If a veteran is diagnosed with PTSD symptoms by a competent medical authority and determined eligible for appropriate VA disability compensation for that condition, but otherwise 'mentally stable', is he/she still fully entitled to 2nd Amendment rights? In other words, obtain a CHL, possess firearms, etc.?

There seems to be a move towards "unfits" being denied 2nd Amendment rights. While intuitive, it's a slippery slope.

Soviet gulags were filled with those deemed mentally unstable and sent there for "re-education". The Soviets referred to political prisoners as mental unfits. How Liberals are currently trying to condemn Conservatives as mentally unfit. Even our old bud, John McCain, said Trump had activated the "crazies". Rino's and Libs see us as "Crazies". So, don't look for your good Republicans, must less the Dems., to save you from the gulag.

This current administration is more afraid of Bible toting, gun loving Americans than Muzzie Jihadists. So, when it comes time to round'em up, lock'em up, who do you think will populate the new gulags?

DF

Wow. Scary. Thanks for the response.

BTW, welcome to the Fire.

DF

Yes..., BIMHO, not for much longer.

If the legislation can pass a standard definition on mental disease, my prediction is that it will be broad enough to cover PTSD, and seek to deny ownership/possession.

As noted above, a slippery slope, but I think we are already on it.

Potentially a legal definition of mental illness or history of mental illness could be any of the 200-some conditions listed and defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is now in its fifth edition, I believe, designated DSM V. Among health care professionals It is the "bible" for diagnosing mental conditions. Without checking, I would think that PTSD would certainly be included.

A review of the history and intermingling of politics and science in the evolution of the DSM should be enough to give any reasonable person cause for concern. It should be an an eye opener for those who naively believe that "nut jobs" are easily identifiable and isolated, and denied access to firearms, and that it couldn't include themselves.

Paul

Memtal health records are among the most protected under HIPPA. You just can't access those, even the medical profession doesn't have carte blanche to mental health records and for sure, not bureaucrats or employers.

So, rounding up "nut jobs" is impossible. And, you don't really want it to be that easy. The definition of "nut job" will be determined by someone other than you or me...

Unfortunately, everything now is political, one way or the other. I don't trust bureaucrats deciding which of us is a "nut jobs, recent IRS scandal, a case in point.

They could accumulate a lot of evidence here on the Fire...

DF

HIPPA for the most part places constraints on the custodians of records.

It is not particularly relevant if, as a condition for obtaining permission to purchase or possess a firearm, self disclosure is required and failure to do so is a crime. Just consider the questions on the ubiquitous Form 4473.

I recall that when I lived in Iowa, on the application for a CCW permit, you signed a release giving law enforcement carte blanche access to your medical records.

Paul

Wait until they add the question, "how many firearms do you own" to your IRS returns. If you are shy about full disclosure, and if they find out, that's a Fedreal crime.

With all his mudering, etc. the only way they could get to Al Capone was thru the IRS.

It's a potent tool and could be used very easily to get to us gun toting, Bible thumping Right wingers.

And, don't think the IRS isn't a political tool...

DF

I'm not so sure HIPPA or any other privacy act protects those as much as you all think. Either a major security breach has occurred or they found a loophole.

I've bought several guns since being officially diagnosed and so have several friends. Sometimes the phone call and paperwork are easy sailing, other times we get red flagged.We've always got the guns we paid for, but we have had to wait a few days to get the approval, when we should have been walking out the door with the gun within minutes.

I've never been arrested nor have anything on my record, save a couple speeding tickets and the last one occurred in 2003.

Paul39 is correct. The latest version is known as the "DSM-5". Yes, PTSD is listed as a recognized mental disorder in the DSM5. DSM5 criteria for PTSD are discussed here:

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/PTSD-overview/diagnostic_criteria_dsm-5.asp

My wife works in the mental health field. One word of caution. Once a qualified doctor or mental health professional diagnoses a patient with a specific mental order, that diagnosis will likely follow the patient for the rest of their life. My wife is very cautious regarding assigning certain diagnoses due to the potential long term impact on the patient.

Thanks, Orion, and thanks to your wife for her responsible, cautious approach to diagnostic labels.

Particularly dangerous to an individual's rights would be a "common sense" gun law that prohibited gun possession by anyone with a "history of mental illness". That could result in permanent loss of rights to a person who had ever had a minor problem, even counseling of some sort or a visit to the EAP. Potentially, such an individual could face more stringent firearms prohibition than a felon.

At one time Iowa's permit to purchase a handgun required the sheriff to determine whether the applicant has a history of mental illness, and the application form asked the question. Later, Iowa law was changed for the better, to parallel the federal criteria.

Be ever vigilant, and don't think it could only apply to "nut jobs", not ordinary responsible, persons like you. I am personally aware of such an individual who was faced with an extremely angry person, and was denied the right to own a handgun for self-defense by the county sheriff, under his interpretation of Iowa law at the time.

Paul

Remember this!!!
Anything you say today becomes your permanent record forever.
I commented to a Doctor about needing to stop taking my pills
do to health problems. later I found that my health record
stated that I was a person type that would stop taking would
medicine. Which was far from the truth. If I had bad side affects
that the Dr. wasn't paying attention to, I may have to, to protect myself.
So now consider anything you say may be part of your permanent
record. And will be forever on your record.

It is now a protect yourself world. So, use it...

Aggreed. anytime a doctor asks you if you own guns, the answer is no, I don't own any. and even if you need help for PTSD, I would consider scaling it back and pretendning to get better and have it more minimal as I have no doubt they will be using PTSD as a way to stop people from buying guns. I've found I have to watch what I say around my docs so that doesn't get put into record.

As for pretending to "get better" dont do that at the VA ! I discovered that getting better will get your disability % lowered... they took me down to 30% from 70%. I had to get a lawyer and fight them for my pension and the result was still not in my favor. Yes protect yourself dont say ANYTHING.

Illness does not preclude your constitutionally guaranteed rights. PTSD included!

PTSD does not meet a disqualifying definition according to the ATF:

https://www.atf.gov/file/4241/download

However, I do believe the trend is moving that direction.

Why do you think many veterans are hesitant to get help at the VA. They are afraid it will be used to take away their rights and their guns. Never tell the VA you own guns when they ask.

I received a 50% rating for PTSD and TBI. I have no problem buying guns. I don't say dumb things to doctors. If I did, I would expect them to act accordingly. There are alot of dumb veterans out there who say dumb things to anyone who will listen.