Thrown Into a Psych Ward for No Apparent Reason?

This story does not add up to the headline.

Do veterans get treated the way they should? Hell no! Do they wait and fight for the compensation and treatment they earned while serving? Yes and they shouldn't have to. The veteran says in the second interview that he had personal issues and left a message on his friends phone. That is what apparently caused this. The police did a "wellness check" and frankly they don't do that unless someone has called about someone they are worried about.

I've had to do it several times for veterans I was worried about. They don't just show up at a veteran's door.

This veteran says in the phone interview that he went to the VA for pain in his back and was told he would need to get evaluated by mental health and that makes sense since they are evaluating veterans for PTSD and TBI because most don't know they have either one. The pain medication he was asking for is probably addictive, so there is another reason. Plus you have to consider that we have a huge problem with veterans committing suicide.

There is no way for me to know for sure because all I can go by are the videos of this veteran being interviewed. If he left a message on his friend's machine starting the concern off, then people did what they were supposed to do. The only way the VA can take away gun rights is if the veteran is a danger to himself or others, or has a court ordered fiduciary because they cannot make rational decisions. This does not happen often.

Congress' answer to the veterans suicide epidemic was to take away guns because that is the preferred "means" of suicide however we have seen that attempt did nothing to reduce the suicide rate. By the way, this law was signed in 2008.

PROVISIONS OF THE JOSHUA OMVIG VETERANS SUICIDE PREVENTION ACT
The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (the “Act”) mandates that VA create and implement a comprehensive program to address the mental health problems of all veterans.

Congress expressed particular concern for “the special needs of veterans suffering from PTSD and the special needs of elderly veterans who are at high risk for depression,” the veteran populations most likely to commit suicide.

The program has six major components, detailed in section 3 of the Act:

(1) education for VA staff;
(2) increased emphasis on mental health
assessments for veterans;
(3) designation of suicide prevention counselors;
(4) research on veterans’ mental health issues;
(5) provision of round-theclock
mental health care; and
(6) outreach and education for veterans and their families.

The VA also “may provide for other actions to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans that the Secretary considers appropriate.”

Finally, Congress mandated that the VA report on the implementation status of the program, its estimated timeline for completion, the estimated costs of the program, and any additional actions deemed necessary to fully address veterans’ mental health issues.

If this veteran is upset by what happened then he needs to contact his friend because it is my guess the phone call set all of this off. He should thank him for caring that much about him because making that phone call is one of the hardest things a person does. They struggle with wondering if they are saving a life or ending a friendship. Then it dawns on them that if they don't make the call just in case their fears are justified, they would live with the guilt over not trying to save the life of someone they cared about.

Disabled Veteran David Schmecker: Thrown Into a Psych Ward for No Apparent Reason
by Renee Nal
April 03, 2013

David Schmecker, 50, is a disabled veteran with "no psychiatric history" who seemingly had his firearms confiscated and gun permit revoked in Connecticut for no apparent reason. It all started when he called the Veteran's Administration to get a follow-up appointment for a spinal injury.

George Hemminger of SurviveAndThriveTV interviewed the distraught Navy veteran who explained his story. Schmecker says that when the VA called back to schedule the appointment, he was informed that the appointment would entail a visit with a psychiatrist and a psychologist on top of his physical therapy and pain management session. As noted by Opposing Views, "It's not unusual for veterans to be asked to submit to a psychological evaluation when requesting pain medication due to the high rate of addiction." Regardless, Schmecker "refused" the mental health treatment, as he said the appointment was for a "spine injury." He indicates that after his refusal, "they never got back to me and they still haven't."
read more here

Fort Hood Master Sgt. arrested for refusing to put weapon down

While I do not agree with what Master Sgt. Grisham did I have to agree with the fact that just because a veteran or member of the military has PTSD, they should not lose their gun rights. They are not the ones civilians have to worry about any more than they have to worry about anyone else with PTSD. Do some commit crimes? Yes, just like the minority of civilians do. Do they commit suicide with a firearm? Yes, the majority use guns but again, as with civilians, most with PTSD do not commit suicide. The means is not as important as the reason. If they had the proper help instead of programs that do not work, we wouldn't see so many killing themselves. If they were not given medications that were not intended to treat PTSD and have terrible side effects, we wouldn't see so many of them going from being willing to die for the sake of someone else into killing someone else.

