The Military Is Reporting Almost No Domestic Abusers to the Main Gun Background Check Database

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: projectvxn

Maybe they don't want people to know who is really serving in our military?

I think it's just laziness and stupidity. I spent enough time in the military to know that is the problem nearly every time.

Before we go and blame PTSD again:

8 Common Myths About PTSD Debunked

a reply to: projectvxn

I'm not trying to stereotype or claim PTSD implies violence. I am however pointing out the fact that a diagnosis of PTSD, or major depressive disorder, or intermittent explosive disorder would get your average civilian put on the NICS Index.

So why is that not the case for the military?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: projectvxn

I'm not trying to stereotype or claim PTSD implies violence. I am however pointing out the fact that a diagnosis of PTSD, or major depressive disorder, or intermittent explosive disorder would get your average civilian put on the NICS Index.

So why is that not the case for the military?

PTSD is not a violent disorder that merits rights being taken away.

Educate yourself on this before you type another word.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Domestic violence is already a disqualifying factor.

Here's ATF Form 4473 www.atf.gov...

That is a PDF straight from the ATF website.

From that form you can get all the information you need on what is a disqualifying condition.

Making suicide a felony wouldn't help anyone. Prison doesn't help people with mental issues. What we need is a better mental heath care system, better reporting system, and a better and streamlined mental adjudication process.

Agreed . Starting with defining mental illness. Because I personally don't think attempted suicide should automatically ban you from owning a gun. I never thought it was a mental illness.

a reply to: projectvxn

My background is in psychology and my post clearly stated that I don't wish to imply PTSD implies violence.

However, my opinion doesn't matter when it comes to gun laws. It's the truth that a civilian diagnosed with PTSD will be flagged in the NICS. A soldier diagnosed with PTSD won't.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's the truth that a civilian diagnosed with PTSD will be flagged in the NICS

Diagnosis will not get you put on the NICS database. Adjudication will.

The adjudication process is similar to a criminal court system.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Xcalibur254


People who shouldn't own guns for any reason:
Domestic Abusers

Sorry. I disagree. The problem that I have with this is that Domestic Abuse has been slanted in favor of women that it is useless.

I know of men who have been abused by their wives or girlfriends and the authorities refuse to file charges of domestic abuse against the wife or girlfriend. There is a widespread belief that only men can be guilty of domestic abuse.

If a charge of domestic abuse can be substantiated, then there is probably an underlying charge of assault or battery that can be brought against the perpetrator.

Awhile back just the accusation of domestic violence was enough to deny a MAN's right to carry a weapon in my State. It had become a standard tactic for a woman's divorce lawyer to tell her to get a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order against her husband. I knew a local cop who's ex-wife filed for a PFA stating that he beat her. When she was asked when this happened, at the date and time, he was testifying in court. She made the whole thing up, but, the accusation was enough for him to lose his job because he couldn't carry a weapon.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: projectvxn

My background is in psychology and my post clearly stated that I don't wish to imply PTSD implies violence.

However, my opinion doesn't matter when it comes to gun laws. It's the truth that a civilian diagnosed with PTSD will be flagged in the NICS. A soldier diagnosed with PTSD won't.

So, in your professional experience, simply having one of you diagnose a patient with PTSD is enough to strip them of their constitutionally protected rights without due process of law?

If so, that is so wrong and unconstitutional. It MUST go through due process to be legal. If due process is required, then I suggest you modify your post to include that very important detail as not to spread falsehoods that we will later be debating endlessly.

As a professional, you should know that already.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm glad that you posted this--I was going to research something similar and post it.

The military's reporting of crime in general is abhorrent in the grand scheme of things, and I wouldn't doubt that part of it is intentional, but also the other part is poor forwarding of the results of the trials by court-martial.

