Shotgun Forum banner
  • Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
It's very interesting that Virginian thinks he can choose which laws to obey. What a concept. That would mean there would be no laws that pertain to him. I believe he needs to re-think this issue. If everyone lived with this mindset we would have a real mess, even worse than now. I hope he enjoys prison.
 
Get serious. Everyone chooses which laws they choose to obey, every day. Based on their own moral standards, beliefs, whatever. Shall I go 38 in a 35 MPH speed zone? Shall I fudge on how many shirts were in that bag I took to Goodwill when filling out my taxes? And, assuming a modicom of intelligence, and a genuine lack of mental impairment, one places their own interpretation of the entire and complete meaning of questions on a questionaire. You weigh the consequences of your actions and live with your decision(s).
And we already have more than a real mess without any help from me. The lawyers and lawmakers have turned what used to be a legal code based on morals and right and wrong into a huge game. That's all it is, and all they care about is who wins the game. Oh, and who can command a huge fee based on a proven record of getting "suspects" off the hook.
 
sepp said:
Nobody diagnosed this man as a threat to society. He admitted being treated for PTSD.
Since there is no such disease called "risk to society" he would never received that diagnosis. If accurate, the diagnosis of PTSD alone makes him an increased risk to society.

There are many levels of PTSD and anyone can experience it after a traumatic event. In most people the symptoms are temporary and not severe enough that they even seek treatment. Those who do seek treatment do so for several reasons. Either their symptoms are so severe they feel they need help, or they want the treatment documented in their medical records. Having spent 21 years in the military I am fully aware of the lifetime financial benefit of simply having treatment for this type of illness documented, and I know many who do scam the system just to get it documented. Most don't see the potential negative consequences until it's too late. If this veteran truly has PTSD, I wish him the best of luck in his treatment, but I do not want him owning a firearm.
 
Discussion starter · #24 ·
DEG,
]
Even if it's ignored are you saying a risk ignored in one instance is justification to ignore it in all instances?
Absolutely not.

How can a jurisdiction justify denial of a firearm permit to a veteran diagnosed with some degree of PTSD, and at the same time permit a law enforcement officer with some degree of PTSD to carry a firearm? That's not fair and may fly in the face of equal protection of the law.

Besides, such a practice would preclude hundreds if not thousands of well qualified veterans from serving in law enforcement.

Jim
 
I think a lot of people are missing that this law was put in place some time ago, he answered truthfully that he was under treatment for a mental disease and the law acted accordingly.

What a lot of people are missing with the pointless bickering is that A) the law is there to protect us. Would you want someone with a serious mental condition owning I firearm? I wouldn't!!! The law did what it was designed to do. B) he filled in the form truthfully without a CLEAR definition of what is defined as a "mental illness". Does PTSD count? Hard to say without clear definition. And finally, C) he submitted for review and was ultimately allowed to own the firearm. Thus, achieving his goal legally.

Not to mention, they are now reviewing the ordinance.

I don't see this as anything but a WIN for gunowners in that these kinds of laws that have been on the books for some time are getting reviewed so that someone isn't prevented from owning a firearm based on an obscure law.

And while I might not agree with some people's view on what is "breaking the law" and "morally right", I would have to say, those of us without sin should cast the first stone.

Personally, I'll keep mine in the large pile I've accumalated by my shed. ;)
 
"Since there is no such disease called "risk to society" he would never received that diagnosis. If accurate, the diagnosis of PTSD alone makes him an increased risk to society."

Ever participated in a capital murder trial with the death sentence as a possibility? One of the things that you are asked to assess as a juror is whether or not the defendant poses a continuing risk to society? This has to be answered in the affirmative to be able to sentence a person to death. At least it does here in Texas.

Situational ethics, as Virginian noted, are different for everyone depending on your viewpoint. I'm not perfect and I don't know anyone who is. We all lie, cheat, fudge, color our answers, bias our opinions etc. depending on our needs. To pretend otherwise is just plain bull****.
Don[/quote]
 
dflorida said:
"Since there is no such disease called "risk to society" he would never received that diagnosis. If accurate, the diagnosis of PTSD alone makes him an increased risk to society."

Ever participated in a capital murder trial with the death sentence as a possibility? One of the things that you are asked to assess as a juror is whether or not the defendant poses a continuing risk to society? This has to be answered in the affirmative to be able to sentence a person to death. At least it does here in Texas.

Situational ethics, as Virginian noted, are different for everyone depending on your viewpoint. I'm not perfect and I don't know anyone who is. We all lie, cheat, fudge, color our answers, bias our opinions etc. depending on our needs. To pretend otherwise is just plain bull****.
Don
[/quote]

Talk about bull....you are comparing a decision to put someone to death vs a decision to deny allowing someone to own a firearm. Risk analysis that ignores the outcome of the action is what is really bull.
 