NCO arrested for refusing to put down weapon
Army Times
By Jon R. Anderson
Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 30, 2013

Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, a conservative military blogger and vocal gun rights activist, was arrested March 16 in Temple, Texas, after a scuffle with a local police officer.

The incident unfolded after someone spotted Grisham carrying “an assault-style rifle” as he and his teenage son were walking along rural roads near the Temple airport west of town, said Temple Police Department spokesman Cpl. Chris Wilcox.

Wilcox said walking on a road with a rifle is not against the law, but “if you have an AR15 or an assault weapon of some type and someone calls that in, we’re going to go and investigate it. I imagine any police department in the country is going to do that in light of all of the shootings that have taken place.”

An officer was dispatched to check things out. Wilcox said the officer approached Grisham and told him to set down the loaded rifle that was slung across his chest so the two could talk.

Instead, Grisham “became very irate and angry and yelled at the officer he was not going to take his gun,” Wilcox said.

A scuffle ensued, with the officer eventually drawing his service pistol and pinning Grisham against the patrol car until backup units arrived. A search also revealed that Grisham, a counterintelligence agent stationed at nearby Fort Hood, was carrying a concealed pistol, for which he had a permit.

The arrest came the same weekend Grisham was quoted in Military Times defending gun rights for troops with post-traumatic stress. He has been open about his own diagnoses following tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
read more here

Iraq veteran wants us to know he had to pass a background check

I received an email from an Iraq veteran with a video on Vote Vets.

I needed to pass a background check to join the Marine Corps and carry an assault weapon in Iraq. We should require the same of anyone who wants to carry one at home. As veterans, we're familiar with these weapons and why its so important we keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. That's why I'm proud to appear in VoteVets latest 30-second ad on the issue. With the Senate set to vote on gun legislation in a few weeks, watch the ad and tell your Senators that you support universal background checks.

Glenn Kunkel said that he had to pass a background check before he could carry his weapon. Why shouldn't everyone else?
Glenn Kunkel
Iraq War Veteran
Purple Heart Recipient

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.

Vet Group Responds to Proposed PTSD Gun Limits
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

Anyway, struggling to find the right words I can print on this for a public blog.

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

Veteran can't get gun after old conviction, court says

Veteran can't get gun after old conviction, court says
Politico
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
1/11/13

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court says a Maryland veteran can't own a gun because of a misdemeanor assault conviction more than four decades ago.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday turned away an appeal from 68-year-old Navy veteran Jefferson Wayne Schrader, who sued after failing a 2008 background check.
read more here

Is there a right answer on gun rights?

Is there a right answer on gun rights?
by Kathie Costos
Wounded Times Blog
January 12, 2013

If they don't find the real reason there is so much gun violence in this country, there won't be a right answer.

A Dad so worried about security at his child's school, he now faces charges for pretending to be a "shooter" with a gun.

Dad poses as gunman to test school security, gets arrested
By Vignesh Ramachandran
Staff Writer
NBC News

A Texas man is facing third-degree felony charges of making a terroristic threat after he allegedly told elementary school staffers he brought a gun to the building, NBCDFW.com reported.

Officials say Ronald Miller was unarmed Wednesday when he told a school greeter outside Celina Elementary School that he had a gun, according to NBCDFW.com. The town of Celina is just north of Dallas.

The greeter froze in panic when Miller said he was a gunman and his target was inside, Celina Independent School District Superintendent Donny O'Dell told NBCDFW.com. Miller was then able to walk into the school and entered the office.

"He told them that he is a shooter and 'you're dead, and you're dead,'" O'Dell told NBCDFW.com. Never showing a weapon, Miller then reportedly revealed his stunt was a test of school safety and he wanted to talk to the principal.

School staffers knew Miller, who was a father of a student, and police were not called until he left the school, The Dallas Morning News reported. He was arrested Wednesday evening and is being held in lieu of $75,000 bail, the newspaper added.
read more here

A pro-gun group has members believing they will lose their rights to own guns even though the Constitution protects that right.

Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'
By Matthew DeLuca
Staff Writer
NBC News

As lawmakers from Connecticut to California rush to propose new restrictions on firearms and ammunition, state-level gun-rights activists are playing defense for the first time in years, with some saying they face fights they may not win.

“Our backs are against the wall,” said Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun rights group. “We are in for the fight of our lives. I have never seen anything like it.”

