7shooter
Member
I hope this covers service connected veterans with financial guardians.
Great News
- Thread starter jimbo728
- Start date
Tyrod
Member
A much larger issue is at stake here. Who gets to determine whether an individual is mentally capable of buying a gun. Here, in Florida, under the Baker Act, any medical employee from an EMT to a psychiatrist or any LE employee can have a person committed for a limited time for observation. Once committed, whether the results, are positive or negative will have a profound effect on that person's civil rights. Simply because the person was committed.
I know of a case, in another state, that has their own version of the Baker Act (most do). Apparently, during a regular doctor's office visit, the doctor didn't feel the patient was feeling enough depression from the recent passing of his long time wife. I rekon the guy was too stoic. So the doctor had the patient committed for 48 hours for observation. When the 48 hours had elapsed, the mental health professionals caring for the man, decided the man was displaying an appropriate amount of depression for the situation. A few weeks later the man's CCW was revoked simply because he had been committed. It didn't matter what the mental health professionals diagnosis was. Simply because he had been committed was enough to jerk his CCW.
The fellow fought the action and after nearly 2 years and many thousands of dollars later he got his CCW back.
In the case of SSDI a persons civil rights are denied if enough boxes are checked off. It doesn't even require human intervention as denial of civil rights can be exercised by computer. The de-humanization of citizens by automation.
I know of a case, in another state, that has their own version of the Baker Act (most do). Apparently, during a regular doctor's office visit, the doctor didn't feel the patient was feeling enough depression from the recent passing of his long time wife. I rekon the guy was too stoic. So the doctor had the patient committed for 48 hours for observation. When the 48 hours had elapsed, the mental health professionals caring for the man, decided the man was displaying an appropriate amount of depression for the situation. A few weeks later the man's CCW was revoked simply because he had been committed. It didn't matter what the mental health professionals diagnosis was. Simply because he had been committed was enough to jerk his CCW.
The fellow fought the action and after nearly 2 years and many thousands of dollars later he got his CCW back.
In the case of SSDI a persons civil rights are denied if enough boxes are checked off. It doesn't even require human intervention as denial of civil rights can be exercised by computer. The de-humanization of citizens by automation.
Last edited:
That is correct. Could be that you are in a wheelchair and can't easily get to your bank. You accept some help with that and suddenly you are a Prohibited Person. That's the kind of BS that made this move so outrageous. Saying that it only applied to dangerous mental cases is absurd.
I heard someone say recently, "for every new regulation we need to eliminate two old ones", sounds good to me.
Tyrod
Member
I have another interesting anecdote. A very good friend, that lives in another state. He's in one of those "Johnny come lately" shall issue states. He applied for his CCW and was denied for "mental health issues". To say he was surprised would be an understatement. He had never been under treatment for any mental health problems. He demanded a better explanation. He got it. Many years earlier (like 30), while trying to save his marriage, he and his 1st wife had gone to see a marriage counselor. As is usually the case, the counseling didn't take. Shortly thereafter the counseling clinic shut down. But, because the facility had county contracts, all their files were put in cold storage. So, many years later some clerk doing their due diligence on a CCW application finds these records. Apparently, no files were found, just an entry in an appointment book where my friend had seen a councilor. Based on that fact alone my friends CCW was denied.
Well, to make a short story long, my friend appealed and since the state couldn't produce any actual records they granted his CCW.
The moral of these stories is, don't get caught up in the mental health industry. You may have your rights trampled on.
Well, to make a short story long, my friend appealed and since the state couldn't produce any actual records they granted his CCW.
The moral of these stories is, don't get caught up in the mental health industry. You may have your rights trampled on.
Diablo982
Member
Totally incorrect. You must have applied to SSA requesting a check because you're too crazy to support yourself, AND are unable to manage your own money. Have a heart condition but unable to manage your affairs? You can still pass a background check. Stopped work because you can't control your homicidal urges, but have your disability check going straight to you? Head on down to your local gun store and fill out your 4473 without fear.
If you want to bash the regulation, at least read up on it. I get the NRA emails and read the articles, then I do my own independent research. We make fun of the liberal media skewing the facts; don't think it only happens on their side.
Last edited:
OP
jimbo728
Member
Bottom line is, SSI does not diagnose or treat any illness. They are qualified to do neither. If that were the case, every Government agency would have the power to strip any Right without due process.
Without due process, the key words.
Jim
Without due process, the key words.
Jim
Your understanding is at the least incomplete. The bolded section below are not diagnosis, they are categories.
For example what is an "Anxiety Related Disorder"? There are are many, including insomnia that do not present any danger to the patient or others, yet are categorized as disqualifiers.
What is an "Organic Mental Discorder"? How many are there, what is the treatment, and are they disqualifiers.
Same goes for Personality disorders. What are they, how are they treated, do they all present a danger to the patient or others.
The government cast a very wide net so as to make as many people (not all of them elderly) prohibited as possible.
Autism is not a mental illness, nor is there any evidence that Autistic people, at least those that can function in society are a danger to anyone. Those that are so severely ill that they can't function in society are unlikely to be physically able to handle a gun or mentally able to go through the process of obtaining one.
