Veteran charged with trying to board plane with loaded gun at Midway
Chicago Sun Times
BY JON SEIDEL Staff Reporter
December 29, 2013
A military veteran is accused of trying to bring a loaded handgun onto a plane at Midway Airport during the busy holiday travel weekend.
Josephine M. Coleman, 25, of Country Club Hills, is charged with boarding an aircraft with a weapon, and Cook County Judge James Brown ordered her held Sunday in lieu of $25,000.
read more here
Showing posts with label gun law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun law. Show all posts
Monday, December 30, 2013
Veteran charged with boarding plane with loaded gun?
This has me all confused. She is charged with "boarding a plane" but how did she get on the plane with a gun in the first place? I can't even get past the security with a pack of cigarettes in my pocket. The foil sets off the alarm every time.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Iraq veteran gets 18 months for pointing gun, Zimmerman goes free for shooting one?
Iraq veteran sentenced to prison for pointing gun
The Daily News
By JIM SECKLER
Published: Sunday, July 14, 2013
KINGMAN — A Fort Mohave man charged with pointing a weapon at his wife was sentenced to prison Thursday.
Paul Eugene Lass Jr., 52, was convicted in June of disorderly conduct with a weapon. He had been charged with aggravated assault and aggravated assault by domestic violence. He was arrested in May 2012 after pointing a gun at his wife and her friend at their home and telling her to leave the house. Lass had been armed with several weapons and wore body armor.
Superior Court Commissioner Derek Carlisle sentenced Lass to the minimum 18 months in prison. He had faced a maximum of 27 months. The judge also denied a motion for a new trial before sentencing.
Lass’ attorney, Ira Shiflett, argued that his client had no criminal record, that he served in the military and had support from the community.
read more here
The Daily News
By JIM SECKLER
Published: Sunday, July 14, 2013
KINGMAN — A Fort Mohave man charged with pointing a weapon at his wife was sentenced to prison Thursday.
Paul Eugene Lass Jr., 52, was convicted in June of disorderly conduct with a weapon. He had been charged with aggravated assault and aggravated assault by domestic violence. He was arrested in May 2012 after pointing a gun at his wife and her friend at their home and telling her to leave the house. Lass had been armed with several weapons and wore body armor.
Superior Court Commissioner Derek Carlisle sentenced Lass to the minimum 18 months in prison. He had faced a maximum of 27 months. The judge also denied a motion for a new trial before sentencing.
Lass’ attorney, Ira Shiflett, argued that his client had no criminal record, that he served in the military and had support from the community.
read more here
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
DAV responds to Sen. Diane Feinstein over guns and PTSD
BRAVO DAV! For a Senator to think PTSD is "new" shows how little she knows about PTSD. Ask any Vietnam veteran and not only will they tell you about it, they'll also explain how many of them managed to have it and their guns all these years. There is no easy fix to this and they need to stop treating PTSD veterans like criminals.
They seem to think if they take guns away from PTSD veterans it will cut down on suicides. Well, it didn't and they tried that back when they passed the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. The means is not the issue. The reason they commit suicide is. As for being a danger to society, again that is false. It isn't the veterans out there committing mass murders. Considering how many veterans we have in this country and how many have PTSD, Feinstein should have know this BEFORE SHE CAME OUT WITH AN OPINION BASED ON KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT IT!
Here's the update on this
PTSD and Military Sexual Assault Survivors say thanks for noticing finally
Vet Group Responds to Proposed PTSD Gun LimitsAnyway, struggling to find the right words I can print on this for a public blog.
Mar 12, 2013
Military.com
by Bryant Jordan
The Disabled American Veterans has written a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., because of a recent statement she made that post-traumatic stress disorder "is a new phenomenon" and should be a factor in whether a veteran is allowed to own a gun.
In a nearly 900-word letter DAV Executive Director Barry A. Jesinoski said Feinstein’s comments are not accurate and only perpetuate a popular falsehood linking PTSD and violence.
"We ask that you clarify your statement to reassure people that you hold no such bias toward veterans or military service members," he said.