In a blog post after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., the CCDL admitted to its members that efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines could succeed, despite their strident opposition.

The CCDL message said that "we simply do not know" whether they would be "successful in our efforts to protect us from bans on certain firearms or magazines."

In New Jersey, 18 new bills have been submitted to the state legislature, including one that would require gun buyers to submit to a psychological evaluation, according to the Star-Ledger.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo called on legislators to pass the nation’s toughest ban on assault weapons and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

In California, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat, said he intends to introduce a bill requiring gun owners to register annually, and another requiring all guns to be kept in lock boxes when not in use.

In Connecticut, Democratic Sen. Beth Bye wants to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require that firearms be registered by model and serial number, Reuters reported. Bye also wants to impose a 50 percent sales tax on ammunition and magazines.

In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, received a standing ovation from some state legislators Thursday when he suggested requiring universal background checks on all gun sales.

read more here

As we talk about the reasons behind all the violence, people seem too ready to point to what happened at Fort Hood without ever mentioning the fact that the soldiers on Fort Hood do not walk around with their weapons. That is their home. That is their community. That is where their families live, go to school, shop and where they are supposed to be safe. Had soldiers been armed, many say it wouldn't have happened, but many more think it would have happened because the failure began with a deranged gunman the chain of command did nothing about ahead of time.

The biggest murderers have been linked to mental illness, so we know the mental health professionals have failed along with too many years of mental health cuts in almost every state.

Do the sane gun owners have to be maligned by the press because mentally ill people get their hands on assault weapons? What about mentally ill people who are not a danger to themselves or others?

Congress passed a bill to try to stop veterans from committing suicide when the numbers were going up and the means were guns.

They tried that with the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Bill and we still saw suicides go up with the means of choice being guns. This ended up causing veterans to fear if they were diagnosed with PTSD they would lose their guns.

"Medal of Honor Dakota Meyer wrestled with whether to disclose the suicide attempt, he said, but decided to do so because it shows the realities of war. The close call occurred in September 2010, just days after the first anniversary of the battle in Ganjgal, a small village in Afghanistan’s Kunar province, Meyer said. He had been drinking at a friend’s house in Kentucky, he said, and on the way home pulled his pickup truck over and took from the glove compartment what he thought was a loaded Glock pistol.

“I just remember pulling over, and it was at my buddy’s shop. He had a shop that his dad and him work out of, and I just pulled in the driveway and was like, ‘I just can’t do it anymore,’ you know?” Meyer said. “I said, ‘I’m done. I just can’t take it anymore. That’s it.’”

Meyer pulled the trigger and was shocked when it didn’t go off, he wrote in the book. He suspects someone else unloaded the pistol, but declined to disclose who it was. He subsequently sought treatment for post-traumatic stress and is doing better now, he said."

We know there are many gun owners using guns for protection and as happened in Georgia when a Mom faced off with a home invader she had to act before police arrived. She not only had a gun, she knew how to use it. She hit the criminal 5 times!

What would have happened between the time police were called and arrived to protect her family? It probably wouldn't have ended well.

This is why even non-gun owners understand gun owners. There are many parts of this nation with too much territory for law enforcement to patrol. Even in cities, again, with cutbacks there are fewer police officers to respond to more violence. Some are calling for armed guards in schools but that does not address who will pay for them. They say arm teachers but can a teacher face off with a handgun against a psycho with an assault weapon? What about people in shopping malls and movies? Who protects them?

If congress takes away the right to buy an assault weapon, what about the ones already owned?

Who protects non-gun owners? What is the right answer as VP Joe Biden puts together what he heard from many groups? Members of congress have said that there will not be an assault weapons ban again because it didn't work the first time. Experts have been divided on violent computer games when some point out that these games are played all over the world and other nations have less gun violence, while others say their findings show a connection. Some say it is violence in movies but again experts are divided on that. Why aren't they also divided on mental health? There are mentally ill people all over the world and again, less gun violence even in nations where they have more guns.

Update: This is from The Guardian on world wide gun figures.

The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

There hasn't been anyone proving what the answer is because they don't know what the reason is. If it is a combination of everything, then with other nations experiencing the same issues, why are their figures lower? What is the one thing that makes America different?

Even gun owners can't agree
James Yeager, CEO Who Threatened To 'Start Killing People' Over Gun Control, Backpedals... Sort Of
Posted: 01/11/2013

Coincidentally, Yeager's handgun carry permit was suspended by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Friday.

