Veterans with no finance skills may lose gun rights

[TMF]

[quote name='peejman' timestamp='1354673176' post='855036']

Someone enlighten me if I'm reading the article incorrectly... It says taking away gun purchasing rights to those who have been declared mentally incompetent. That goes way beyond not being able to balance a check book.

[/quote]

It appears that this happens when the VA appoints a fiduciary to manage disability payments. This could simply be someone who is in poor physical condition, such as being hospitalized for a non-mental condition. Regardless whether this is due to a mental condition or not, this is an additional restriction that ONLY targets veterans. How would you feel if you were permanently barred from purchase because a third party had to file paperwork to authorize your spouse to collect your paycheck because you weren't physically capable of doing so and they went ahead and forwarded your info to the FBI? Not cool if you ask me. I don't see why vets should be subject to additional scrutiny above an ordinary citizen.

I'd reason to bet that the majority of VA patients affected by this are elderly veterans, not newly separated Servicemembers, which would explain the high numbers with few challenges.

[Guest RevScottie]

[color=#222222][font="Arial","sans-serif"][size=2]This is targeting vets who are too mentally incompetent to handle their own affairs, not just vets who have poor math skills and can't balance their check books. If you aren’t mentally stable enough to handle your daily affairs you aren’t stable enough to have weapons. About the only way to get weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable folks these days is to get them AFTER they have committed a violent crime. There is absolutely no protection from people who are mentally unstable but aren’t institutionalized. Mental Health Care in this country is in huge need of reform. [/size][/font][/color]

[peejman]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354723254' post='855241']
It appears that this happens when the VA appoints a fiduciary to manage disability payments. This could simply be someone who is in poor physical condition, such as being hospitalized for a non-mental condition. Regardless whether this is due to a mental condition or not, this is an additional restriction that ONLY targets veterans. How would you feel if you were [b]permanently barred from purchase because a third party had to file paperwork to authorize your spouse to collect your paycheck because you weren't physically capable of doing so[/b] and they went ahead and forwarded your info to the FBI? Not cool if you ask me. I don't see why vets should be subject to additional scrutiny above an ordinary citizen.

I'd reason to bet that the majority of VA patients affected by this are elderly veterans, not newly separated Servicemembers, which would explain the high numbers with few challenges.
[/quote]

That makes the outrage a little more sensible.

Physically unable is one thing, mentally unable is something very different. The article specifically states "declared mentally incompetent". I interpret that as similar to my great aunt who had Parkinson's and mild dementia and couldn't care for herself anymore. Best I recall, she had to be declared mentally incompetent so that a relative could get power of attorney and take over her finances.

[TMF]

[quote name='peejman' timestamp='1354732877' post='855309']

That makes the outrage a little more sensible.

Physically unable is one thing, mentally unable is something very different. The article specifically states "declared mentally incompetent". I interpret that as similar to my great aunt who had Parkinson's and mild dementia and couldn't care for herself anymore. [/quote]

I'm sure that the majority of these cases are folks who are elderly and suffering from dementia, but "mentally incompetent" to the point of requiring a fiduciary could be someone in a coma, severely disabled from injury or someone hospitalized from severe depression. The VA has to authorize someone to take the benefits, so "mentally incompetent" could mean a range of things. Either way, the decision to bar someone from purchasing a firearm should not be made by a third rate clerk in the VA. That's what courtrooms are for. If a judge wants to make that call based on the recommendations of doctors, then fine. But to have your rights decided by a third party is criminal and un-Constitutional.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354725397' post='855258'][color=#222222][font="Arial","sans-serif"][size=2] If you aren’t mentally stable enough to handle your daily affairs you aren’t stable enough to have weapons. About the only way to get weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable folks these days is to get them AFTER they have committed a violent crime. There is absolutely no protection from people who are mentally unstable but aren’t institutionalized. [/quote]

You're right. Due process is a pesky thing, isn't it? We should do away with that and strip a person's rights away preemptively without the involvement of due process. Freedom is simply too dangerous.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354734933' post='855317']
You're right. Due process is a pesky thing, isn't it? We should do away with that and strip a person's rights away preemptively without the involvement of due process. Freedom is simply too dangerous.
[/quote]