A DAV spokesman said the organization is not weighing in on Feinstein’s proposed assault-weapons legislation, but trying to correct misinformation.
read more here
They seem to think if they take guns away from PTSD veterans it will cut down on suicides. Well, it didn't and they tried that back when they passed the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. The means is not the issue. The reason they commit suicide is. As for being a danger to society, again that is false. It isn't the veterans out there committing mass murders. Considering how many veterans we have in this country and how many have PTSD, Feinstein should have know this BEFORE SHE CAME OUT WITH AN OPINION BASED ON KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT IT!
Here's the update on this
PTSD and Military Sexual Assault Survivors say thanks for noticing finally
Monday, February 18, 2013
Are South Korea's gun laws preventing US military suicides?
South Korea mostly suicide-free for U.S. troops
By Gregg Zoroya
USA Today
Posted : Monday Feb 18, 2013
Even as the Army recorded its worst year in decades for soldiers killing themselves — with 323 deaths in 2012 — there were places in the service where suicides are rare.
One is South Korea, where among the nearly 20,000 GIs stationed there last year, there was one suicide: a soldier hanged himself. Leaders there say they are encouraging troops to seek help and to look out for one another, and that effort is paying off.
Last December, Army Spc. Andrew Korpash, 26, who is stationed near the Korean demilitarized zone, contacted a chaplain about desperate text messages another G.I. sent after being jilted by a woman. “The thing that got my attention was the actual list of ways he would do it (commit suicide),” said Korpash, a Korean language linguist. “That’s when it seemed like it was pretty serious to me.”
But there is another reason that underscores how U.S. troops die by suicide: the use of firearms. In South Korea, troops are effectively barred from keeping private firearms because of strict national gun control laws.
“Most soldiers in the military, the majority, commit suicide through firearms,” said Maj. Gen. Edward Cardon, commander of 2nd Infantry Division and some 10,000 soldiers in South Korea. “So the restrictions on firearms is clearly a factor (in reducing the deaths).”
read more here
By Gregg Zoroya
USA Today
Posted : Monday Feb 18, 2013
Even as the Army recorded its worst year in decades for soldiers killing themselves — with 323 deaths in 2012 — there were places in the service where suicides are rare.
One is South Korea, where among the nearly 20,000 GIs stationed there last year, there was one suicide: a soldier hanged himself. Leaders there say they are encouraging troops to seek help and to look out for one another, and that effort is paying off.
Last December, Army Spc. Andrew Korpash, 26, who is stationed near the Korean demilitarized zone, contacted a chaplain about desperate text messages another G.I. sent after being jilted by a woman. “The thing that got my attention was the actual list of ways he would do it (commit suicide),” said Korpash, a Korean language linguist. “That’s when it seemed like it was pretty serious to me.”
But there is another reason that underscores how U.S. troops die by suicide: the use of firearms. In South Korea, troops are effectively barred from keeping private firearms because of strict national gun control laws.
“Most soldiers in the military, the majority, commit suicide through firearms,” said Maj. Gen. Edward Cardon, commander of 2nd Infantry Division and some 10,000 soldiers in South Korea. “So the restrictions on firearms is clearly a factor (in reducing the deaths).”
read more here
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Time to take gun ownership seriously
When you want to drive, you have to train and get a license before they let you do it.
When you want to do a job that can become dangerous, you have to train and prove you know how to do it before they let you do it. The list of careers requiring training and a license is long but the list of jobs using lethal weapons include the military and law enforcement. So why don't we make sure no one gets a gun permit without training and having to renew it?
(Correction on the following. A Facebook reader informed me this conversation was about the mall shooting and not Aurora. See video below.)
I heard someone representing the NRA talk about the Clackamas Mall. Man says he had shooter in his sights, but chose safety over firing. He said the gunman was confronted by a person with a handgun and that is when gunman shot himself, ending the carnage. The handgun owner did not fire a shot. While there are plenty of ways to digest this information, it is clear that just because the handgun owner had a weapon, he was not able to pull the trigger no matter what was going on. It is one thing to have a gun, another to know how to use it, but too many are just assuming the person with the gun will be able to pull the trigger on another person.