Just one of the many video responses on YouTube

Former Marines share dramatically different stances on gun violence

It is a good thing to read this. What exactly do they think the words "well regulated" mean?

Former Marines share dramatically different stances on gun violence
By Christina Zdanowicz
CNN
January 10, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Former Marine says he will not register his guns even if a federal law is passed
Marine's open letter goes viral online; draws fiery responses from CNN commenters
Another former Marine responds to Joshua Boston's letter with a countering view
CNN asks both men the same questions to explain their opposing views

(CNN) -- "No ma'am ... I will not register my weapons."

These passionate words from a former Marine sparked an insatiable conversation on CNN.com.

Since Joshua Boston posted an open letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, dismissing stricter gun control, on CNN iReport, his commentary has received more than 1 million views, almost 30,000 comments and even a response from Feinstein's office.

But one response stood out from the rest -- a reaction from another former Marine addressed directly to Boston. Nicolas DiOrio called Boston's letter an "embarrassment to those who've served."

The two views on gun control were as different as the photos adorning the letters, Boston wielding a firearm and DiOrio pointing a video camera.

Prompted by the firestorm of discussion the two have sparked, we interviewed both men with the same set of questions to further explain their opposing views on gun control.
read more here

I own a house so I have property I want to defend and right now the threat to my property are moles. Can I go out and buy land mines to get rid of them? Nope. There are regulations on what I can and cannot do.

I am also a total klutz, which is one of the reasons I do not drive a motorcycle but love to ride on the back of my husband's Harley. I don't want to hurt anyone else because I am not good at something. For the same reason, I don't want a gun in my hands. I am not capable of shooting straight and I don't want to worry about aiming at something but hit something or someone else. I know my own limits.

Unfortunately, too many others do not know theirs.

While it is easy to assume you can hit what you aim at and will be able to hit a person instead of a paper target, do you really know for sure if you can? Are you really that good at it? What if you hit someone with a stray bullet? So many questions and not enough people asking them. The question gnawing at me right now is arming teachers with handguns to go against assault weapons. Does this make sense to anyone? Really?

No one has explained why they should have the right to own an assault weapon. No one has explained why they should have the right to walk into a gun show and buy whatever they want to have with no background check. No one has explained why they have the right to buy as many bullets and fill ammunition clips with whatever they want without even having to prove they are a license gun owner in the first place. Yep, they can order bullets online. They are easier to get than the guns even though the gun itself cannot kill without bullets.

The NRA wants the conversation simplified so they get more money for making the gun manufactures richer making sure you're afraid. If they give you time to think without fear, you won't need them anymore.

The cops on our streets that have to deal with these shootings said that if there were more guns involved in an assault, they wouldn't have time to figure out if you were the "good guy" with the gun the NRA talked about or the "bad guy with a gun" because all they have time to do is blink, see a gun and fire. They know people are being shot and someone is shooting, so that makes you a target too.

Still, in all of this, assault weapons should be in the hands of the people trained to use them. SWAT and the Military including the National Guards that used to be called Militia.

Police Detectives harassed at Denny's over guns?

Police Banned From Denny's Restaurant After Manager 'Harassed' Detectives Over Guns
Huffington Post
Posted: 01/03/2013

A police chief in Belleville, Ill. has banned his officers from eating at a local Denny's and accused the restaurant of "political stupidness" after a confrontation between a group of detectives and the restaurant's manager on New Year's Day, CBS St. Louis reports.

According to CBS, a diner was alarmed after spotting a female officer's weapon and alerted David Rice, the restaurant's manager. Rice subsequently approached the five detectives, who were not in uniform, and asked that they either leave the restaurant or put their weapons in their car. The officers left before being served their meal.'
read more here

Retired Generals and Admirals want gun law changed to prevent military suicides

Aside from this, what became obvious many years ago is that guns are not the only problem. They find other ways of doing it. The issue here should not be just about how they do it but more about why they do it!

They are not getting proper help for PTSD and their families are still clueless what it is or what they can do to help. The reason they commit suicide should be a hell of a lot more important. After 40 years of research on PTSD, hundreds of millions spent on programs that don't work they ended up with higher suicide rates yet instead of discussing who should have been held accountable, they battle on the how instead of the why.