The problem is there is no "due process" to be pursued in the cases i am speaking of. I'm not neccesarily speaking of Vets here. A mentally unstable person, currently under mental health care, with a violent criminal history, in the middle of deep psychosis and making death threats to everyone around them can not be touched by anyone until they act. When they then go and shoot up a theater, school, or church everyone wants to no why no one noticed the warning signs. That's just plain stupid.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354737641' post='855339']

The problem is there is no "due process" to be pursued in the cases i am speaking of. I'm not neccesarily speaking of Vets here. A mentally unstable person, currently under mental health care, with a violent criminal history, in the middle of deep psychosis and making death threats to everyone around them can not be touched by anyone until they act. When they then go and shoot up a theater, school, or church everyone wants to no why no one noticed the warning signs. That's just plain stupid.[/quote]

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a persons rights being decided by a paper pusher in the VA. That is not right.

And you are incorrect. Someone with a "violent criminal history" is not allowed to own a firearm. This decision is made in a courtroom, where it should be.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354738664' post='855349']
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a persons rights being decided by a paper pusher in the VA. That is not right.

And you are incorrect. Someone with a "violent criminal history" is not allowed to own a firearm. This decision is made in a courtroom, where it should be.
[/quote]

They are not allowed to purchase one legally but can obviously have access to one. Sorry don't want to get too off topic but I think it's ridiculous for known psychotic people to have access to firearms and there is nothing that can be done legally about it. I know a guy who is mentally unstable, has a violent criminal history, is making documented death threats to individuals, has firearms in his home and yet the law protects him and not the ones he is threatening.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Criminals seem to have access to firearms, even after they have been caught and released, also.
Due process is the only way someone should have any right taken away, and then, it should be very
difficult. A right is a right.

[RobertNashville]

To be honest I have some mixed feelings about this.

While she is not a veteran, the situation I've experienced with my aging mother gives me something to contemplate about this issue.

My mother is clearly mentally "impaired" due to progressing illness and it started to first become evident in how she handled her finances. That's saying something considering that in her career, she was the head accountant for a large General Electric plant. My point being that while her lack of critical/logical thought regarding her finances didn't give me concern about her owning a firearm she most certainly did reach the point where her thought processes were clearly to the point that understanding how to use a firearm or when, had been compromised...she was simply no long safe to have a gun available to her.

I don't have an answer here...but I can see two sides to this...this whole subject is pretty sad to contemplate.

[Commando68]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354737641' post='855339']


The problem is there is no "due process" to be pursued in the cases i am speaking of. I'm not neccesarily speaking of Vets here. A mentally unstable person, currently under mental health care, with a violent criminal history, in the middle of deep psychosis and making death threats to everyone around them can not be touched by anyone until they act. When they then go and shoot up a theater, school, or church everyone wants to no why no one noticed the warning signs. That's just plain stupid.
[/quote]same goes for those pesky bill of rights tea party people. They sound dangerous and should be denied gun rights. They might act out!

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1354782721' post='855634']
same goes for those pesky bill of rights tea party people. They sound dangerous and should be denied gun rights. They might act out!
[/quote]

Not talking about anything remotely resembling what you are saying. I am talking about people who are under care from a mental health care provider suffering from psychosis. You guys are quite oblivious to what really goes on in the mental health care arena. I say when you start making death threats your rights should be infringed upon.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354803711' post='855825']

Not talking about anything remotely resembling what you are saying. I am talking about people who are under care from a mental health care provider suffering from psychosis. You guys are quite oblivious to what really goes on in the mental health care arena. I say when you start making death threats your rights should be infringed upon.[/quote]

Death threats are a crime and, therefore, can be handled in a court of law. I don't disagree with you there. You just don't seem to understand what the laws are.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354804090' post='855828']
Death threats are a crime and, therefore, can be handled in a court of law. I don't disagree with you there. You just don't seem to understand what the laws are.
[/quote]

Death threats are not a crime according to my hours of conversations with multiple local law enforcement agencies. It is simply "free speech". The only possible crime was electronic harrasment because the threats were via phone. No agency was able to do anything more than talk to this mentally ill indiviual and if he didn't feel he needed "treatment" their hands were tied. Even talked with his mental health case worker and even though he was shocked at the behavior and felt the individual could be dangerous he could do nothing either because of the indivdual's "rights" The only advice from law enforcement was to have a HCP in order to defend myself and my family.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354806298' post='855845']

Death threats are not a crime according to my hours of conversations with multiple local law enforcement agencies. It is simply "free speech". [/quote]

No it isn't. It is against the law to threaten to kill another person.

