Senate Bill Would Allow "Mentally Incapacitated" Vets to Buy Guns

[Ichingcarpenter]

Major Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood Army base, has been described by former colleagues as "psychotic." As more details emerge about Hasan's troubled state, gun safety advocates are launching fresh attacks on a Senate bill they say would make it easier for mentally unstable veterans to buy firearms.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) says his "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" will protect veterans' gun rights. But the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calls it a "dangerous" proposal that could allow "over 100,000 mentally incapacitated or incompetent persons" to buy guns—people who would previously have been barred from doing so by the Veterans Administration (VA).

With debate over Fort Hood still raging on cable news, one might think that Burr might try to quietly shelve the measure, whose co-sponsors include Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Instead, Burr fired back at the Brady Campaign in an interview with Fox News, accusing its president, Paul Helmke, of using the tragedy to "exploit the senseless murder of American soldiers in the quest to secure personal triumph."


Snip................................

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/senate-bill-would-allow-mentally-incapacitated-vets-buy-guns

[Wounded Bear]

1. Gun nuts gone wild...

:shrug:

I love how someone else is "using the tragedy to exploit the senseless."

[rd_kent]

19. I love how you start right off using hyperbole and projection.

Perhaps you should observe for a while before posting.

And regardless about how you feel about guns, taking away a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT can only be done by DUE PROCESS.

[Wounded Bear]

24. Sounds to me like the current system does that...

People declared mentally incompetent to handle dangerous weapons shouldn't be allowed to carry them.

This proposal seems to overturn common sense. As for hyperbole and projection, I don't ascribe to the notion that every friggen' public safety measure is somehow a slippery slope to whatever favorite "ism" one chooses to invoke.

Don't let my low post count fool you. I've been here a couple of years, and I know that the gun rights debate can be pretty contentious. Frankly, I'm surprised you're the only gun nut who responded to my post.

;)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

29. Mythical, idealogical defense of their rights?

Really? As a 21 year Navy vet, I am appalled that you would condone removing the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS without due process, from those who have stood up to protect YOUR rights. Interesting, very interesting.

And is there some big issue that I missed where vets with PTSD are getting guns and killing people? Is this happening a lot somewhere and we just are not hearing about it?

There is a way to prevent mentally ill people from passing background checks. But what happens when they are "cured"? are they not allowed to legally obtain a gun?

And the go fuck yourself was for calling me a gun nut. Im willing to retract my statement if you are. Feel the love?

[Wounded Bear]

31. Again, I never said to suspend due process...

That is your assumption. If we are not hearing about vets with PTSD shooting people, I would assume that the current system is working. And frankly, I assume that when they are "cured" (I'm not sure that appellation applies, but I'll go along) that their rights are restored. Is there something written somewhere that says that isn't true? Enlighten me. :shrug:

I served 7 years USMC, during the Vietnam era. Please don't make the mistake of assuming I don't have sympathy for veteran's rights. What I do have is appreciation and respect for what war and combat can do to a person's mind and personality. And yes, I still think that public safety will often trump individual rights, at least in cases where the individual has known problems. If that were not true, we would have no criminal justice system at all.

And I'll still talk and type the way I do. This bill (in the OP) smells like another stab at expanding "gun rights" at the expense of public safety and common sense.

[pipoman]

48. Never heard that shit before...nope..never..

"Don't let my low post count fool you. I've been here a couple of years..."

[Altoid_Cyclist]

2. I would think that PTSD and guns are a dangerous combination.

We've already had ample evidence that the returning soldiers aren't receiving the help that they need.

I just hope that before they are cleared to own firearms, they receive all of the help that they need. Weren't the estimates of soldiers who would require psychological help after Iraq & Afghanistan somewhere around 300,000? My fault, it's even worse than that.

I found this by Unhappy Camper:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x5740

[slackmaster]

11. I've had a touch of PTSD since I was seven years old

Please don't paint PTSD sufferers with a broad brush.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

14. No offense intrended. I was commenting on the proposed legislation.

I was just referring to the large number of Vets that have returned or will be returning from these two wars and the percentage of them that will need help.

[cabluedem]

18. Anyone with mental problems does not need a gun. Suicide or homicide would be too easy. nt

[rd_kent]

26. What constitutes "mental problems"?

And who gets to decide?

[cabluedem]

41. County mental health, DOJ,ATF: quite a few people can take your guns away these days.nt

[slackmaster]

35. That's a very broad brush you are wielding there, cabluedem

Do you know anyone who has absolutely no "mental problems"?