Retired military officers’ letter seeks to amend gun law to help battle suicides
By Steve Vogel
Published: December 2

A group of senior retired generals and admirals are calling for Congress to amend a recent law that they say “dangerously interferes” with the ability of commanders to battle the epidemic of suicides among members of the military.

Legislation added to the 2011 defense authorization bill at the urging of gun-rights advocates prohibits commanders from collecting any information about weapons privately owned by troops.

Critics say the law prevents commanders from being able to talk to service members about their privately owned weapons — such as encouraging the use of a gunlock or temporary storage away from their homes — even in cases when the commanding officer thinks the service member is at risk for suicide.

“The law is directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives,” states a letter sent last week to members of Congress by a dozen retired officers, including former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis J. Reimer and former surgeons general for the Army, Air Force and Navy.

“It unnecessarily hampers a commander from taking all possible practical steps for preventing suicide,” one of the signers, Army Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, said Saturday.

Dubik commanded the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq in 2007 and 2008.
read more here

Bill aims to protect vets’ gun rights

They don't want to hear they have nothing to fear when it comes to having to turn in their guns for PTSD treatment. It's as simple as that. They know how screwed up the system can be and they don't want to trust it. This bill needs to be passed so that I don't have to hear more veterans asking more about losing their right to have a gun than they do about PTSD itself.

As I've stated many times before, I do not own a gun and have no plans of getting one but I do not judge others or question their rights as long as they are responsible gun owners. The only thing I care about is that there are many veterans who will not go to the VA out of fear of having to give up their guns.

Bill aims to protect vets’ gun rights

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Apr 27, 2009 14:06:49 EDT

A bill aimed at protecting the gun rights of some veterans is under Senate consideration.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, pending before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, would limit the circumstances in which a veteran’s name could be added to a federal database used to do instant background checks for gun purchases.

By law, anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective,” such as people found to be a danger to themselves or others or who lack the mental capacity to manage their affairs, must be registered in the database.

The bill, S 669, which has 15 co-sponsors, would prohibit VA from submitting names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judicial authority finds the individuals to be a danger to themselves or others.

VA has been turning over the names of veterans who have had someone else appointed to handle their financial affairs. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., ranking Republican on the veterans committee and sponsor of the bill, said VA has sent names of more than 117,000 veterans to the Justice Department since 1998 under the policy.

“Although there is still no danger a veteran will lose their right to carry a firearm for seeking treatment for [post-traumatic stress disorder], we offer our support for this legislation in the hopes it will quell any fears veterans might have about seeking treatment for mental health injuries,” said Patrick Campbell, IAVA’s chief legislative counsel.

go here for more

Bill aims to protect vets’ gun rights

A marksman in Iraq; No gun permit in Omaha

This is one of the biggest problems the veterans have in seeking help for PTSD. Congress in their usual lack of wisdom and consistent short sightedness, passed this bill thinking it would prevent PTSD veterans from committing suicide. The problem is, all it ended up doing was keeping veterans with guns from getting help so they can keep their guns. It has prevented many veterans from seeking the help they need because they served and their service required them to not only use weapons, but their lives depended on those weapons. Smart people would rather have a veteran with PTSD and a gun getting help than have a PTSD veteran with a gun and getting no help at all. As a matter of fact, any moral person would. I don't have a gun, never shot a gun and would never buy a gun, so for me to turn into a gun rights advocate shocks even me. But considering that responsible gun ownership should include responsible people wounded by PTSD getting help, that seems to be a better solution. If they want to kill themselves, the gun is not the problem but the system is. If they want to commit suicide a gun is the usual means but if not, then they find another way to do it. I've talked to too many veterans to know this keeps them from getting help and does more harm than good.

Published Thursday March 5, 2009

A marksman in Iraq; No gun permit in Omaha
BY KEVIN COLE
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Sgt. Tim Mechaley trained fellow Marines to fire .50-caliber machine guns. He qualified as a marksman. He fought in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, and received a combat medal with a "V" for valor.

Yet, when Mechaley sought to buy a 9-mm Ruger pistol for protection at his midtown apartment, the Omaha Police Department rejected his application for a gun permit.

"I was trusted by the government to carry a loaded weapon, but now I am not allowed to purchase one by my local government," he said.

Mechaley, 32, has received counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder related to his service in Iraq. While completing an application for a gun permit, he responded "yes" to a question that asked whether he was being treated for a mental disorder.