During the talk on guns, others said if Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung had been armed, she could have shot the gunman. (Not posting his name) That wouldn't have solved anything. She was not in her office when this all took place, yet we do know she was courageous enough to use her own body to lunge at the gunman. People want to assume she would have been able to pull the trigger on someone else.
I believe there should be a process to be able to have guns that goes far beyond passing a background check. They should have to be able to prove they know how to use them and secure them. They should have to pass a test before they get a license. They should have to renew the license regularly. The shooter's Mom went to the gun range to shoot and brought her son with her. Why did she have to have assault weapons? Why weren't they secure so her son couldn't get his hands on them? If they were secure is that why he killed his Mom? Too many questions on this that need to be discussed. What if she only had handguns? Would any of this happened?
I have not heard one single reason as to why a person would need an assault weapon. The key word is "need" and not "want" to have them. There are parts of this country where law enforcement cannot respond quickly and citizens want to make sure they can protect their homes and families should the worst thing happen. Some want to hunt. None of them have to have assault weapons.
The other issue being talked about are personal weapons owned by servicemen and women. Some think if they just take away guns, then they won't commit suicide. The means is not as important as the reason. The other factor in this debate is there is a rule that prevents commanders from asking about personal weapons. Again, when we're talking about suicides, they need to talk about what the reason is and not focus on the means in which they plan on doing it.
While this mass murder captured the national news, it was not the only deadly event during the weekend.
When you want to do a job that can become dangerous, you have to train and prove you know how to do it before they let you do it. The list of careers requiring training and a license is long but the list of jobs using lethal weapons include the military and law enforcement. So why don't we make sure no one gets a gun permit without training and having to renew it?
(Correction on the following. A Facebook reader informed me this conversation was about the mall shooting and not Aurora. See video below.)
I heard someone representing the NRA talk about the Clackamas Mall. Man says he had shooter in his sights, but chose safety over firing. He said the gunman was confronted by a person with a handgun and that is when gunman shot himself, ending the carnage. The handgun owner did not fire a shot. While there are plenty of ways to digest this information, it is clear that just because the handgun owner had a weapon, he was not able to pull the trigger no matter what was going on. It is one thing to have a gun, another to know how to use it, but too many are just assuming the person with the gun will be able to pull the trigger on another person.
During the talk on guns, others said if Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung had been armed, she could have shot the gunman. (Not posting his name) That wouldn't have solved anything. She was not in her office when this all took place, yet we do know she was courageous enough to use her own body to lunge at the gunman. People want to assume she would have been able to pull the trigger on someone else.
I believe there should be a process to be able to have guns that goes far beyond passing a background check. They should have to be able to prove they know how to use them and secure them. They should have to pass a test before they get a license. They should have to renew the license regularly. The shooter's Mom went to the gun range to shoot and brought her son with her. Why did she have to have assault weapons? Why weren't they secure so her son couldn't get his hands on them? If they were secure is that why he killed his Mom? Too many questions on this that need to be discussed. What if she only had handguns? Would any of this happened?
I have not heard one single reason as to why a person would need an assault weapon. The key word is "need" and not "want" to have them. There are parts of this country where law enforcement cannot respond quickly and citizens want to make sure they can protect their homes and families should the worst thing happen. Some want to hunt. None of them have to have assault weapons.
The other issue being talked about are personal weapons owned by servicemen and women. Some think if they just take away guns, then they won't commit suicide. The means is not as important as the reason. The other factor in this debate is there is a rule that prevents commanders from asking about personal weapons. Again, when we're talking about suicides, they need to talk about what the reason is and not focus on the means in which they plan on doing it.
