5 ms·

House OKs Bill Allowing 'Mentally Incapacitated' Veterans to Buy Guns

24 points by happy-go-lucky 10y ago

Entangled 10y ago
Politician A: "Let a couple of nutjobs buy guns and we will use their killing sprees to ban guns" Politician B: "You're a genius!"
- AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
  Except we've had multiple nutjobs go on massive killing sprees in schools, movie theaters, and every open space you can think of, yet so far we have failed to get anything banned.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Interestingly, practically all of those "open spaces" were clearly marked "gun-free zone". Some such nutjobs have been clearly documented as choosing those areas over "more desirable" targets precisely because of the signage. Of the few cases not so designated, many have been stopped by other armed citizens before the intended massive killing spree proceeded past the first couple shots. ETA: Yesterday, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shooting-grasse http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shoo...
- mmierz 10y ago
  I'm confused. You're suggesting the republican-controlled US house of representatives is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to ban firearm ownership, by making it easier to get firearms?
- usrusr 10y ago
  Darker, more cynical: "PTSD costs a lot Taxpayer Dollars, let's make it easier for expensive veterans to shoot themselves in the head"
travisby 10y ago
For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running your own finances?
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    We take our rights seriously. A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
    - halisaurus 10y ago
      You can't get a drivers license if your vision falls below 20/40. That's a "slight hint of incapacitation". Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
      - Nrsolis 10y ago
        Try and suggest to people over the age of 70 that they need to take more frequent drivers tests or get certified by their doctor to safely operate a vehicle. You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
        StavrosK 10y ago
        Good thing people don't need a gun to get to work every day, otherwise we'd see lots of cognitive dissonance there too.
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
I feel like the gun debate has been so muddied here in the United States. The Constitution allows us to have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical government. Evidence from other countries shows us that if we decreased the amount of guns, we would probably expect less violence/murder. So then the question is, how much violence do we put up with in society so that we can preserve our ability to make a meaningful stand against the government? If we can settle that we can have a better guide when trying to draw these lines in the sand.
- thrillgore 10y ago
  Given the amount of money the government has for defense and domestic intelligence spending, its utterly ridiculous to think just having the right to bear arms would give us the ways and means to forcefully abolish the state.
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    Yes. This law would make some sense a century and a half ago. But is anyone actually delusional enough to think that a population armed with some fireguns is able to presently abolish a state that has a major military force armed with jet fighters, tanks, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons?
- PJDK 10y ago
  We also have some modern examples of a tyrannical government being stood against by an armed population. Would you suggest that this is a good thing to have happened to Syria?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    War is never a "good thing." But if you're asking if I think standing up to al-Assad is wrong? Of course not, it's a terrible regime. What would you have Syrians do?
- douche 10y ago
  At the same time, the regions with the strictest gun controls have the highest rates of gun violence. It's almost like the two factors are completely unrelated and there might just be deeper reasons...
root_axis 10y ago
> A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI list so they can't purchase guns. That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their access to deadly weapons.
- NinjaViking 10y ago
  On the other hand, discouraging people who own guns from seeking help for mental health issues is not ideal either.
  - stult 10y ago
    The law doesn't affect guns people already own, only the purchase of additional firearms. If your mental health is so poor that you require a legal guardian, acquiring additional firearms seems like it should be very low on the priority list. >Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label. If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.
    - fapjacks 10y ago
      This isn't strictly true, because the VA can and will send police officers to your home to remove firearms if they deem it so appropriate.
- hubert123 10y ago
  I have just determined that you are mentally incapacitated by my very own definition and judgement. Sorry. Now extrapolate that to the general population.
- simias 10y ago
  Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own. That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.
bko 10y ago
Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it appears that the legislation adds a requirement that veterans deemed unfit require a court hearing before being blocked access to a firearm. If so, this seems like due process. People who don't like guns want to prevent people from owning them. Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. Preventing access to those seemed mentally unfit (by some standards) would prevent a significant portion of the us population from owning a firearm. Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say. http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depressed-majority-users-have-no-disorder-327940 http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depr...
- Nrsolis 10y ago
  This process has been abused by anti-gun localities to strip people of their gun collections for the most MINOR of prescription drug use. http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns
  - liotier 10y ago
    Also, mentally incapacitated people (including drug users) are a vulnerable population - they are easy prey to criminals, so it would be unfair to deprive them of their means of self-defense. /s
- halisaurus 10y ago
  > Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. I'm not a doctor, but I doubt that, say, "mild depression" or "previous history of depression" is enough to be considered mentally incapacitated. Is every person on anti-depressants mentally incapacitated? The article highlights suicide rates. > In 2014, Veterans accounted for 18% of all deaths from suicide among U.S. adults, while Veterans constituted 8.5% of the US population. In 2010, Veterans accounted for 22% of all deaths from suicide and 9.7% of the population. > Approximately 66% of all Veteran deaths from suicide were the result of firearm injuries. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Prevention_FactSheet_New_VA_Stats_070616_1400.pdf https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Preve...
GrinningFool 10y ago
"In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.". So now a magistrate must make determination of "mental defective[ness] from the facts at hand before records can be updated to say the person is not competent enough to safely own a firearm. Objectively this sounds like adding due process where there was none before. That's a little different from the headline of the article which suggests that mentally unstable veterans previously unable to buy guns can now nip on down to the nearest firearms dealer and buy their weapon of choice. The headline also suggests (to me) a context of "now they can go shoot everyone up!" But the actual concern is around suicide. The article does cover this (sort-of objectively [1]), but I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR. [1] In that sort-of objective way that doesn't involve directly criticizing, yet still comes across as subtly opinionated based on the ordering of content and quotes.
- douche 10y ago
  > I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR. Seems to be their MO of late.
ctdonath 10y ago
The headline misrepresents the issue. The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the "mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication. The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - with absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as "mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self-defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or other weak reasons (if any reason at all). The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court, that this person, for these reasons, really does pose a threat to self or others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense. TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to self-defense.
- rabboRubble 10y ago
  Incorrect. The personal right to bear arms was rooted in the need for domestic state security. There is no mention of personal defense. A quick Wikipedia search also indicates that the exact text of this amendment is not exactly the same between all original copies of the Constitution. Sort of an interesting read [0]. The version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson has the exact quote of: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security. Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self-defense, etc.) at the time of drafting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
fapjacks 10y ago
For what it's worth, I'm a veteran that spends some time at the VA, and I have lots of friends that spend time at the VA, and I want you to know that the VA applies this label very liberally and sometimes without justification. I think crazy people should not have access to firearms, but I also want you to understand very carefully that the VA is not very accurate as an organization. There are no second opinions in the VA's decision-making process, the decision can be made by any "clinician" (including PAs), and once the label is applied -- regardless of the accuracy of the label -- it can literally take years to appeal this decision. I am currently waiting for an appeal for an unrelated, relatively minor condition, and I've now been waiting three years for a decision on my appeal, and this isn't an unusual amount of time to wait. There's a running joke that the VA's got a saying about veterans: "Delay and deny until they die". I think the VA should not be making the decision, and that the "mentally incapacitated" label should be applied only by doctors external to the organization (or at the very least a doctor), and there should be more than one doctor that participates in the decision. At the end of the day, regardless of what non-Americans think of our Constitution, we're talking about taking someone's fundamental rights away, and that should be an extremely careful and efficient and accurate decision-making process (with a timely appeal system!).
ehosca 10y ago
On another point, I've never understood the fascination with the ease of being able to own guns in the US.
ctdonath 10y ago
All the bill does is require due process for labelling someone "mentally incapacitated". It does not, regardless of headline phrasing & implication, deliberately allow crazy people to get guns.

