04-19-2015, 21:14
|
#1
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,423
|
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?
|
|
Flagg is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 06:13
|
#2
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,989
|
^^^Are you, f******, kidding me?
__________________
"Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag, puke, piece 'o shit, Private Pyle, or did you have to work at it?" - GySgt Hartman
|
|
sinjefe is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 06:40
|
#3
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lone Star
Posts: 2,153
|
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
__________________
"we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" Rom. 5:3-4
"So we can suffer, and in suffering we know who we are" David Goggins
"Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera " Jehanne, la Pucelle
Der, der Geld verliert, verliert einiges;
Der, der einen Freund verliert, verliert viel mehr;
Der, der das Vertrauen verliert, verliert alles.
INDNJC
|
|
frostfire is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 19:02
|
#4
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,423
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjefe
^^^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.
|
|
Flagg is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 06:49
|
#5
|
|
Guerrilla Chief
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 704
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flagg
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.
Last edited by Five-O; 04-20-2015 at 09:16.
|
|
Five-O is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:59
|
#6
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 5,894
|
Remove the taboo?
Bullshit - we are simply trying to redefine the taboo.
I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Screen Actors Guild, The Boy Scouts, The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly. These opinions are provided purely as overly sarcastic social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.
"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Last edited by Box; 04-20-2015 at 09:03.
|
|
Box is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 11:05
|
#7
|
|
Guerrilla
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 370
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O
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.
__________________
It is those who believe that written constitutions can protect the individual from the exercise of state power who
hold to a baseless idealism, particularly when it is the state’s judicial powers of interpretation that define the range of such authority.
J. Albert Nock
Don’t let facts interfere with your insanity
|
|
Stiletto11 is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 12:44
|
#8
|
|
Guerrilla Chief
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 704
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiletto11
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.
Last edited by Five-O; 04-20-2015 at 12:50.
|
|
Five-O is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 12:51
|
#9
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 4,701
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O
--- 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.
__________________
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
|
|
Peregrino is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 13:01
|
#10
|
|
Guerrilla Chief
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 704
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrino
I'm betting you don't have a lot of experience dealing with vindictive ex-wives.
|
HAHA. Nooooo not at alllll. 
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.
Last edited by Five-O; 04-20-2015 at 16:38.
|
|
Five-O is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 15:22
|
#11
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,073
|
Wait a minute - it's the vindictive ex-wives with the mental issues right?
__________________
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time - Leo Tolstoy
It's Never Crowded Along the Extra Mile - Wayne Dyer
WOKE = Willfully Overlooking Known Evil
|
|
MR2 is offline
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 19:06
|
#12
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,423
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O
State by State, those mechanisms already exist (Vets and non-vets alike) for people in crisis. Zero need for the Feds involvement.
|
Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-O
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?
|
|
Flagg is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:23.
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
