View Full Version : DOJ gun ban unfair to veterans
Grassley: DOJ gun ban unfair to veterans
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/239012-doj-gun-ban-unfair-to-vets-republican-says
"....According to a 2013 Senate report, the Department of Veteran Affairs is responsible for reporting more than 143,000 beneficiaries, including about 83,000 veterans, to the “mental defective” category of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System....."
I thought somebody would have brought this up by now.
Told y'all this would happen.
Will be more and more every year.
Our veterans are a threat to progressive sovereignty anyway; why WOULDN'T the VA want to help disarm them?
Just another case of America getting what she has asked for.
I would think there would be some case by case legitimate need to try to protect some veterans from self-harm during a recovery period.
How could you go about doing it appropriately without denying folks their rights?
Would some form of voluntary, temporary, non-reportable firearms custodianship policy work?
^^^Are you, f******, kidding me?
frostfire
04-20-2015, 06:40
I know few folks who avoid the behavioral health system for this very reason...
yet we are trying to remove the taboo. Sad, just sad
I would think there would be some case by case legitimate need to try to protect some veterans from self-harm during a recovery period.
How could you go about doing it appropriately without denying folks their rights?
Would some form of voluntary, temporary, non-reportable firearms custodianship policy work?
State by State, those mechanisms already exist (Vets and non-vets alike) for people in crisis. Zero need for the Feds involvement.
Remove the taboo?
Bullshit - we are simply trying to redefine the taboo.
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Stiletto11
04-20-2015, 11:05
State by State, those mechanisms already exist (Vets and non-vets alike) for people in crisis. Zero need for the Feds involvement.
Define "crisis: and who determines it? Seems gray to me.
Define "crisis: and who determines it? Seems gray to me.
Usually a family member or a person who knows the person well, possibly a family physician or psychiatrist. They can call police State/City/Local and request the proper form (the name varies by state). A police officer , if he witnesses a threat, may also complete the form. The form is filled out (biographical) and there is a portion where a narrative is completed. The narrative will describe specific actions the person took which renders him/her a threat to themselves or others or that the person is incapable of caring for him/herself. Threat is defined as a person who, within the last 30 days, has made threats to harm himself or to harm others. An aggravating factor can be if a person makes a specific threat and has the means to carry out that threat. The form, once completed, is emailed, faxed or hand carried to a healthcare provider (mental health MD) who makes the final decision to detain the person in question for (in PA) 72 hours; not a jail but a mental health facility. If , after speaking with the person, the medical professional agrees they need to be detained, firearm(s) are to be secured by police or a responsible family member. This is in non-criminal cases. So in short, its typically not one person who makes the decision. Once released, the firearm(s) if in police custody, are returned to the person in question.
Peregrino
04-20-2015, 12:51
--- So in short, its typically not one person who makes the decision.
I'm betting you don't have a lot of experience dealing with vindictive ex-wives.
I'm betting you don't have a lot of experience dealing with vindictive ex-wives.
HAHA. Nooooo not at alllll. :rolleyes:
Many of us have at least one vindictive wife running around out there anyway.....
The "system" is far from perfect and I would think all the checks on the above process catches the "vindictive wife" BS calls. That is where a little experience and common sense come into play. People are also advised when they fill out the paperwork that a false report to police is a crime that will be prosecuted.
Below is a link to mental healthcare facility that does the best they can with very limited resources...they also have a veteran specific program(s).
http://www.mces.org/pages/crisisint_involcomm.php
More to the point of this thread, if no criminal charges are filed this will not follow the person. It will obviously remain a matter of record with the involved PD/agency but if a person is run through CLEAN or NCIC it won't come up. I suppose it will be up to the person involved to disclose it if and when they decided to buy another firearm. Also, I'm not clear on whether or not this an incident that gets a UCR data point.
Wait a minute - it's the vindictive ex-wives with the mental issues right?
Wait a minute - it's the vindictive ex-wives with the mental issues right?
Indeed they are...and half of the weapons in the residence are theirs...UNTIL they need to be reported as yours for reporting purposes.
The Reaper
04-20-2015, 16:55
Take one asshole with a grudge against a gun owner, and add either:
1. A gun hating cop
2. An overzealous prosecuting attorney
3. A liberal judge
And your rights and collection just disappeared.
TR
Stiletto11
04-20-2015, 18:00
Take one asshole with a grudge against a gun owner, and add either:
1. A gun hating cop
2. An overzealous prosecuting attorney
3. A liberal judge
And your rights and collection just disappeared.
TR
Yup, and they will call it due process.
^^^Are you, f******, kidding me?
Sorry! I hope I'm not coming across the wrong way.
I was thinking more of an informal veterans community means of looking out for each other that could legally preempt the need for official and excessive government action.
I know a few folks living with PTS who have good days and bad days.
State by State, those mechanisms already exist (Vets and non-vets alike) for people in crisis. Zero need for the Feds involvement.
Cheers.
Usually a family member or a person who knows the person well, possibly a family physician or psychiatrist. They can call police State/City/Local and request the proper form (the name varies by state). A police officer , if he witnesses a threat, may also complete the form. The form is filled out (biographical) and there is a portion where a narrative is completed. The narrative will describe specific actions the person took which renders him/her a threat to themselves or others or that the person is incapable of caring for him/herself. Threat is defined as a person who, within the last 30 days, has made threats to harm himself or to harm others. An aggravating factor can be if a person makes a specific threat and has the means to carry out that threat. The form, once completed, is emailed, faxed or hand carried to a healthcare provider (mental health MD) who makes the final decision to detain the person in question for (in PA) 72 hours; not a jail but a mental health facility. If , after speaking with the person, the medical professional agrees they need to be detained, firearm(s) are to be secured by police or a responsible family member. This is in non-criminal cases. So in short, its typically not one person who makes the decision. Once released, the firearm(s) if in police custody, are returned to the person in question.
Any guess as to how often it gets to that?
Do you reckon friends/family often intervene earlier and preclude the need for official involvement?