Politician A: "Let a couple of nutjobs buy guns and we will use their killing sprees to ban guns" Politician B: "You're a genius!"

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
Except we've had multiple nutjobs go on massive killing sprees in schools, movie theaters, and every open space you can think of, yet so far we have failed to get anything banned.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Interestingly, practically all of those "open spaces" were clearly marked "gun-free zone". Some such nutjobs have been clearly documented as choosing those areas over "more desirable" targets precisely because of the signage. Of the few cases not so designated, many have been stopped by other armed citizens before the intended massive killing spree proceeded past the first couple shots. ETA: Yesterday, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shooting-grasse http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shoo...
mmierz 10y ago
I'm confused. You're suggesting the republican-controlled US house of representatives is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to ban firearm ownership, by making it easier to get firearms?
usrusr 10y ago
Darker, more cynical: "PTSD costs a lot Taxpayer Dollars, let's make it easier for expensive veterans to shoot themselves in the head"

travisby 10y ago

For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running your own finances?

StavrosK 10y ago
Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  We take our rights seriously. A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
  - halisaurus 10y ago
    You can't get a drivers license if your vision falls below 20/40. That's a "slight hint of incapacitation". Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
    - Nrsolis 10y ago
      Try and suggest to people over the age of 70 that they need to take more frequent drivers tests or get certified by their doctor to safely operate a vehicle. You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Good thing people don't need a gun to get to work every day, otherwise we'd see lots of cognitive dissonance there too.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

I feel like the gun debate has been so muddied here in the United States. The Constitution allows us to have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical government. Evidence from other countries shows us that if we decreased the amount of guns, we would probably expect less violence/murder. So then the question is, how much violence do we put up with in society so that we can preserve our ability to make a meaningful stand against the government? If we can settle that we can have a better guide when trying to draw these lines in the sand.

thrillgore 10y ago
Given the amount of money the government has for defense and domestic intelligence spending, its utterly ridiculous to think just having the right to bear arms would give us the ways and means to forcefully abolish the state.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  Yes. This law would make some sense a century and a half ago. But is anyone actually delusional enough to think that a population armed with some fireguns is able to presently abolish a state that has a major military force armed with jet fighters, tanks, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons?
PJDK 10y ago
We also have some modern examples of a tyrannical government being stood against by an armed population. Would you suggest that this is a good thing to have happened to Syria?
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  War is never a "good thing." But if you're asking if I think standing up to al-Assad is wrong? Of course not, it's a terrible regime. What would you have Syrians do?
douche 10y ago
At the same time, the regions with the strictest gun controls have the highest rates of gun violence. It's almost like the two factors are completely unrelated and there might just be deeper reasons...

root_axis 10y ago

> A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI list so they can't purchase guns. That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their access to deadly weapons.