While this mass murder captured the national news, it was not the only deadly event during the weekend.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Military Suicides leave DOD and NRA at odds
Why would this happen? The number one choice of suicides connected to military service is a firearm. Does the NRA care about any of this? No one is talking about taking away their guns. As I've pointed out a thousand times I'd rather see a veteran with a gun and getting help than not getting help. Besides, if you take away their guns they use the next in line for ways to commit suicide. Still what is wrong with talking to them about all this? If the DOD wanted to prevent suicides then they would drop the BS program called "resiliency" and finally open up their ears to hear what they can do. This is about to get a lot worse the long troops are in Afghanistan and still not getting the right kind of help. The NRA should be more involved in saving their lives than stopping the commanders from even talking to them!
Amid suicide 'epidemic,' military at odds with NRA over law
Published: July 28, 2012
To help combat suicide in the military, leaders would like greater leeway in talking to a servicemember about it and whether they personally own a firearm. Standing in their way, is a new law backed by the National Rifle Association that is frustrating things.
Some U.S. military commanders are at odds with the National Rifle Association over a relatively new law that bars them from talking to a servicemember about their personal firearms if the individual lives off base, according to a Christian Science Monitor article.
The NRA-backed law, which went into effect in early 2011, includes language that prohibits them from talking to their charges about weapons and safety, particularly when they live off base. The article relied heavily on Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army's former vice chief of staff.
read more here
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law
Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law
By Steven Nelson
Published: 12:28 AM 01/03/2012
Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.
That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.
The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.
Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell.
read more here
By Steven Nelson
Published: 12:28 AM 01/03/2012
Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.
That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.
The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.
Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell.
read more here
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Congress may abandon vets’ legislation
Congress may abandon vets’ legislation
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 16, 2008 17:25:34 EDT
Congress appears to be on the verge of abandoning major veterans’ issues in a rush to leave town to run for re-election, charges the legislative director of one of the nation’s largest veterans’ organizations.
Joseph Violante, legislative chief for 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans, said partisan disagreements kept Congress from passing major veterans’ health and benefits bills last year, and the situation appears to be repeating this year.
With congressional leaders talking about wrapping up the legislative session by Sept. 26 and not returning to work until January, Violante said he wished he had more confidence important legislation would pass.
“They keep saying they are working on something, but time is running out, and all we see are problems,” Violante said Tuesday in an interview. “They cannot seem to do much of anything these days.”
Veterans’ benefits legislation is tied up over a dispute about whether to increase pensions to Filipino Scouts and other World War II veterans, Violante said, while health care legislation is bogged down, in part, over gun-ownership restrictions for veterans diagnosed with or being treated for mental health issues.
“Congress seems to be good at finding problems,” Violante said. “I wish they were as good at fixing them.”
Congress has passed a veterans’ cost-of-living adjustment bill and a major improvement in GI Bill education benefits, but it has failed to pass legislation to improve mental health programs, expand health care for women veterans, improve diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries, and help families who are caring for severely disabled veterans, he said.
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/military_veteranslegislation_delays_091608w/
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 16, 2008 17:25:34 EDT
Congress appears to be on the verge of abandoning major veterans’ issues in a rush to leave town to run for re-election, charges the legislative director of one of the nation’s largest veterans’ organizations.
Joseph Violante, legislative chief for 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans, said partisan disagreements kept Congress from passing major veterans’ health and benefits bills last year, and the situation appears to be repeating this year.
With congressional leaders talking about wrapping up the legislative session by Sept. 26 and not returning to work until January, Violante said he wished he had more confidence important legislation would pass.
“They keep saying they are working on something, but time is running out, and all we see are problems,” Violante said Tuesday in an interview. “They cannot seem to do much of anything these days.”
Veterans’ benefits legislation is tied up over a dispute about whether to increase pensions to Filipino Scouts and other World War II veterans, Violante said, while health care legislation is bogged down, in part, over gun-ownership restrictions for veterans diagnosed with or being treated for mental health issues.
“Congress seems to be good at finding problems,” Violante said. “I wish they were as good at fixing them.”
Congress has passed a veterans’ cost-of-living adjustment bill and a major improvement in GI Bill education benefits, but it has failed to pass legislation to improve mental health programs, expand health care for women veterans, improve diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries, and help families who are caring for severely disabled veterans, he said.
