The last unprotected class
Imagine you read this:
The folks at the [organization] go on to note that [a certain ethnicty] “often have histories of alcohol abuse, gambling, or credit problems” and are at higher risk of suicide or murder-suicide.
Further, the [organization] goes on to assert that this group of people should be held to a higher standard by law enforcement. Can you even imagine the outrage?
Now let me backtrack. Here is where the stage is set in an outstanding article by Scott Sexton of the Winston Salem Journal.
The nutshell version on which both sides agree goes something like this:
Currently, the VA sends the names of veterans who have had fiduciaries assigned to handle their financial affairs to the FBI for inclusion on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That’s about 116,000 veterans as things stand now.
The controversy comes in determining whether someone who needs a fiduciary to deal with money matters is unfit to own a firearm.
“This standard is completely consistent with the regulations implementing the federal Gun Control Act and is one of the standards used by states for determining who is prohibited from possessing a firearm based on mental disability,” Wimmer wrote in an e-mail. “The other standard is when a person presents a danger to himself or others.”
The folks at the policy center go on to note that those vets “often have histories of alcohol abuse, gambling, or credit problems” and are at higher risk of suicide or murder-suicide. They also cite a 2000 survey in The New York Times which showed that 52 percent of recent rampage killers had military backgrounds and that 47 percent had a history of mental illness.
Mr Sexton himself notes that
OK, but it’s still a heck of a leap from needing a fiduciary to saying someone’s mentally ill. A veteran might need the fiduciary because of advanced age or other physical health problems, for example.
Putting aside the fact that the NYT article/study is a pile of crap, and that needing a fiduciary doesn’t neccessarily imply mental illness, since when do laws apply differently to certain demographics? And what effect if going to the VA opens you up to losing your Second Amendment rights when going to a regular medical provider does not?
I’m actually somewhat involved in this issue, and may have a follow up article from another newspaper soon that quotes me, but I am just curious what you guys think about the assertions by the Violence Policy Center that we are more of a danger as veterans than our non-serving brethren. And where is our Jesse Jackson-esque leader to stand up and proclaim that prejudice against veterans must not stand?
Category: Politics
If you are going to restrict the gun rights of a group like veterans; why not eliminate the gun rights of ethnic youths in areas known for gang violence?
TSO: Well, exactly, it’s only a short step. Or it could be geographic. Since there are more murders in the 20006 zip code, we should obviously apply stricter standards of gun ownership for anyone living there. There’s no end to the nonsense that this might bring. But my bigger point is that no one is actively repudiating the horrific comments of the VPC, and that this is what articles like the one in the NYT will bring about.
“And where is our Jesse Jackson-esque leader to stand up and proclaim that prejudice against veterans must not stand?”
“my bigger point is that no one is actively repudiating the horrific comments of the VPC”
Perhaps you could be that person?
TSO: Even you guys don’t listen to me, why would anyone else? Besides, in my job, can’t be much of a spokesman.
Just another way for the Government to regulate and butt into my life some more.
“Sorry sir, it says here that you were in actual combat and may be a candidate for PTSD so we can’t let you buy a gun to protect your home and family from those whom posses them illegally. Thanks….”
Jackasses!
Good God. That “study” that appeared in the New York Times was completely blown out of the water by everybody from sociologists to my 11-year-old. So, if we go to the FBI Bureau of Crime Statistics, we learn that if the crime stats only included whites and Asian-Americans, the U.S. would have a lower crime rate than most of Europe. So, since statistics can’t be racist, I suppose people who are not white or Asian-American should warrant a different amount of scrutiny from law enforcement. Just following the lead from the Violence Policy Center.
Could we say that 99% of divorces result in ‘thoughts’ of violence, so anyone involved in a divorce should be put on the ‘list’ and never allowed to own a firearm or knife of any kind? How about anyone who ever received a traffic ticket? Every one of them wanted to kill the cop. Put them on the list.
BDS has caught up with the liberals. Everyone of them are fully ready for comittment to the rubber room motel.
I never really understood gun laws applying to military/vets. One example of this modern irony is where I currently work. There’s enough nukes on base to turn the earth into a nebula, but I had to sign something saying I wouldn’t bring my teeny little .357 onboard. Go figure!
ATF Form 4473 has long had a question about mental health issues. I do believe it is a felony to lie on the form.
So there are two separate issues here. If anyone lies on the form they are committing a crime, thus should not be able to buy a gun. The form does NOT ask for your thoughts and /or opinions.
And does utilizing existing databases and technology to determine if someone is committing a crime amount to an apriori judgment of guilt? Police do run tags and such.
I’m not so sure vet’s are being singled out, save by being in a convenient database.
Ok, in my opinion, the people who should be MOST qualified to own a firearm would be a veteran. Of all the people in this country, they are most familiar with how to use them properly. It’s just another way to eliminate the common man’s means of protecting himself from tyranny. Which of course opens us up to becoming socialist. I think my step-dad would say they’ll have to pry his gun from his cold dead fingers.
“a 2000 survey in The New York Times which showed that 52 percent of recent rampage killers”
I bet a much higher percentage went to public schools, but we won’t mention that.
Megan, I like your line of thought.
Veterans earned the rights on top of the fact it was their right in the first place. So, double the rights for the Vet to own firearms. Plus the fact the government spent a lot of time teaching them how to use them. Why should that investment in skill be wasted. Like Megan said “They are MOST qualified to own a firearm”.
Indeed, it is the veteran who can pass on the safe and measured use of firearms education to our youth.
Oh well, in neo-liberal land day is night, up is down, Bethlehem is Gomorrah….
Possession of a DD 214 under honorable conditions, should trump any and all restrictive gun laws nationwide, except for prohibitions about felons owning weapons. Seeking to violate or evade this principle to deny a veteran his 2nd Amendment rights, shoulc itself be a felony.
Although Mr. Sexton states that a vet might need a fiduciary because of age or physical health problems, that isn’t how/why veterans have fiduciaries. Fiduciaries through the VA work a bit differently than someone who has financial power of attorney in a civilian setting. In order to have a fiduciary, the veteran has to be determined to be incompetent to handle his or her own financial affairs (or is someone under the age of 18 receiving benefits through the VA such as a minor child of a deceased service member). Old age and physical health problems on their own aren’t enough to warrant a fiduciary established through the VA. A veteran could have a family member or friend with financial power of attorney who handles their finances WITHOUT having an established fiduciary if they just need a little help because of physical problems. Thus, anyone on the VA list of fiduciaries is going to be someone whose cognitive abilities are so impaired they are unable to manage their own money. This designation requires VERY significant impairment and it seems reasonable to me that people on the list would show up on the background check and wouldn’t be allowed to own firearms. Bringing the NYT vet hatchet-job piece into the article was a big red herring.