NinjaViking 10y ago
On the other hand, discouraging people who own guns from seeking help for mental health issues is not ideal either.
- stult 10y ago
  The law doesn't affect guns people already own, only the purchase of additional firearms. If your mental health is so poor that you require a legal guardian, acquiring additional firearms seems like it should be very low on the priority list. >Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label. If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    This isn't strictly true, because the VA can and will send police officers to your home to remove firearms if they deem it so appropriate.
hubert123 10y ago
I have just determined that you are mentally incapacitated by my very own definition and judgement. Sorry. Now extrapolate that to the general population.
simias 10y ago
Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own. That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.

bko 10y ago

Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it appears that the legislation adds a requirement that veterans deemed unfit require a court hearing before being blocked access to a firearm. If so, this seems like due process. People who don't like guns want to prevent people from owning them. Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. Preventing access to those seemed mentally unfit (by some standards) would prevent a significant portion of the us population from owning a firearm. Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say. http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depressed-majority-users-have-no-disorder-327940 http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depr...

Nrsolis 10y ago
This process has been abused by anti-gun localities to strip people of their gun collections for the most MINOR of prescription drug use. http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns
- liotier 10y ago
  Also, mentally incapacitated people (including drug users) are a vulnerable population - they are easy prey to criminals, so it would be unfair to deprive them of their means of self-defense. /s
halisaurus 10y ago
> Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. I'm not a doctor, but I doubt that, say, "mild depression" or "previous history of depression" is enough to be considered mentally incapacitated. Is every person on anti-depressants mentally incapacitated? The article highlights suicide rates. > In 2014, Veterans accounted for 18% of all deaths from suicide among U.S. adults, while Veterans constituted 8.5% of the US population. In 2010, Veterans accounted for 22% of all deaths from suicide and 9.7% of the population. > Approximately 66% of all Veteran deaths from suicide were the result of firearm injuries. https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Prevention_FactSheet_New_VA_Stats_070616_1400.pdf https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Preve...

GrinningFool 10y ago

"In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.". So now a magistrate must make determination of "mental defective[ness] from the facts at hand before records can be updated to say the person is not competent enough to safely own a firearm. Objectively this sounds like adding due process where there was none before. That's a little different from the headline of the article which suggests that mentally unstable veterans previously unable to buy guns can now nip on down to the nearest firearms dealer and buy their weapon of choice. The headline also suggests (to me) a context of "now they can go shoot everyone up!" But the actual concern is around suicide. The article does cover this (sort-of objectively [1]), but I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR. [1] In that sort-of objective way that doesn't involve directly criticizing, yet still comes across as subtly opinionated based on the ordering of content and quotes.

douche 10y ago
> I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR. Seems to be their MO of late.

ctdonath 10y ago

The headline misrepresents the issue. The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the "mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication. The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - with absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as "mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self-defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or other weak reasons (if any reason at all). The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court, that this person, for these reasons, really does pose a threat to self or others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense. TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to self-defense.

rabboRubble 10y ago
Incorrect. The personal right to bear arms was rooted in the need for domestic state security. There is no mention of personal defense. A quick Wikipedia search also indicates that the exact text of this amendment is not exactly the same between all original copies of the Constitution. Sort of an interesting read [0]. The version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson has the exact quote of: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security. Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self-defense, etc.) at the time of drafting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

fapjacks 10y ago

For what it's worth, I'm a veteran that spends some time at the VA, and I have lots of friends that spend time at the VA, and I want you to know that the VA applies this label very liberally and sometimes without justification. I think crazy people should not have access to firearms, but I also want you to understand very carefully that the VA is not very accurate as an organization. There are no second opinions in the VA's decision-making process, the decision can be made by any "clinician" (including PAs), and once the label is applied -- regardless of the accuracy of the label -- it can literally take years to appeal this decision. I am currently waiting for an appeal for an unrelated, relatively minor condition, and I've now been waiting three years for a decision on my appeal, and this isn't an unusual amount of time to wait. There's a running joke that the VA's got a saying about veterans: "Delay and deny until they die". I think the VA should not be making the decision, and that the "mentally incapacitated" label should be applied only by doctors external to the organization (or at the very least a doctor), and there should be more than one doctor that participates in the decision. At the end of the day, regardless of what non-Americans think of our Constitution, we're talking about taking someone's fundamental rights away, and that should be an extremely careful and efficient and accurate decision-making process (with a timely appeal system!).

ehosca 10y ago

On another point, I've never understood the fascination with the ease of being able to own guns in the US.

ctdonath 10y ago

All the bill does is require due process for labelling someone "mentally incapacitated". It does not, regardless of headline phrasing & implication, deliberately allow crazy people to get guns.