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/military_veteranslegislation_delays_091608w/
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Sen. Richard Burr wants veterans' names removed from gun list
Senator wants veterans' names removed from gun list
By Barbara Barrett McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Since a severely mentally ill man rampaged through Virginia Tech last year, killing 32 people before turning a gun on himself, Congress and several states have been working to tighten rules on who can legally purchase a firearm.
But a push in the U.S. Senate would remove from the national background check the names of 115,000 veterans who have been declared "mentally defective" — and would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from adding any more names unless the agency goes through a judicial system.
The problem, says the senator behind the efforts, is that the veterans were added not because they were a danger to themselves or to others, but because they were assigned fiduciary guardians by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
"This is a constitutional issue," said Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. "The (national database) is for criminals, not for folks who have troubles handling their own financial affairs."
His bill would allow the agency to submit only the names of those who have been declared dangerous by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority.
go here for more
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/45466.html
By Barbara Barrett McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Since a severely mentally ill man rampaged through Virginia Tech last year, killing 32 people before turning a gun on himself, Congress and several states have been working to tighten rules on who can legally purchase a firearm.
But a push in the U.S. Senate would remove from the national background check the names of 115,000 veterans who have been declared "mentally defective" — and would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from adding any more names unless the agency goes through a judicial system.
The problem, says the senator behind the efforts, is that the veterans were added not because they were a danger to themselves or to others, but because they were assigned fiduciary guardians by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
"This is a constitutional issue," said Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. "The (national database) is for criminals, not for folks who have troubles handling their own financial affairs."
His bill would allow the agency to submit only the names of those who have been declared dangerous by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority.
go here for more
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/45466.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
More than half firearm deaths are suicides
More than half firearm deaths are suicides
Story Highlights
Recent Supreme Court ruling on guns focused on protection from home invasion
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005 in U.S.
More gun-related suicides than homicides and accidents in 20 of last 25 years
Research shows if gun in home, higher likelihood of suicide or homicide in home
ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.
go here for more
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html
Story Highlights
Recent Supreme Court ruling on guns focused on protection from home invasion
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005 in U.S.
More gun-related suicides than homicides and accidents in 20 of last 25 years
Research shows if gun in home, higher likelihood of suicide or homicide in home
ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.
Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.
go here for more
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html
Friday, June 27, 2008
Committee votes to protect vet gun ownership
Committee votes to protect vet gun ownership
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 27, 2008 6:27:14 EDT
Lists of veterans who have been assigned fiduciaries to handle financial matters on their behalf could not be used to prevent gun ownership under an amendment approved by the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday.
By voice vote, the committee attached to a veterans’ health care bill an amendment prohibiting the Department of Veterans Affairs from sharing lists of so-called “incompetent” veterans with the FBI. Only if there has been specific ruling that a veteran poses a risk to himself or others could the VA pass a name on to the FBI for inclusion in records used to make instant background checks before gun purchases, under the amendment to S 2969, the Veterans’ Health Care Authorization Act of 2008.
Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, ranking Republican on the veterans’ committee and the chief sponsor of the amendment, said the VA makes a determination of incompetence based, primarily, on whether a veteran is capable of handling his own finances. If he cannot, a fiduciary is appointed to handle their benefits.
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/military_veterans_gunownership_062608w/
Not sure on this one at all. A friend is in this postition. What we have to remember is that there is not always a one size fits all answer. Some of these veterans should never have been able to own a gun, just like some people in this country should never be able to own one. But what is the answer? Do we go with this but allow the local law enforcement to make their own rules given the fact they are the ones dealing with whatever happens in the long run? Murphy and Akaka want to side on common sense but Burr wants to take the side of the NRA attitude. Who is right?
When Congress was taking on gun ownership for PTSD veterans, they were very upset wondering if veterans with mild PTSD would have to give up their jobs if they had to give up their guns. some of them decided that they would not seek treatment for PTSD because of this. Would you rather see a veteran with PTSD owning a gun and not getting help or would you rather see them getting help and keeping their jobs? Again there is not a one size fits all answer when it comes to PTSD. After all, we do have thousands of them in Iraq and Afghanistan right now with weapons a lot more dangerous than a hand gun.