Jimbo63 said:
DEG,
]
Even if it's ignored are you saying a risk ignored in one instance is justification to ignore it in all instances?
Absolutely not.

How can a jurisdiction justify a firearm permit to a veteran diagnosed with some degree of PTSD, and at the same time permit a law enforcement officer with some degree of PTSD to carry a firearm? That's not fair and may fly in the face of equal protection of the law.

Besides, such a practice would preclude hundreds if not thousands of well qualified veterans from serving in law enforcement.

Jim
Like I said before, I've never heard of any jurisdiction justifying firearm possession for law enforcement officers actually diagnosed with PTSD. However, I do personally know a state trooper who was involved in a justified shooting that resulted in the death of the suspect. He rode a desk for about 8 months and was not allowed to carry a firearm (on or off duty) until cleared by mental health professionals.

Are you just assuming it happens or do you actually have some statistics to support your belief?
 
SShooterZ said:
Would you want someone with a serious mental condition owning I firearm? I wouldn't!!!
Would I want to take away the right for someone to defend themselves? Someone who paid more for my freedom than I did?

HELL NO. In this case. Absolutely, not.

And according to all accounts, he was cleared. If he'd have just played the game and kept his mouth shut, he could have had that piece broken in by now!

:lol:
 
unkleschilke said:
SShooterZ said:
Would you want someone with a serious mental condition owning I firearm? I wouldn't!!!
Would I want to take away the right for someone to defend themselves? Someone who paid more for my freedom than I did?

HELL NO. In this case. Absolutely, not.

And according to all accounts, he was cleared. If he'd have just played the game and kept his mouth shut, he could have had that piece broken in by now!

:lol:
Did you read my entire post or did you just miss out on what I was saying?? :?
 
SShooterZ said:
Did you read my entire post or did you just miss out on what I was saying?? :?
I think I did.

The process worked is what you said... Right?
 
Discussion starter · #34 ·
Deg,

I don't know of any jurisdiction where a law enforcement officer is permitted after being diagnosed with some degree of PTSD.

I was reiterating an argument made in the veteran's appeal to the firearm board. Apparently his points had some effect since he was issued the permit.

I know that law enforcement officers where I live are put on administrative leave after shooting someone whether or not the shooting caused a fatality.

Jim
 
Deg,

My remark about the vet being "diagnosed a threat to society" was simply a generalization. I did not mean to imply that was an actual diagnosis.

I have a sister who was committed to a mental institution last year after being diagnosed with an "unspecified schizophrenia". She is on meds and has since been released and make no mistake, she was diagnosed by the shrink as being a threat to society. That's why she was committed by the state.

I have a friend who is a state trooper who has been involved in two shootings. The first back in 2001, he gut shot the suspect who promptly ran into the woods and due to extreme temperature (frostbite) lost all his toes and most of his fingers before he surrendered. Two years ago, the same trooper was involved in another shooting where a correctional officer killed the suspect before he could shoot my friend. He was put on admin leave, saw a department psychiatrist and went back on the road. I have no problem with him possessing a firearm.

I too am a veteran. I served just over 20 years in the Air Force as a security forces troop (Military Policeman). I am currently working for the Air Force as a civilian in a security forces unit. I frequently hunt and fish with military members both Air Force and Army and not all cases of PTSD are the same as has been previously mentioned. If a veteran or a cop is diagnosed with any mental illness that is viewed by the medical community as posing a danger or threat to society then that person should not be allowed to possess a firearm. Everybody else with PTSD or any other issue from my seat on the bus is good to go.
 
Now thats some interesting information. According to a few of you any woman taking Motrin for PMS should disqualify herself from purchasing a firearm.

I have to agree with that. :wink:

Common sense has left the building and the liberals are in the White house.
 
In my agency, an officer involved in a shooting is put on admin leave until the investigation is completed. Then he is put back to work in another zone. There is a psychiatrist available but no one that I know has ever wanted to have an evaluation. I've never known an officer to complain of PTSD unless he was bucking for a disability pension, a rare occurence.

My FIL went through WW II and was gone almost four years without seeing his family. He was involved in some of the heaviest fighting in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Austria, and Germany. He was a foot soldier. He told me many times that "shell shock" and the newer names for it, like PTSD, didn't apply to him. He was a strong man who had taken many lives in combat. He thought it a sign of weakness that soldiers that pulled only a year in combat and had done their duty would complain about it when he was gone almost four years in heavy combat. He died a few years ago at age 86 satisfied that he had done his best for his country. He told me many times that some of the guys complained about shell shock to get a pension.

It seems that as times get harder, more people are complaining of it. I don't know for a fact that it is a real disorder. I don't have a dog in this fight. It may be a problem with some people.

I'm glad that our member got his permit and that his problem is not bad enough to prevent him from owning a firearm.
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts