Mentally Ill and Firearms

To the OP.

Hello,

There is a resource for those of us on active duty that may apply to veterans also. It is called Military One Source. www.militaryonesource.com

They have several options for help including, IIRC, some anonymous treatment.

I will dig around while on-post tomorrow and see what else I can find. We have a pretty good VA office here at FT Lewis and a full-service VA hospital just a few miles away. I will ask around. I'll PM you and let you know what I find out.

Best to you,
Johnnie T.
 
Sure there are -- but it ain't gonna happen in the current political climate, any more than things like renewing the AWB are going to happen.

I know there's a lot of hysteria around about this, especially since the so-called "Veterans' Disarmament Act" (H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007). But it's just that, pretty much -- hysteria.
Click to expand...


Yep, we're safe for now, perhaps.


But,when you have politicians waiting in the wings for the right political climate to do those very things, then that's not hysteria--it's just not the right political climate for anti gun success.

As, Diane Feinstein said, and I heard her say it-- at a time and place of her choosing, she'll once again introduce the type of anti gun legislation she's been known to support. That climate existed before and it will, at some point, exist again.

And at some point, the highest court in the land will, once again, make an important court ruling. This time with re: to what constitutes reasonable restrictions--if they even agree take the case and take it out of the hands of the state.

We were one liberal justice from loosing it all, and that balance could easily tip far enough to the left to nullify some of their most recent pro second amendment ruling.

And, of course, there's his possible circumnavigation of the legislative process by executive order--- but that's another subject.
 
You might try contacting the Missouri Veterans Commission. They have a service program, with local counselors who specialize in navigating the VA system, and an ombudsman for the unusual stuff... They probably know how to get answers out of that system, since it's what they do for a living.

They also have a page for the Missouri Association of Veterans Organizations -- lists all the independent vets' groups who work with them (American Legion, VFW, etc.). Perhaps one of those groups might be able to help?
 
Vanya said:
Do you know of any cases in vets have lost their rights that way, AB? The standard for involuntary commitment is behavior, not just diagnosis, whether the latter is accurate or not.
Click to expand...
Currently, no. But as Nnobby45 alluded to, the anti's are trying to revise the laws (or the regulations) such that any serviceman or veteran who has EVER been diagnosed with PTSD will be permanently barred from firearms possession.

The proposals floated so far literally make no provision for treatment. Once diagnosed, you're barred for life even if you successfully undergo treatment. This is why service personnel and veterans are scared so silly about these proposals. They are a one-way street to the permanent loss of a fundamental (to quote the SCOTUS) Constitutional right.

Vanya said:
The VA leaves a lot to be desired in terms of mental health treatment; my mother worked in that system for some years, and had stories that would curl your hair -- most of which involved civil-service deadwood, not bright-eyed youth. But for vets with few resources and major problems, it may still be better than nothing.
Click to expand...
For a sprained ankle or a broken leg, the VA may be minimally better than nothing. For mental health issues? I very much doubt it. I can't even trust the local VA to not prescribe medicines that they KNOW I'm allergic to. I should trust them with my Constitutiuonal rights? Not ... gonna ... happen.
 
Vanya said:
And a shrink, experienced or not, isn't, on his/her own, a "lawful authority." It requires action by a legal entity, not a medical one, to make such a determination.
Click to expand...

It is worth remembering though, that an administrative hearing by a government agency may qualify as a lawful authority, even if the process provided in such a hearing isn't all that thorough. And once you are in the "administrative" side of things, you may have to wait out a "final determination" from the agency in question before you can appeal that ruling to a federal court.

Which is not to say that people who think they might need treatment should avoid it; but just a reminder that agency administrative hearings need to be taken seriously.
 
Public Law 110-108

As I understand it, Public Law 110-180 (derived from H.R. 2640) enacted January 8, 2008 declares that any Veteran who has been treated by the VA for mental illness and "otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring" and the V.A. "may not provide their record to the Attorney General" (for listing in NCIC).

"SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION
TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND
CHECK SYSTEM.
(c) STANDARD FOR ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS RELATED
TO MENTAL HEALTH.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No department or agency of the Federal
Government may provide to the Attorney General any record
of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person
or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if—
(A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has
been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise
been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treat-
ment, supervision, or monitoring; "
Click to expand...

(B) and (C) expand on that above.

If a NCIC record has been created, the act provides for relief and describes the process of relief.

As I read it, if no NCIC record is created, there is no need for application for relief. In particular (a)(2)(B) states that ... "the adjudication or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States code."

I'm not an attorney (and I don't play one on TV), but that seems pretty clear to me. (Then again so does the 2nd Amendment!)

Clarification by actual attorneys is encouraged.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top