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 27, 2008 6:27:14 EDT
Lists of veterans who have been assigned fiduciaries to handle financial matters on their behalf could not be used to prevent gun ownership under an amendment approved by the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday.
By voice vote, the committee attached to a veterans’ health care bill an amendment prohibiting the Department of Veterans Affairs from sharing lists of so-called “incompetent” veterans with the FBI. Only if there has been specific ruling that a veteran poses a risk to himself or others could the VA pass a name on to the FBI for inclusion in records used to make instant background checks before gun purchases, under the amendment to S 2969, the Veterans’ Health Care Authorization Act of 2008.
Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, ranking Republican on the veterans’ committee and the chief sponsor of the amendment, said the VA makes a determination of incompetence based, primarily, on whether a veteran is capable of handling his own finances. If he cannot, a fiduciary is appointed to handle their benefits.
go here for more
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/military_veterans_gunownership_062608w/
Not sure on this one at all. A friend is in this postition. What we have to remember is that there is not always a one size fits all answer. Some of these veterans should never have been able to own a gun, just like some people in this country should never be able to own one. But what is the answer? Do we go with this but allow the local law enforcement to make their own rules given the fact they are the ones dealing with whatever happens in the long run? Murphy and Akaka want to side on common sense but Burr wants to take the side of the NRA attitude. Who is right?
When Congress was taking on gun ownership for PTSD veterans, they were very upset wondering if veterans with mild PTSD would have to give up their jobs if they had to give up their guns. some of them decided that they would not seek treatment for PTSD because of this. Would you rather see a veteran with PTSD owning a gun and not getting help or would you rather see them getting help and keeping their jobs? Again there is not a one size fits all answer when it comes to PTSD. After all, we do have thousands of them in Iraq and Afghanistan right now with weapons a lot more dangerous than a hand gun.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Gun law another road block to PTSD treatment?
I can understand the need to do something to prevent this kind of mass murder ever again, but often the law makers with the best intentions do the most damage to innocent people. I don't know what the answer is but I can tell you that this law, the way it's written, is a road block for veterans seeking treatment for PTSD.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand all that goes into a bill like this. I approach it the way every other regular person reads it. If I'm wrong, I'm begging you to address it so that I can pass on the information to others.
HR 2640
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).
They regard PTSD as a disability and therefore a defect. Most have to go on medication. Some have to go into rehab and receive mental health treatments from talk therapy to medications. This will keep veterans, and already has kept them, from seeking treatment from the VA.
This is good because some do turn violent.
Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-
If they are seeing a doctor for PTSD then they have not been discharged.
PTSD is not cured. It can be healed to a point but that depends on how soon treatment begins and the level of the illness the veteran has.
PTSD is considered by many as "not mentally responsible." They cannot enter into a legal contract and a lot of them have to have someone legally responsible for them.
(iii) A record that identifies a person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance (as such terms `unlawful user' and `addicted' are respectively defined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) as demonstrated by arrests, convictions, and adjudications, and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.
(iv) A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640
Some have self medicated to kill off feelings they do not want to re-experience in a flashback. They use alcohol and drugs to accomplish this. This will keep them from seeking help.
As this bill stands, most in the military deployed with PTSD should not be using a fire arm. In other words, if they have PTSD, by their own rules, those deployed should be removed from combat and removed from their guns. If they are not responsible enough to have a gun in their home town then they are not responsible enough to be deployed into combat with a machine gun.
Some veterans have jobs requiring them to have fire arms. Some veterans entered into law enforcement with mild or dormant PTSD until a secondary stressor hits them. They realize they need help to cope with the symptoms of PTSD and if they get treatment, they begin to heal. The problem is under these rules, if they go for help, they will lose their jobs.
Some veterans entered into the DEA. Again, if they go for help under these rules, they can lose their jobs.
Some veterans want to stay in the military and some of them are capable of doing their duties provided they have proper medication and treatment to continue. Under these rules, they would not be able to do this.
