The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 20, 2011, 05:38 PM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
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.
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 20, 2011, 05:44 PM   #27
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
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.
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 05:35 AM   #28
JustThisGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Posts: 311
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).

Quote:
"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; "
(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.
__________________
JustThisGuy

Mediocrity dominates over excellence in all things... except excellence.

Last edited by JustThisGuy; July 27, 2011 at 06:06 AM.
JustThisGuy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04014 seconds with 8 queries