If you want to debate me, I suggest you get copies of the International Classification of Diseases Version 10 (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is now at version 5 and read through them.
You might also want to look at the newly released version of the 4473. That has greatly broadened the definition of mental illnesses that make one prohibited.
As with the VA, California, and New York laws, these were meant to take guns away from as many people as possible.
There has never been any legal determination that either the Sandy Hook or the Colorado theater shootings involved mental illness.
Under the previous set of rules, a person could petition a court to have their prohibited status due to mental illness reversed. There is no provision in that now.
You might want to do some more research before you reply and make more erroneous statements.
For example what is an "Anxiety Related Disorder"? There are are many, including insomnia that do not present any danger to the patient or others, yet are categorized as disqualifiers.
What is an "Organic Mental Discorder"? How many are there, what is the treatment, and are they disqualifiers.
Same goes for Personality disorders. What are they, how are they treated, do they all present a danger to the patient or others.
The government cast a very wide net so as to make as many people (not all of them elderly) prohibited as possible.
Autism is not a mental illness, nor is there any evidence that Autistic people, at least those that can function in society are a danger to anyone. Those that are so severely ill that they can't function in society are unlikely to be physically able to handle a gun or mentally able to go through the process of obtaining one.
If you want to debate me, I suggest you get copies of the International Classification of Diseases Version 10 (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is now at version 5 and read through them.
You might also want to look at the newly released version of the 4473. That has greatly broadened the definition of mental illnesses that make one prohibited.
As with the VA, California, and New York laws, these were meant to take guns away from as many people as possible.
There has never been any legal determination that either the Sandy Hook or the Colorado theater shootings involved mental illness.
Under the previous set of rules, a person could petition a court to have their prohibited status due to mental illness reversed. There is no provision in that now.
You might want to do some more research before you reply and make more erroneous statements.
Diablo982
Member
Sorry Gary, you lost me with this statement.
100% on the money. Assign a "Representative Payee" to help you out for any reason and your 2A rights were taken away. And they never even told you it was going to happen until after you signed. Then you got the bad news in the mail. Was the SS decree going to be just as bad as the VA decree? No way to tell since it never really went into full effect from what I can tell... but I'm guessing the answer would have been yes.
No one in the prior administration had made any secret about its intended purpose.
OP
jimbo728
Member
All it takes for a Veteran to get nixed is a "yes answer on a VA questionnaire to the question, "Do you feel you are under stress".
Your gun permit will be revoked and you are placed on the nix list.
Jim
Your gun permit will be revoked and you are placed on the nix list.
Jim
I'm not surprised since you have shown woeful ignorance on the topic with your posts.
I'll consider the source in any of your future posts.
I'll consider the source in any of your future posts.
Considering that the impetus for both "bans" was from the same people in the prior administration, they would be as close to identical as possible.
If you look at the revised wording on the January 2017 release of the 4473, it vastly broadens the definition of mental illness as well as who can make that determination. Previously it required a judicial determination, with due process, or an involuntary commitment to an inpatient mental institution. Now, (assuming I was either a VA patient or on SS) if a close family member died and I asked my primary care doctor for a mild anti depressant to help me through it, I'd become a PP with no way to appeal the disability.
Here is nice article on the topic, No, Congress Isn't Letting Mentally Ill People Get Guns
If you look at the revised wording on the January 2017 release of the 4473, it vastly broadens the definition of mental illness as well as who can make that determination. Previously it required a judicial determination, with due process, or an involuntary commitment to an inpatient mental institution. Now, (assuming I was either a VA patient or on SS) if a close family member died and I asked my primary care doctor for a mild anti depressant to help me through it, I'd become a PP with no way to appeal the disability.
Here is nice article on the topic, No, Congress Isn't Letting Mentally Ill People Get Guns
100% on the money. Assign a "Representative Payee" to help you out for any reason and your 2A rights were taken away. And they never even told you it was going to happen until after you signed. Then you got the bad news in the mail. Was the SS decree going to be just as bad as the VA decree? No way to tell since it never really went into full effect from what I can tell... but I'm guessing the answer would have been yes.
Last edited:
Diablo982
Member
Gary, for clarification I've forgotten more than you will ever know about the SSA disability program and representative payees, but that is neither here nor there. There was nothing inaccurate in my posts. I'd be glad to explain, but there really isn't a point.
Your post had some interesting points, but then you agrued there is no link between autism and violence (there is) and you put the cherry on top by saying the Sandy Hook and Colorado theater shooters didn't suffer from mental illness. At that point, I realized there is no point discussing further. You showed your true colors by implying Adam Lanza and James Holmes were normal dudes. FYI- besides being homicidal maniacs, they both have autism.
I just had a physical with a new primary care physician. They gave me a medical history questionaire before the exam. A few of the questions asked about stress, anxiety, malaise, etc.
The answers to all were no or none.
My wife does drive me a bit nuts, but I digress.
My old doctor knew better than to ask anything, this new one needs some training.
I have to confess that I couldn't care less about your expertise in SSA disability. You seem fixated on that despite the fact that most of the people being affected are not collecting disability but are collecting regular benefits. Whatever, obviously you don't want to be confused by facts.