According to Army Regulation 27-10, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-46(b), dated 6 September 2002:

On completion of any required review nad supplemental action, original records of trial of GCMs, SPCMs with approved BCDs or confinement for more than 180 days, suspended or unsuspended, and SPCMs bearing a U.S. Army Judiciary docket number, will be sent for filing to the Office of the Clerk of court (JALS-CC), U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, Suite 1200, 901 N. Stuart Street, Arlington, VA 22203.

AR 27-10 (pg. 52 of the PDF, or 39 of the document)

I've said this in other threads, but this used to be my job in the Army (27D...Paralegal Specialist), although I was out before this version of AR 27-10 was approved. Regardless, it does dictate that ever Record of Trial in General Courts-Martial be sent to the federal Office of the Clerk of Courts. Now, where it gets disseminated from there, I have no clue, but at least, by regulation of the Army, the records of GCMs and SPCMs with a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) must be reported.

So, the reporting standard is not by charge, but by level of court-martial.

I am of the opinion that this should be updated to include specific charges that necessitate actions, such as reporting to the NCIS database.

Surprise surprise, government #ing negligence costing lives again and who will pay for it? The same citizen tax payers who are being killed by said negligence with their lives and wallets when the lawsuits get paid out in the oodles of millions of dollars to the families, as they should be.

a reply to: Krakatoa

As a professional, you should know that already.

Its amazing how easy it is to spot the ones who are full of # isn't it?

originally posted by: projectvxn
There was way more wrong with Devin Kelley than his domestic abuse charge.

He should never have even been allowed to enter service in the Air Force.

Now we have a bigger problem. Like I said in the main thread, where there is one who falls through the cracks, there are many others.

I have no idea why the Air Force or the military in general would not report what they are legally required to report. Their negligence and stupidity enabled a mentally ill person to buy a gun and kill innocent people.

His history of being mentally ill is also well documented. There are many instances, including one while in the air force, where he could have and SHOULD HAVE been adjudicated mentally ill. That didn't happen either.

How much of this is going on Pentagon?

It’s very possible he was...you will never know because of HIPAA laws that are even more stringent for mental diagnoses than regular healthcare. Also, I doubt any psychiatrist is required to report patient mental diagnoses to NICS. As many have tried to point out, these are the changes that need to be made, but libs want to focus on gun control for law abiding citizens instead of addressing the “hard” issues. The tools are there, but calling and identifying someone as mental will have the Left and ACLU all over it, although it would likely make a big dent in the problem. Pretty sure we can all agree the mass shooters are ALL mentally impaired.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, in your professional experience, simply having one of you diagnose a patient with PTSD is enough to strip them of their constitutionally protected rights without due process of law?

Ideally? No.

I was simply pointing out the double standard.

That said do you really think there are only five people across the entire military that shouldn't own a gun due to mental illness?

As I've said before PTSD doesn't imply violent tendencies. The same goes for depression. But I guarantee you there are more than five people in the military with these conditions that are a threat to themselves or others.

Just look at the numbers. This goes beyond the military having an outdated legal code. They're clearly under reporting cases of pretty much everything. Ultimately putting everyone at risk.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Krakatoa

So, in your professional experience, simply having one of you diagnose a patient with PTSD is enough to strip them of their constitutionally protected rights without due process of law?

Ideally? No.

I was simply pointing out the double standard.

That said do you really think there are only five people across the entire military that shouldn't own a gun due to mental illness?

As I've said before PTSD doesn't imply violent tendencies. The same goes for depression. But I guarantee you there are more than five people in the military with these conditions that are a threat to themselves or others.

Just look at the numbers. This goes beyond the military having an outdated legal code. They're clearly under reporting cases of pretty much everything. Ultimately putting everyone at risk.

What does "ideally no" mean as an answer? In fact, it's not an answer at all is it? So, I will ask again, as it is a simple yes or no answer, there is no gray area here.

So, in your professional experience, simply having one of you diagnose a patient with PTSD is enough to strip them of their constitutionally protected rights without due process of law?

BTW: The number is irrelevant, as it is most definitely not a numbers game. All it takes is one, as we have seen.