On Combat - Grossman

[Smokin Joe]

Razor hit the nail on the head.

[82ndtrooper]

"Adjuticated mentally defective" Adjudicated being the key word in the current 4473 question. As I have alway's understood it, it is to be that you have been adjuticated mentally defective by a doctor and the courts. The Va Tech shootings being the catalyst to a change in the statute to have mandatory records reported to the database for an NCIS check.

Such as any patient that has been placed under psychiatric care by order of the courts or unwillingly by the court. A person who has chosen to undergo treatment, of his or her own accord, would not be considered adjuticated mentally defective necessarily due to the nature of basically having the fortitude to ask for such type of care. Unless that patient is in fact found to be mentally defective by his or her doctor/care provider. To which point under the new legislation would force care providers to forward such a finding to the proper authorities.

The catch 22 is that I believe the legislation did in fact ask for the disclosure of PTSD patients. As was done with some 8,000 or so veterans through the VA system.

It is a wide net, as Razor stated, and is clearly a labeling practice if in fact all PTSD patients from the VA would be consumed into the NCIS check system.

Another part that I find interesting is that Hillary's health Care proposal would call for a national data base of medical records. This is an easy backdoor entrance to placing an awful lot of individuals into the system that are not currently in the system. It also makes it easier for legislating what I referred to in my original post. If PTSD is accepted now, will being simply depressed or having an anxiety disorder which calls for medication be the next step. Especially when medical records are in a national data base under Hillary's proposed plan. Seems to me they are trying to sneek infringement of the RKBA through a very narrow proposal dressed like burnt cake but with nice iceing on top. Hillary's words on GMA. "In case your in an accident while on vacation and need to be treated in an out of town urgent care or emergency room your records will be readily available for the doctors to treat you"

That's a nice way of saying "We're doing away with doctor patient confidentiality and prying into your personal lives" This also holds true of the legislation concerning the above referrenced issues. Maybe I'm wearing a tin foil hat, but then again these same people just called the top General in Iraq a "Traitor" and "Betraying us" in the New York Times.

As for Grossman. I've never cared for his books and didn't read this one.

[Razor]

Heck, we can trust Congress to use well-established, unadulterated definitions in legislation, right? Just take for example the word 'assault rifle'. Everyone knows that an assault rifle is a magazine fed rifle that fires a high power cartridge and--this is the key characteristic--is capable of fully automatic fire. The military, the experts on this type of weapon, has used this definition for almost 100 years, so its the standard. Surely no legislator would redefine the word to exclude the fully-automatic fire description, and arbitrarily add non-pertinent characteristics in order to suit their own agenda, right?

Hey, does that PTSD legislation also take away a person's driver's license, as they cause massive casualties far more easily in a 4000lbs mass traveling at 60mph than they can with a firearm?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Razor

Hey, does that PTSD legislation also take away a person's driver's license, as they cause massive casualties far more easily in a 4000lbs mass traveling at 60mph than they can with a firearm?

No, everyone knows that the inalienable right to drive a car is in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned an assault rifle when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

And steel does not melt in fire.

TR

[tom kelly]

This is another example of the Ultra Liberal Left career politicans attempt to help the United Nations to deprive U S citizens of their 2nd Admendment Rights,Before you vote,Think about the candidates position and agenda on The 2nd Admendment...Regards,tom kelly

[jatx]

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

The catch 22 is that I believe the legislation did in fact ask for the disclosure of PTSD patients. As was done with some 8,000 or so veterans through the VA system.

82nd, this is such a gross misstatement of the facts that I wonder whether you have, in fact, actually read the legislation for yourself.

Gentlemen, this legislation does not single out soldiers diagnosed with PTSD, or any other condition, for special treatment under the law. It does not widen the definition of "mentally defective" and it does not lower the requirements for "adjudication", either.

In fact, it does quite the opposite. To quote the Congressional Research Service, Section 101, "Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs."

This represents an increased level of protection for persons with mental health disorders, coupled with financial incentives to the states to keep the NICS database up to date! In addition, the legislation contains no provisions aimed at persons who voluntarily seek treatment for mental health issues.

Larry Pratt, in the widely-quoted article that started this Internet fiasco, apparently singled out Section 102 at random. It contains none of the the language or provisions which he so disingenuously claims. This is a prime example of the sort of Internet scare-mongering that I hoped this site was above.

