regions of a vaguely identified planet.

Link (http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm)

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

People who are diagnosed as being mentally unstable, but trained to shoot?

I'm.. not thrilled with the concept of people trained in gunplay that have both a mental illness and ready access to a firearm.

People trained in gunplay that have a mental illness and no access to a firearm? I can dig that. People with access to a firearm and a mental illness, but no formal training? Maybe they'll be a bad shot. People trained in gunplay that have access to a firearm and no mental illness? We need those kind of people.

But people that are trained in gunplay, have a mental illness, and have access to a firearm? I think that is a set of qualifications we should at least attempt to avoid.

In certain unspecifiable regions of a vaguely identified planet.

Would this planet happen to be 'Mostly Harmless'?

Yea this makes perfect sense, ban Vets. from owning guns, a group of people who are trained to use guns.

This bill is somewhat ridiculous.

ANY person who's been diagnosed with some severe psychical syndrome like PTSD, or schizophreny, or paranoia etc should be banned from owning and carrying firearms. Not just veterans.

I would be even stronger about that:

Anyone who wants to own or carry a firearm must have a license for firearms.

Anyone who wants a firearms license, must undergo, EVERY YEAR, to a physical and psychical test (a serious one, possibily). Test failed - immediate ban, weapons must be given to police authorities. You can apply again next year, only if you pass the test of course, and you'll have your guns and license back. Failing a test gives you free psychiatrical care if you want it.

I also encourage the use of such systems for the use and possession of other potentially lethal items, like motor vehicles, long blades (swords and hunting knives, for instance) and large dogs (yes, only a psychically balanced and physically able person should be given a Rottweiler).

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution garantees the right of citizens to bare arms.

Bare arms? A Naked Gun!

Any measure of gun control is a sham. Doesn't the 2nd amendment mean anything to anyone anymore?

If the indoctrination centers that our government calls schools were accurate, then owning a firearm, or any other kind of weapons is perfectly legal. And constitutional. It is every citizen's and naturalized immigrants right to "keep and bear arms." Regardless of their mental state from PTSD. (which, btw, in my time was called post traumatic stress syndrome, or PTSS. And we didn't use acronyms, neither! :P)

Our veterans have had a hard enough time from the government. I believe it is time to give them the breaks they have earned, protecting that freedom. My uncle is a Vietnam veteran, with a severe case of post traumatic stress syndrome. He has documentation to prove this. He has many rifles and shotguns in his home.

To bar anyone the right to keep and bear arms because of post traumatic stress syndrome is simply unconstitutional. Just because they might think they are in another country, does not mean they are. They are still in the U.S. and they still have their freedoms...damn it.

And finally I say the last thing on my mind....narf! :P

Bare arms? A Naked Gun!

Naked Gun 33 1/3?

Naked Gun 33 1/3?

No, 444 1/4. Coming soon, I bet - I fear. Sequels usually suck.

[QUOTE=Gun Manufacturers;13075100]And another freedom (innocent until proven guilty) is being tested. I seriously hope that this bill is struck down, as it's nothing but an attack on the civil liberties of those that risked their lives for our country.

To the sponsors of this Is it really freedom to be allowed to own a gun.Is it not more sensible to ban guns as no other democracy has near the gun crime of the US

No, 444 1/4. Coming soon, I bet - I fear. Sequels usually suck.

wait... lemme guess the plot... Nordberg gets arrested for trying to take back his stuff from a group of merchants/collectors and it's up to Drebben (now lawyer) to get him off.

People with severe mental health issues, that have been trained and honed to kill aren't allowed to have guns? Why is this not a good thing?

People with severe mental health issues, that have been trained and honed to kill aren't allowed to have guns? Why is this not a good thing?Mixed feelings on this one. As a person diagnosed with a couple of potentially serious mental health issues (bipolar disorder and PTSD) it makes me a little uncomfortable to think that the government has automatically decided I'm dangerous enough to have my second amendment rights taken away. I've come no closer to killing the people who get on my last nerve than the rest of you. Just fantasize about it ocassionally.

Then again, some of the mentally ill are genuinely dangerous. But isn't this sort of assuming someone's guilt before they do something? Guilty until proven innocent isn't the way the law in this country is supposed to work.

But I suppose it's easy enough to start removing rights from a group that you assume you'll never be part of.