Veterans’ Gun Rights - Page 2

Woody55 · December 5, 2012, 10:24 AM

"Not being able to handle your own affairs" and being "a danger to yourself and others" are two completely different things. The former should have nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment rights.

In extreme cases, I don't have any problem with the VA having the power to temporarily restrict the right to possess a firearm. However, the veteran should have the right to a rapid review of the decision, and ultimately it should be decided by the courts - not an administrative agency.

For questionable cases, the VA should have to apply for a restriction from the courts. Or at least from an administrative court with a well defined appeal process to a real court.

Ludwig Von Mises · December 9, 2012, 09:27 AM

Specifically they are referring to a 5150 hold, involuntary commitment, "pink slip", what have you, which can run the gamut from drug overdoses to suicidal actions or intentions to good old fashioned hysteria.

I do agree that the law should be clarified, because I've met some guys that turned absolutely psychotic in the sandbox, but I do not believe that this represents anywhere near the majority of "PTSD" cases, and I do not believe that the VA should have anything to do with the process.

thallub · December 10, 2012, 01:56 PM

Coburn backed off at the request of senator McCain and others. McCain was reluctant to rock the boat.

So much for "taking care of our veterans".

BGutzman · December 10, 2012, 06:04 PM

The court should have to decide each case on a one by one basis, the VA should not have unilateral power... Congress as a whole seems to think it has few if any constitutional bounds...

I leave it at that...

December 9, 2012, 09:27 AM	#27
Ludwig Von Mises Member Join Date: September 24, 2012 Location: Nowhere in particular Posts: 52	Specifically they are referring to a 5150 hold, involuntary commitment, "pink slip", what have you, which can run the gamut from drug overdoses to suicidal actions or intentions to good old fashioned hysteria. I do agree that the law should be clarified, because I've met some guys that turned absolutely psychotic in the sandbox, but I do not believe that this represents anywhere near the majority of "PTSD" cases, and I do not believe that the VA should have anything to do with the process. Last edited by Tom Servo; December 9, 2012 at 10:19 AM. Reason: Not L&CR relevant

December 10, 2012, 06:04 PM	#29
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	The court should have to decide each case on a one by one basis, the VA should not have unilateral power... Congress as a whole seems to think it has few if any constitutional bounds... I leave it at that... __________________ Molon Labe

December 5, 2012, 10:24 AM	#26
Woody55 Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2012 Location: East Texas Posts: 407	"Not being able to handle your own affairs" and being "a danger to yourself and others" are two completely different things. The former should have nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment rights. In extreme cases, I don't have any problem with the VA having the power to temporarily restrict the right to possess a firearm. However, the veteran should have the right to a rapid review of the decision, and ultimately it should be decided by the courts - not an administrative agency. For questionable cases, the VA should have to apply for a restriction from the courts. Or at least from an administrative court with a well defined appeal process to a real court.

December 10, 2012, 01:56 PM	#28
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	Coburn backed off at the request of senator McCain and others. McCain was reluctant to rock the boat. So much for "taking care of our veterans".