You may find complete text of the final bill at the following site: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640.

For more information, the NRA website offers an excellent overview: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=219&issue=018

[82ndtrooper]

JATX:

You are correct. After some searching and reading I found that these statements are the product of internet rumor. Something we do not want to continue on this board. We can both agree on that. Although he addresses the fact that 80,000 patients had been dumped into the NCIS database in 2000. Something more to think about. In my opinion it's going to be much harder to be taken off the list than it certainly is to get on it.

Below is what I found @ vawatchdog.org. It seems to address what has become wide spread rumor on the net. Although it also seems to suggest that some VA patients had already been dumped into the system even though he writes that it's rumor.

VAWATCHDOG.ORG

One of the good things about the Internet is that so much information is available to so many.

One of the bad things about the Internet is that anyone can write anything...and there's always going to be someone who will accept it as truth.

Currently, we have that problem.

An article currently appearing on many web sites and blogs speaks of the "Veterans Disarmament Act" and goes on to indicate that veterans with PTSD will have firearms taken away or will not be able to buy firearms (different variations of the article are floating around).

There is no such thing as the "Veterans Disarmament Act." It is a name someone made up.

The bill, if passed, would not take away any firearms nor would it prevent veterans with PTSD from obtaining firearms.

In fact, the bill, if passed, could actually help many veterans who might be on the "no buy" firearms list get off it.

The legislation referred to is H.R. 2640, the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. You can find the full legislation on Thomas by typing in the bill number...do that here...
http://thomas.loc.gov/

In 2000, the VA gave the names of 83,000 vets to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. Some sources say this number is 89,000, or even higher.

The names were of veterans who, in theory, had been admitted to VA psychiatric units. Some claim these names were of vets who were involuntarily admitted...others say it included all admissions. We don't know for sure, but I suspect it was all admissions.

According to federal regulations, firearms and ammo cannot be sold to anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." This is just one of nine categories of persons prevented from buying firearms or ammo...complete list is here... http://www4.law
.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us
c_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

"Any mental institution" would, obviously, include a VA hospital mental ward. And, the government's definition of a "mental defective" is: “A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.”

One of the problems with the 2000 data dump was that there was no way to get off this list.

But, H.R. 2640 is trying to resolve that situation. The NRA, working with Democratic lawmakers, has come up with some unique solutions. Read previous article about this here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/
nf07/nfJUN07/nf061107-3.htm

Now, take a look at the above-mentioned provisions in the bill...



(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.



Note that a person cannot be put on the NCIS list solely for a "medical finding or disability." This would mean PTSD patients who have not been committed.

The bill would also require government agencies and states to update the information quarterly so that anyone who doesn't fall under the federal regulations would be removed from the list.

Also, the government must provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should no longer be on it. That provision reads:



(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.



H.R. 2640, as you can see, is NOT a "Veterans Disarmament Act" nor will it adversely affect veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD.

For those who believe in no controls on firearms purchases, H.R. 2640 goes too far.

For those who believe in strict gun control, H.R. 2640 doesn't go far enough.

You'll have to make up your own mind on this legislation. Just remember, it is NOT the "Veterans Disarmament Act."



For more about veterans and guns, use the VA Watchdog search engine...click here...
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/ses
search.php?q=gun+guns&op=or

-------------------------

Larry Scott --

[jatx]

82nd, thanks for helping me to put this straight. Hopefully, the new legislation will help veterans and others who have received mental health care in the past to have their names removed from the NICS database.

I must admit to being a bit mystified by all of this. The real motivation of the pro-gun groups opposed to the bill is unclear.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by jatx

82nd, thanks for helping me to put this straight. Hopefully, the new legislation will help veterans and others who have received mental health care in the past to have their names removed from the NICS database.

I must admit to being a bit mystified by all of this. The real motivation of the pro-gun groups opposed to the bill is unclear.

My father said to me time and again "Grown ups admit their mistakes, children just whine and insist that they are still right"

I took the grown up route.

[Michelle]

What an AWESOME thread hijack this has turned into!

I'm serious... I even contributed to the hijack... maybe the subject should be split out though since it seems far more interesting than David Grossman's second book.

m1

[82ndtrooper]

Michelle:

Since I was part of the hijack crew I'll take this opportunity to apologize.

Though I seem to remember TR got it started.

Jatx gave you a great idea though.