"I circled yes because I wanted to be completely honest," he said.

As explanation, he wrote "PTSD from Iraq Marine combat veteran" on the form.

Mechaley's application on Jan. 10 was rejected, he was told, because of that answer.

After talking with police, Mechaley said he had been "too truthful" on the application. click link for more

Suicide prevention bill prevents veterans from getting help

by
Chaplain Kathie

I did a presentation the other day for a group of veterans about PTSD. After I was done talking there was plenty of time for questions. The question most on their minds was the right to carry a gun at the same time they were getting help.

The Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Bill is a wonderful thing, but yet again Congress was not thinking. What this ended up doing is raise the awareness PTSD veterans need help at the same time they were begin deterred from getting it.

Would you want a PTSD veteran needing help with a gun and getting it, or would you want one with a gun and not getting it? Seems to be the question our elected should have been asking before they wrote it the way they did.

While guns are the means of choice when it comes to suicide, and there is the domestic violence issue, they can and do find other ways. When they are trained to go into combat, they are trained to rely on their weapon as their friend. When they come home with the war inside of them, many want that friend right by their side. Many veterans with PTSD go into police and defense jobs. Taking away their gun is taking away their incomes. This leaves us with a huge problem on top of the one we've had for too many years. At the same time they hear, "go for help to heal" they are told "your right to carry a gun will go away" if you do. Ever tell a combat veteran they are no longer able to carry a gun when they did it in combat?

There is no easy answer on this when it comes to preventing suicides and domestic violence when the root cause is PTSD. Awareness is wonderful and much more of it needs to be done when two thirds of the American public have no clue what it is. Educating the communities around the nation is wonderful as well as opening Veterans' Centers but if you do not get them to go for help, none of it will do much good at all.

If this part of the bill is not removed then we will keep losing more and more veterans to suicide and see their lives slip away. One more thing if you still don't understand what this did. Some troops deployed into Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD. They have guns. Some police officers have PTSD and serve on the streets everyday. They have guns. Do you think they could do their jobs without them? Do you see them all committing suicide or domestic violence with them? Taking away guns when they seek help is an easy answer to a very complex problem and was in fact the wrong answer.

I was worried about this and heard from a lot of veterans when the bill was signed. It took a good friend of mine to point this issue out when I was thinking the other way. Then more and more veterans contacted me with this concern. Now, I know for sure, it has kept them from getting help. Most of the veterans said it was their number one reason for not going for help. They've come to terms with the stigma being stupid now they have to deal with a catch in a bill to help them being stupid.

Write to your congressmen and have them get this right right now please. They've already waited long enough to begin the healing.

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

(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

Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention bill blocked by Coburn

The actual title of this post should be "Coburn would rather see vets commit suicide because they buy guns to do it." What the hell is wrong with this man? Does the NRA have such a tie to him that he would rather let combat wounded die because it may give other veterans a problem buying guns? Does he know how many of them commit suicide every year and most of them use a gun to do it?

I have no problem with people owning guns if they do it legally but I do have a problem with putting a loaded gun into the hands of a PTSD veteran who is on the verge of wanting to die and putting the gun into their hands. I do have a problem with unstable veterans with PTSD having guns because if they have a flashback that goes really bad, they can and do use those guns on their family members. I wonder if Coburn ever read the post I did on non-combat deaths so that he could see how many of them killed their family member before they committed suicide? I doubt he would ever read anything that didn't have a big fat donation attached to it.

Kathie Costos
Namguardianangel@aol.com
www.Namguardianangel.org
www.Namguardianangel.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

August 24, 2007
Suicide Bill Blocked
Filed under: PTSD, Legislation, Iraq, Mental Health, Suicide, Readjustment — Patrick Campbell @ 7:44 pm
Right before Congress broke for recess, both parties in the Senate agreed to pass the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention bill (S.479) with unanimous consent. The bill has passed unanimously in House in March. Unfortunately, one unnamed Senator (Coburn - OK) put a hold on it, essentially blocking passage, because this Senator worried that somehow increasing the number of veterans getting treated for PTSD and suicidal thoughts might prevent them later buying guns.

In a recent article in Congressional Quarterly (CQ) I called Coburn’s argument “ludicrous… a red herring.” I further elaborated that Coburn’s concerns more focused on gun control legislation then this suicide prevention bill.
click post title for the rest