Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

Link

Dare I say it?

"And so it begins. . . . "

WASHINGTON – Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

What's next? Any vet with a TBI?

We'e going down a slippery slope here folks.

(I have a bad cold today, but had to share this.)

Talk amongst yourselves.

I think this is a bad idea.

Peace.
(I have to get a tissue and another toddy. )

It really is a sticky issue, IMO. On one hand, I know they are playing the worst kind of Gotcha games with innocent sounding questions about state of mind sometimes leading to rather rash actions in response. Not cool at all....

On the other hand, who wants the next John Rambo in the true original sense of that character, to be a neighbor with an arsenal? It's impossible to argue that some men do come back from war either broken by it or liking it TOO much. Either way...not the best idea to have carrying a gun give the mental health statutes written to cover it. How do they rightfully identify the latter without violating the rights of the former en masse? Sticky indeed...

Just my thinking... Hmm..

reply to post by beezzer


So if a veteran isnt good with money- he is somehow a threat to himself and others with a firearm?

They really are stretching with this bs-

This entire administration should be disarmed by that sort of mentality- look how bad they are with our money.


More attempts to disarm the public. Im shocked(not really).

Im sick of these politicians attacking vets and citizens because they cant get their house in order.

I just have to add, let's do a little profiling, shall we?

How many returning vets, with TBI's have used a firearm illegally?

Look at gun crime in any major city.

Are vets causing it?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Vets who really do need help may not get it now, especialy if they want to take away weapons.

reply to post by beezzer


I will agree this is a "sticky" issue. Specifically revolving around the definition of:

mentally incompetent

Very vague and open ended terminology, potentially leaving the door open for further generalization.

However, at this point it does not seem to affect many

The number of veterans directly affected by the VA's policy doesn't appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.

But I will add that a slippery slope has to start somewhere...

I would really need to see the evaluation process that is used to deem vets "mentally incompetent" or not, further I would need to see a connection be made that financial incompetence is directly linked to firearm incompetence.

I think they should be looking at the people that the government is just giving money to. Welfare recipients should be the first ones to look at. They can't put food on the table for their kids but they can go out and buy guns and ammo when their check and kids SSI money comes in.
My brother is one of those people. Never worked a day in his life, gets food stamps, SSI for his son, SSI for himself and buys a new(used) gun every month or trades his gun in for a BIGGER cal gun and ends up paying more for it.
I am a vet, and I can control myself better than him. I have a gun, but it is collecting dust. I only shot a box of shells through it when I bought it, that was a year ago.

I am not sure what financial ability would have to do with handling a weapon (other than a check book). If there is one thing a veteran knows how to use properly it is personal weapons.

That being said. there ARE mental disorders that are suffered by returning troops that I feel could be used to deny gun ownership until signed off on by the proper medical professionals.

reply to post by beezzer

I do agree, it is vague and that hurts things. It never helps. The guidelines for reporting status to the national registry should be clear and known by anyone who cares to ask or look it up. There is no justification or reason to be all clever or sneaky about 'getting' their fellow Americans. If someone is truly unstable enough to lose their gun rights, I'd say they are likely beyond faking that to bluff. If they aren't? Perhaps we need to evaluate where the lines are, indeed.

I will say though, there are vets that are an outright menace to society and everyone in it. They aren't the majority. In fact, they aren't even that many, in my view. The ones who really get off on the killing or are so screwed up, they see the enemy in the room with them at night. We can't say those types don't exist....right? We just need a system that cares about using the laws as intended. Not as an excuse to capture as many as possible to the lists.

What a crock........

Im surprised Bats, Hammers, and chopsticks are not part of this bill either.

"mentally incompetent" = Government

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Not as an excuse to capture as many as possible to the lists.

And once you make one list, you make them all don't you? Since the gov likes to 'compile databases' and all.

'It's a twofer!'

Another case of big brother government looking out for our "safety." The government already thinks that veterans such as myself are potential terrorists. So they train us to kill and defend freedom but only so long as the killing and defending of freedom lie within their interests. After that they dearm us and throw us onto a watch list. What's next, after you ets you get sent straight to a detention center for your government mandated lobotomy?

reply to post by Montana


I dread the ramifications for people being on a government "list". Very rarely has anything "good" been associated with being noticed by the federal government.

Historical precedence is evident of that.

How soon before that List's heading changes to something more condemning?

What percentage of returning vets have commited crimes wth firearms?

What percentage of people on welfare have commited crimes with firearms?

And who are they targeting??????

Originally posted by beezzer
What percentage of returning vets have commited crimes wth firearms?

What percentage of people on welfare have commited crimes with firearms?

And who are they targeting??????

All Pointless.

Vets are "mentally incompetent", and should be treated as so.


Lets make a Bill that can point the finger at Veterans.



(Sarcasm)

I am surrised at the ery HIGH opinion some ofyou hold of yourselves.
HTF do you get off judgin others?
he hypocrisy is rife here,,,
There are lots of menally incompetent civillians with gun rights, but this is directed specifically at veterans....
and you oh so much better people potificate upon their rights which they spent part of their lives actually defending with their own lives on the line.....
I Know that the" mental help" system is a farce and a lie...the people who make their living from it are so #ed up themselves they are badly in need of help.
They are incompetent in so many areas its ridiculous.....
THIS IS A PLOY!
You people are falling for it because it makes you feel superior to those vets......it obvious you havent a clue
MY advice is get a life and mind yer own business.....stay out of the judging game.
tuthflly i could vomit right now you are so damn sickening with your comments.

reply to post by Montana

All I am saying is..lets not get SO fanatic about how everyone must be protected at all costs...and so defensive in saying a basis for these laws don't exist, that we end up seeing people killed for having missed a guy who should have been caught by the system. It's happened enough to be a legit concern, I'd say.

No one can argue in good faith, I believe, that the system hasn't gone just bananas in trying to FIND people to add to their infernal lists.....but it's important to recall the lists DO exist for a reason and the reason predates the power tripping morons who are wielding the mighty pens to add names right now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Why not just keep it on a case by case basis?

Why blanket it?

reply to post by beezzer

Well, I would have thought that was how it comes down in the end now, isn't it? We need guidelines though. Something to go by. If we didn't have those....think for a moment about the other way this could go. You surely suggest more case by case and less guidelines assuming the direct attention and discretion would be a good thing.

What if we get a flaming anti-war activist working their way up the ranks of the V.A. and holding a real grudge against anything that's fired a shot in anger? Suddenly the guidelines work to save guys from that extreme as much as bad guidelines which are too vague tend to catch far too many right now. No one said anything about the V.A. or Vets system works very well......the whole thing needs rebuilt, IMO.