PTSD is not a one size fits all illness. There are different levels of it and different problems. The symptoms can strike with full force and a veteran can get all of them or only some of them. It depends, as with everything else, on the individual. Some do get violent or homicidal. Some get suicidal. The greater majority do not turn either way.
Again I don't know what the answer is but this way, they will fear losing their jobs and their careers if they seek treatment. It was hard enough to get them to go for help in the first place. Then it got harder when I did manage to get them to go for help, but the system was too overloaded. Now with this, they are afraid for their jobs as well. What do I do with them now?
Post a comment if you know the answer or email me in private if you have any answers. I don't know what to tell them now when they ask.
Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
http://www.namguardianangel.org/
http://www.namguardianangel.blogspot.com/
http://www.woundedtimes.blogspot.com/
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington
I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand all that goes into a bill like this. I approach it the way every other regular person reads it. If I'm wrong, I'm begging you to address it so that I can pass on the information to others.
HR 2640
(9) On April 16, 2007, a student with a history of mental illness at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shot to death 32 students and faculty members, wounded 17 more, and then took his own life. The shooting, the deadliest campus shooting in United States history, renewed the need to improve information-sharing that would enable Federal and State law enforcement agencies to conduct complete background checks on potential firearms purchasers. In spite of a proven history of mental illness, the shooter was able to purchase the two firearms used in the shooting. Improved coordination between State and Federal authorities could have ensured that the shooter's disqualifying mental health information was available to NICS.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).
(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective' and `committed to a mental institution' have the same meanings as in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
They regard PTSD as a disability and therefore a defect. Most have to go on medication. Some have to go into rehab and receive mental health treatments from talk therapy to medications. This will keep veterans, and already has kept them, from seeking treatment from the VA.
(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code.
This is good because some do turn violent.
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 treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
If they are seeing a doctor for PTSD then they have not been discharged.
(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or
PTSD is not cured. It can be healed to a point but that depends on how soon treatment begins and the level of the illness the veteran has.
(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
PTSD is considered by many as "not mentally responsible." They cannot enter into a legal contract and a lot of them have to have someone legally responsible for them.
(iii) A record that identifies a person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance (as such terms `unlawful user' and `addicted' are respectively defined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) as demonstrated by arrests, convictions, and adjudications, and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.
(iv) A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640
Some have self medicated to kill off feelings they do not want to re-experience in a flashback. They use alcohol and drugs to accomplish this. This will keep them from seeking help.
As this bill stands, most in the military deployed with PTSD should not be using a fire arm. In other words, if they have PTSD, by their own rules, those deployed should be removed from combat and removed from their guns. If they are not responsible enough to have a gun in their home town then they are not responsible enough to be deployed into combat with a machine gun.
Some veterans have jobs requiring them to have fire arms. Some veterans entered into law enforcement with mild or dormant PTSD until a secondary stressor hits them. They realize they need help to cope with the symptoms of PTSD and if they get treatment, they begin to heal. The problem is under these rules, if they go for help, they will lose their jobs.
Some veterans entered into the DEA. Again, if they go for help under these rules, they can lose their jobs.
Some veterans want to stay in the military and some of them are capable of doing their duties provided they have proper medication and treatment to continue. Under these rules, they would not be able to do this.
PTSD is not a one size fits all illness. There are different levels of it and different problems. The symptoms can strike with full force and a veteran can get all of them or only some of them. It depends, as with everything else, on the individual. Some do get violent or homicidal. Some get suicidal. The greater majority do not turn either way.
Again I don't know what the answer is but this way, they will fear losing their jobs and their careers if they seek treatment. It was hard enough to get them to go for help in the first place. Then it got harder when I did manage to get them to go for help, but the system was too overloaded. Now with this, they are afraid for their jobs as well. What do I do with them now?
Post a comment if you know the answer or email me in private if you have any answers. I don't know what to tell them now when they ask.
Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
http://www.namguardianangel.org/
http://www.namguardianangel.blogspot.com/
http://www.woundedtimes.blogspot.com/
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation." - George Washington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)