[benEzra]

71. The MSM certainly likes to scaremonger about people with PTSD...

it would be nice not to have to address that shit here too.

PTSD is not sufficient grounds for revoking someone's civil rights---gun rights or otherwise. If someone is mentally incompetent or a danger to themselves or others, that's one thing, but merely seeking counseling for PTSD should most assuredly not be disqualifying, IMO.

Or would you rather returning soldiers, women who are raped, or families that suffer traumatic loss under stressful circumstances just not seek treatment, to avoid the potential lifelong stigma and loss of rights that the PTSD scaremongers are pushing?

No thanks...

[Hepburn]

3. Holy shit....

...gun loons gone crazy!

:wow:

How about some laws that make sure kiddos under the age of 10 can purchas guns....

...the the hell's the difference?

[Junkdrawer]

4. Incoming....

2nd Amendment Uber Alles posters in 5...4...3...2...

[Hepburn]

5. Oh, yeah, I can see this argument....

...."They can have his guns, when they pry them from his cold, dead crazy fingers after he has massacred a hundred people...."

[Junkdrawer]

6. I posted a thread about this bill a while back....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6945548

[Hepburn]

7. Thanks for the link...

...:hi:

[Recursion]

8. The worry is about the definition of "mentally incapacitated"

There have been some noises about preventing anyone who was, say, treated for depression or anxiety from exercising his right to bear arms. What does this bill actually say?

[Hepburn]

9. Frankly....

...if someone is under treatment for depression, he/she should not have a gun for reasons of his/her own safety.

JMHO

[Recursion]

10. What other civil rights should be denied him?

Or is that the only one? While we're at it, can we deny depressed women abortions?

[Hepburn]

12. Care for some of this to build your next...

...strawman?



Here is a hint:

Constitutional Rights are subject to balancing acts ~~ so you tell me, which is of more importance:

The right of a mentially ill person to purchase and possess firearms....or the right of the public to be safe from the same?

Hint: Review issues covered, for example, under a discussion of the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

23. Constitutional Rights ARE NOT subject to balancing acts...they are subject to DUE PROCESS.

And if someone getting treated for anxiety or depression is considered mentally ill, well then they are not responsible for ANY of their actions. They could kill, rape, steal, etc and not be responsible. You sure are quick to slide down that slippery slope.



So much for that straw you provided. This argument is a tin man.

[cabluedem]

16. We have been disarming 5150's for years. Whats the problem with that?

or do you want basket cases buying guns?

[Recursion]

30. I was asking what the criteria in the bill are

I have no idea under what circumstances it bars veterans from being denied firearms.

[slackmaster]

36. Nice use of bigoted language

or do you want basket cases buying guns?

Did your mama teach you to use terms like that?

[Recursion]

40. A) that's a phrase that offends a whole lot of disabled veterans

(A lot of people don't know that, and I certainly don't think you meant it offensively.)

B) "Basket cases" are quadruple amputees, and I doubt very many of them will carry firearms.

[rd_kent]

21. Any other rights you would like to remove without due process?

How about your right to free speech? This argument should not be about guns, it should be about circumventing the Constitution, which you apparently support. Did you also support Bush's warrantless wiretapping?

[JoeyT]

34. But but but

Stripping people of due process is only bad when Republicans do it! When we do it, it's always for exactly the right reasons!

[rd_kent]

39. Ahh, I see. What was I thinking?

[JoeyT]

52. No idea.

I think we must all be losing our minds from a combination of vaccine toxins, anti-depressants, and bluing kit residue. ;)

Edited to add: And plastic!

[cabluedem]

42. Its perfectly legal to confiscsate guns for many reasons. I happens every day of the week. Get over

it already.

[rd_kent]

43. Get over it? Shall we "get over" bush's unconstitutional wiretapping?

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. 'Was treated' or 'currently under treatment'?

There is a BIG difference.

90% of the stigma over mental illness is a lack of understanding that it IS a disease, which CAN be cured or controlled. A person having trouble today might be just fine five years from now.

'Mentally incapacitated' is pretty clear - somebody who CURRENTLY is not in control of his mental faculties.

[cabluedem]

17. Anyone on psych meds doesnt need access to firearms. We dont even let pilots fly on meds. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Absolutely. And if the doctor has taken the patient off the meds and

given him (or her) the all clear, there should be no impediment to access unless, of course, there are other legitimate reasons as well.