As to Autism, please cite you evidence. As you might know, Autism is a spectrum. The people prone to violent outbursts are unlikely to be the people who can obtain guns for any number of reasons. My closest friend has a daughter on the spectrum. She has two Associated degrees, holds a full time job, and drives. I don't think she has any interest in guns, but she has never had a violent outburst either.
OTOH, a former co worker has a 17 year old son who is prone to acting out. What he lacks is intent, but that's a different story. In addition to his Autism, he is mentally retarded. There is no reason to ban him from obtaining firearms because he doesn't have the requisite intellect to obtain a license or buy a guy.
Saying that there is a connection between Autism and violence is lying by omission since the spectrum is so wide. It's as truthful as saying that there is a connection between having blue eyes and violence.
I never implied that Lanza and Holmes were normal. Lanza's history was not, according to the post attack report "no connection ... between [Lanza's] developmental profile and an increased likelihood of violent actions."
The jury rejected Holmes insanity plea. A propensity to violence doesn't automatically make one insane. Unless you are suggesting that people like Al Capone were insane and not just vicious criminals.
As I said earlier, your statements have, IMHO, disqualified you from having any valid opinions on the topic. Feel free to blather away and I'll feel free to ignore you.
As to Autism, please cite you evidence. As you might know, Autism is a spectrum. The people prone to violent outbursts are unlikely to be the people who can obtain guns for any number of reasons. My closest friend has a daughter on the spectrum. She has two Associated degrees, holds a full time job, and drives. I don't think she has any interest in guns, but she has never had a violent outburst either.
OTOH, a former co worker has a 17 year old son who is prone to acting out. What he lacks is intent, but that's a different story. In addition to his Autism, he is mentally retarded. There is no reason to ban him from obtaining firearms because he doesn't have the requisite intellect to obtain a license or buy a guy.
Saying that there is a connection between Autism and violence is lying by omission since the spectrum is so wide. It's as truthful as saying that there is a connection between having blue eyes and violence.
I never implied that Lanza and Holmes were normal. Lanza's history was not, according to the post attack report "no connection ... between [Lanza's] developmental profile and an increased likelihood of violent actions."
The jury rejected Holmes insanity plea. A propensity to violence doesn't automatically make one insane. Unless you are suggesting that people like Al Capone were insane and not just vicious criminals.
As I said earlier, your statements have, IMHO, disqualified you from having any valid opinions on the topic. Feel free to blather away and I'll feel free to ignore you.
Diablo982
Member
Facts: The regulation applies only to persons drawing disability for a mental condition AND having a representative payee appointed.
Eligibility for disability is having a mental or physical impairment which prevents the claimant from earning a substantial income for twelve months or will likely result in imminent death.(i.e. terminal cancer.)
SSA doesn't want to put people on disability. On the contrary they put a tremendous burden on the claimant to "prove" their condition is so severe, they can't function in a work enviornment. In the case of schizophrenia, the claimant will provide extensive medical records from their doctors showing they are "too crazy" to get along with co-workers, etc. Only after the claimant proves their own case of severe mental illness will an approval happen.
Finally, a medical professional makes a recommendation about the ability to manage funds. Based on this recommendation, SSA will appoint a representative payee.
Anecdotes about best friend's daughters having autism and being gainfully employed has NOTHING to do with SSA disability, but you wouldn't have a clue.
I'd have more respect for an argument of "Shall not be infringed" under ANY circumstances. It sure beats false assertions about SSA disability, mass killers and mental illness in general.
Eligibility for disability is having a mental or physical impairment which prevents the claimant from earning a substantial income for twelve months or will likely result in imminent death.(i.e. terminal cancer.)
SSA doesn't want to put people on disability. On the contrary they put a tremendous burden on the claimant to "prove" their condition is so severe, they can't function in a work enviornment. In the case of schizophrenia, the claimant will provide extensive medical records from their doctors showing they are "too crazy" to get along with co-workers, etc. Only after the claimant proves their own case of severe mental illness will an approval happen.
Finally, a medical professional makes a recommendation about the ability to manage funds. Based on this recommendation, SSA will appoint a representative payee.
Anecdotes about best friend's daughters having autism and being gainfully employed has NOTHING to do with SSA disability, but you wouldn't have a clue.
I'd have more respect for an argument of "Shall not be infringed" under ANY circumstances. It sure beats false assertions about SSA disability, mass killers and mental illness in general.
I am not in favor of anyone becoming a prohibited person without due process. I am not in favor of SSDI reporting persons to NICS who are disabled on a psychological condition and have a representative payee.
Do you have documentation for your assertion that requesting a mild anti depressant, because a family member died, from your primary care physician if you are on social security or use the VA would make you a prohibited person with no way to appeal?
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,619
- Reaction score
- 7,838
Wow. There's more "fake news" and disinformation in this thread than all the mainstream media combined. I encourage everyone to read the actual rules, especially the criteria used to designate those individuals in question, and make up their own minds.
However it's a moot point. The rule has been overturned, apparently.
However it's a moot point. The rule has been overturned, apparently.
Similar threads
- Locked