[Guest RevScottie]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354808135' post='855859']
It is against the law to threaten to kill another person.
[/quote]

Does anyone know of a TN statute that supports this? I always thought the same as TMF but multiple LEOs have told me it is not a crime.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354809934' post='855871']
Does anyone know of a TN statute that supports this? I always thought the same as TMF but multiple LEOs have told me it is not a crime.
[/quote]

Only things I could find initially is:

- death threat could be aggravated stalking, but a one time occurrence wouldn't cut it [i]39-17-315[/i]
- circumstances of threatening school employee [i]39-13-114 [/i]

there may of course be others, dunno

- OS

[Guest RevScottie]

This is the only one I found concerning threats:

[b]39-17-308. Harassment. [/b]

[b](a) [/b]A person commits an offense who intentionally:
[b](1) [/b]Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;
[b](2) [/b]Places one (1) or more telephone calls anonymously, or at an hour or hours known to be inconvenient to the victim, or in an offensively repetitious manner, or without a legitimate purpose of communication, and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;
[b](3) [/b]Communicates by telephone to another that a relative or other person has been injured, killed or is ill when the communication is known to be false; or
[b](4) [/b]Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:
[b](A) (i) [/b]With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
[b](ii) [/b]In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
[b]( [/b]As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

[RobertNashville]

I think the issue is not whether it's a crime, I believe that in most states, including Tennessee, it is. The problem, as is often the case, is proving the threat happened. If it was verbal (rather than written) and there are no witnesses what can law enforcement do?

Even if it can be proven, I suspect the ability to carry out the threat also plays a part....a 30 year old man who is known to have firearms and has been violent in the past is one thing; an 80 year old woman in poor health and not weapons who makes such a threat is probably not a big threat.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354817650' post='855928']
This is the only one I found concerning threats:
[/quote]
[b]39-13-101. Assault, and 39-13-102 Aggravated assault are both crimes in this state. One is a misdemeanor the other a felony. Neither require anything more than threats.[/b]

[Guest RevScottie]

I guess it really doesn't matter what the law says if no officer is willing to pursue it.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354836432' post='856091']I guess it really doesn't matter what the law says if no officer is willing to pursue it. [/quote]

Officers need evidence, going back to the whole due process thing. Trust me, I've been down this road, and I have learned that you need to provide an officer with real evidence as opposed to "he said, she said" if you want something done. In my case the a-hole was dumb enough to admit his crime the first time, but the second time around I got nothing. I don't blame the law for a lack of action. It is one of the drawbacks of living free. The onus is on me to catch the SOB next time and provide the evidence to a court so I can see his rights taken away.

[Guest RevScottie]

TMF LEO's had ample evidence including two recorded messages from my voicemail. This message threatened individuals as well as a group. 4 others besides myself spoke to law enforcement about the message and the individual's mental state and history of violence. Each officer said they wish there was something they could do but their hands were tied because he hadn't acted on the threats.

[TMF]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354882913' post='856354']TMF LEO's had ample evidence including two recorded messages from my voicemail. This message threatened individuals as well as a group. 4 others besides myself spoke to law enforcement about the message and the individual's mental state and history of violence. Each officer said they wish there was something they could do but their hands were tied because he hadn't acted on the threats.[/quote]

Well I don't know what to tell you. If the threats were clear as you described and officers didn't act on it, they sound like lazy/incompetent LEOs. The law supports arresting and charging a person who makes death threats. It happens here in clarksville quite frequently.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354882913' post='856354']
TMF LEO's had ample evidence including two recorded messages from my voicemail. This message threatened individuals as well as a group. 4 others besides myself spoke to law enforcement about the message and the individual's mental state and history of violence. Each officer said they wish there was something they could do but their hands were tied because he hadn't acted on the threats.
[/quote]
Rev, I agree with TMF, and I have no idea why the cops didn’t deal with your problem to your satisfaction. I have never worked under Tennessee law, but threatening a person is a crime in most states. It is here the way I read the law.

I’m making no judgments about what the cops told you because I have no idea of the circumstances, but you always have recourse. You can go either go to the Police Department (recommended for best results) or you can call and talk to a Command Officer. They may tell you the same thing, but it’s worth a try.