Passing legislation that prevents doctors from flagging someone as dangerous just can't work out well.

[JoeyT]

32. Good point.

Now define a psych med.
Benzodiazepines? (Xanax, Valium, etc) Those are also used to treat epilepsy.
Antipsychotics? Also used to prevent seizures.
Antidepressants? Used for a ton of stuff, depending on which one you're talking about. Wellbutrin, for instance, is commonly prescribed to help people stop smoking.
Topamax? Prescribed for weight loss and migranes.

When people dip a broad brush in the "psych med" paint, they generally don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Edited to add: It's a better idea to prevent people that *aren't* on medication having guns. After all, the ones that are on medication have sought treatment and are trying to make their lives better.

[slackmaster]

37. People who are on psychiatric medication have civil rights

Just like the rest of us.

[cabluedem]

45. Civil rights, yes. But not the right to own a firearm when they have mental deficits. nt

[slackmaster]

61. The standard for denying someone a right has to be objective

Not everyone with a "mental deficit" poses a threat.

[cabluedem]

82. And just WHO decides that ? The law, that's who! nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. You think you can't get a pilots license if you take prozac? Surely you aren't that silly.

[Kaleva]

15. How can the VA prevent anyone from buying a gun?

[cabluedem]

20. Easy. Flag the DOJ and the NICS system for his SS number. No guns can be sold that way to the mental

ill people who should not have guns.

[slackmaster]

38. That's not due process

Sorry, it's not right to allow someone to arbitrarily deny another person a civil right.

[cabluedem]

46. Happens all the time. I should know as I am an EMT and I see the police carting off the guns. nt

[pipoman]

50. After a crime or disturbance has occurred no doubt..n/t

[cabluedem]

56. No, not true. 5150's (72 hr lock down), child endangerment, court orders, the elderly feebleminded,

and those with DV, ever those who confided homicidal or suicidal thoughts and behaviors to their doctors, even drunk drivers; all have had their firearms legally siezed by law enforcement. Happens all the time, everyday of the week.

[pipoman]

59. All requiring some sort of order, disturbance, or crime.

Without an order, disturbance, or crime there is no legal authority for police to enter my residence, unless I voluntarily allow them in. I have no problem with any of that. If, however, any of my civil rights are going to be stripped from me there should be a requirement of due process. There may also be instances of rights temporarily being restricted through an ex parte order which allows for dispute at a later time (as would be the case with restraining orders or protection orders)...still the authorities would come with a court order to enter the residence and take possession of firearms.

[cabluedem]

62. Nope. Seen police confiscate guns from elderly folks who called 911 for a stroke / heart attack. nt

[pipoman]

63. Illegally...they can't take private property because they feel like it

then they certainly can't keep it without some sort of due process. Please post a cite which allows law enforcement in your or any other state to seize private property without due process. The absolute only thing I can think of is that you live in DC, Chi Town or one of the other soon to be overturned, unconstitutional, gun prohibitionist locations.

[benEzra]

72. They can hold a gun for you if you are being transported to a hospital

where you can't take the gun with you, but they have to return it to you or your family, unless the gun was being carried illegally.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. That's not confiscating.

I saw the cops secure 40k in cash from under a guys mattress after he died. They didn't confiscate it they secured it until the next of kin were located. Unless you also want to call that confiscation.

[eqfan592]

74. Ok, from several of your posts.

It seems that your standard of measurement on if something is a good thing to do is the frequency in which it happens already. I'm sorry, but just because something is done "all the time" doesn't make it right, and it's a damned poor argument to try and say otherwise.

[undeterred]

27. Now that is just brilliant.

Why don't we just release all the criminals and insane people and hand them guns on the way out? That's what the founding fathers meant by freedom.

:sarcasm:

[theHandpuppet]

58. You really can't talk common sense to the gun-obsessed

There are those among us who own guns, have used guns or hunt, and are totally in favor of reasonable restrictions or guidelines on who may possess firearms. There are also those who have such tunnel vision when it comes to guns that their obsession itself borders on a type of neurosis. I don't bother arguing the points anymore because logic and reason can't factor into the debate. "All guns, all the time to everyone" is a ridiculous way to interpret the Constitution and any reasonable person would agree with that.

[pipoman]

64. And there are those among us who

whole heartedly favor seizure of private property and stripping of Constitutional rights without due process....that is what you really like, no?

[eqfan592]

76. I'm sure it appears...

...from the point of view of somebody lacking logic and reason that those that don't agree with them lack in it. You don't bother "arguing the points" any more no doubt because they were shot down with the very logic and reason you claim those that disagree with you lack.

Sorry kiddo, but you're off base.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[anonymous171]

44. Hasan was not diagnosed as mentally ill. He stil could have bought a gun.

The Brady campaign is full of shit, as usual.

[defendandprotect]

47. Cause gun dealers need more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ no matter who's hurt -- !!!

[pipoman]

70. Uh, no, because veterans deserve to maintain

their rights until there is cause shown that they should not, through due process...no more, no less

[rd_kent]

85. What an ignorant post. Seems to be a trend....

[Merchant Marine]

49. Here's the critical caveat to the hyperbole

"Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act - Prohibits considering a veteran, surviving spouse, or child who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such veteran, surviving spouse, or child is a danger to him- or herself or others."

Read the last 2 lines, that's the real kicker. All this bill does is prevent the VA bureaucracy from arbitrarily disarming veterans WITHOUT FIRST CONVINCING A JUDGE THAT THE PERSON IS A THREAT TO SOCIETY. This bill restores the due process that is the cornerstone of American justice to veterans and their families.

So to all you people in this thread wailing about how the gun nuts want to arm the crazies, go fuck yourselves. If you'd bother to read the text of the bill rather than trust media talking points and the rethuglican brady campaign, you'd know that this is overturning a BUSH ERA RULING that lets doctors and bureaucrats arbitrarily bann vets from possessing guns without DUE CAUSE OR LEGAL RECOURSE. If you think that's fair, legal, righteous or american in any way shape or form then there is no hope for this country's future.

[Merchant Marine]

55. Come on now everyone

fess up that you didn't actually read the legislation...

[Junkdrawer]

60. "rethuglican brady campaign"....Yep. No gun nut here...

:eyes:

[Merchant Marine]

66. Address my points

Or get the hell out. The Brady campaign was founded by Sarah Brady, a republican, and is run by Helmke, a former republican. They're trying to drive the Democratic party into repeating the 1994 AWB which put gingrich into power.

[Junkdrawer]

68. Only the most ardent NRA supporters try those talking points here

Just Don't Hold Water

[Merchant Marine]

69. Are you going to talk about the bill

or just drop talking points of your own? The bill restores due process rights to veterans. Do you oppose due process?

Heck, I'll post the summary again.

Currently, when the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) appoints a fiduciary to assist a veteran with managing their financial affairs, VA also deems the veteran mentally incompetent and reports him or her to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial body to deem a veteran, surviving spouse, or child as a danger to himself or others before being listed in NICS, which would prohibit the veteran from being able to purchase certain firearms. The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Please address this. Currently the VA can prohibit a widow or child of a veteran from buying guns because the veteran has VA assistance with financial matters. Is that right? On the same note, should we deem anyone who uses the financial help of a tax attorney a "mental incompetent"?

[eqfan592]

77. It doesn't take a "gun nut" to see the brady campaign is run be republicans..

...and is about as full of shit as can be.

[Euromutt]

87. No, actually that's a fair assessment

Paul Helmke, currently the president of the Brady Campaign, is a Republican, and the Bradies themselves were staunch Republicans until James got shot. It's known that Sarah subsequently became a registered Independent, but there's no reason to assume she vehemently disagrees with the GOP on any issue except gun control.

And once you've looked at the leadership of the Brady Campaign, you've in effect looked at the entire membership, since the Brady Campaign doesn't have members, only "supporters," and they count anyone who so much as writes them an e-mail requesting information as a "supporter."

The overall picture fits that of the more patrician variety of Republican, the kind who doesn't trust "those people" to own a firearm. "Those people" being ethnic minorities, immigrants, the lower classes, etc.

[johnaries]

51. TN already passed a similar bill, by allowing guns into bars.

The major group trying to overturn this law? Bar owners. Who can blame them?

[Merchant Marine]

53. How in the heck

Is carry in bars even remotely connected to restoring the due process rights of veterans? Are you seriously that ignorant, or do you just see "guns" and flail at your keyboard?

[johnaries]

73. You have totally missed the point. The key term is NOT "veteran".

It is "mentally incapacitated". Someine who is drunk could easily be mentally incapcitated. Anyone who is mentally unstable should not be allowed to carry a gun, regardless of their previous status.

BTW, I am a veteran.

[rd_kent]

84. Being drunk is not mental incapacitation.

If it were, one would not be held accountable for ones actions, such as drunk driving......

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. I can't believe the Bush wannabes on DU now days.

I know we have a bunch of vet haters here but this is ridiculous.

[The Straight Story]

57. I wonder if the thread was titled "right to free speech and freedom of religion"

If anyone would be complaining about giving someone their 1st amendment rights - or other ones.

The amendments are not multiple choice...

[Euromutt]

86. I think a 4th Amendment analogy might be more effective

Obviously, it would be in everybody's best interests if government officials--law enforcement, social services, etc.--had the authority to enter and search at will the dwelling of a person deemed to be "mentally incapacitated" by some VA bureaucrat, wouldn't it? While we're at it, we should probably allow searches at will of people deemed to be "politically unreliable" by some member of the executive branch of government as well.

There's no constitutional issue here: the 4th Amendment only speaks of the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. These searches would be perfectly reasonable, and therefore not violate that right.

(I hope everyone realizes I'm being sarcastic there.)

[pipoman]

65. By all means

let's get our 'facts' from the notoriously honest and forthright, lifetime republican Paul Helmke, shall we?

[Merchant Marine]

67. From vawatchdog.org...

"Currently, when the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) appoints a fiduciary to assist a veteran with managing their financial affairs, VA also deems the veteran mentally incompetent and reports him or her to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial body to deem a veteran, surviving spouse, or child as a danger to himself or others before being listed in NICS, which would prohibit the veteran from being able to purchase certain firearms. The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart."

That sums it up right there. What's the problem with this legislation again?

[eqfan592]

78. Come now.

Many of these drooling-mouthed so called "progressives" didn't bother to read it at all. They just saw that it involves guns, and it doesn't make it easier to control them or rob people of their rights, so they automatically thought it was bad. Due process with our vets? We don't need that! They just fought and sacrificed for their country! Fuck 'em!

[rd_kent]

83. Hey, stop posting facts. Posting facts makes you a gun nut!

[Nikki Stone1]

75. .

.

[Kaleva]

79. This bill needs to be supported by DUers and here's why:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/military_veterans_guns_042709w/

"The bill, S 669, which has 15 co-sponsors, would prohibit VA from submitting names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judicial authority finds the individuals to be a danger to themselves or others.

VA has been turning over the names of veterans who have had someone else appointed to handle their financial affairs. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., ranking Republican on the veterans committee and sponsor of the bill, said VA has sent names of more than 117,000 veterans to the Justice Department since 1998 under the policy."

"Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is one of several veterans groups backing Burr’s bill because questions about gun ownership have interfered with other legislation, such as a veterans suicide prevention bill approved two years ago.

'Although there is still no danger a veteran will lose their right to carry a firearm for seeking treatment for , we offer our support for this legislation in the hopes it will quell any fears veterans might have about seeking treatment for mental health injuries,' said Patrick Campbell, IAVA’s chief legislative counsel.

Campbell was referring to rampant rumors that VA might begin providing the Justice Department with names of veterans who seek help for PTSD or other mental health issues."

[Kaleva]

88. Just wrote to my Rep and Senators asking them to support this bill.

What I wrote to Senator Levin:

"Dear Senator Levin,

I'm writing to ask that you seriously consider co-sponsoring and supporting the S. 669 Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. Below I quote an excerpt from a recent Navy Times article:

" 'Although there is still no danger a veteran will lose their right to carry a firearm for seeking treatment for , we offer our support for this legislation in the hopes it will quell any fears veterans might have about seeking treatment for mental health injuries,' said Patrick Campbell, IAVA’s (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America )chief legislative counsel. "

I think it very important that our returning veterans can seek help from the VA without fear of losing their right to own a gun unless deemed a danger to themselves or others by a judiciary.

I thank you in advance for your time and effort."

[aikoaiko]

89. Its pretty obvious that vets with problems should be afforded the same protections as everyone else

Its shouldn't be any easier to strip 2nd Amendment rights from a vet compared to any other law abiding legal resident of the US who happens to be having some psychological problems.

[upi402]

90. It's the psychological problems part that worries me

I'm not concerned if the gun buyer is a vet or a non vet, myself. Ya gotta be rock solid with no slips to tote one. There are tons of convicted felons who are mentally solid and very stable now. But they aren't allowed to own guns.

[Kaleva]

91. Most people are not criminals because of a treatable medical condition