(US Senator) Burr: Ease gun limits for vets

[Hazcat]

............

But a push by U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina would prevent the federal veterans agency from adding the names of veterans declared "mentally defective" to a background check database unless the agency goes through the judicial system.

His bill would allow the agency to submit only the names of those declared dangerous by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority.

The problem, Burr says, is that some veterans were added to the list not because they were a danger to themselves or others but because the Department of Veterans Affairs assigned them guardians to oversee their finances.

"This is a constitutional issue," said Burr, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

The national database is for criminals, Burr said, "not for folks who have trouble handling their own financial affairs."

The National Rifle Association and several veterans groups support Burr, but others fear the move could lead to an increase in gun deaths. Gun-control organizations argue that veterans have higher rates of suicide than non-veterans and might be more at risk.

...................

Much more at link

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1153560.html

[dj454]

The National Rifle Association and several veterans groups support Burr, but others fear the move could lead to an increase in gun deaths. Gun-control organizations argue that veterans have higher rates of suicide than non-veterans and might be more at risk.

My great uncle a WWII vet attemted suicide in the VA and after they released him he went home and did kill himself. If a man is ready to die he will find a way whether they restrict them from having firearms or not.

[tombogan03884]

............

But a push by U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina would prevent the federal veterans agency from adding the names of veterans declared "mentally defective" to a background check database unless the agency goes through the judicial system.

His bill would allow the agency to submit only the names of those declared dangerous by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority.

The problem, Burr says, is that some veterans were added to the list not because they were a danger to themselves or others but because the Department of Veterans Affairs assigned them guardians to oversee their finances.

"This is a constitutional issue," said Burr, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

The national database is for criminals, Burr said, "not for folks who have trouble handling their own financial affairs."

The National Rifle Association and several veterans groups support Burr, but others fear the move could lead to an increase in gun deaths. Gun-control organizations argue that veterans have higher rates of suicide than non-veterans and might be more at risk.

...................

Much more at link

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1153560.html

That is not true

[DDMac]

The question does require thought beyond the obvious. Dangerous? Obviously, put them on the No Guns List. Additionally though, safe and responsible use of firearms requires sound reason and good decision making ability. If you are talking about veterans(or anybody else) with an eating disorder, no problem. Keep'em off the list. BUT how comfortable are we regarding someone who is under such mental distress that they need a guardian to attend to basic functions of adult life? Not so simple to me.

Mac.

[alfsauve]

............
. Gun-control organizations argue that veterans have higher rates of suicide than non-veterans and might be more at risk.

Only taken as raw, unadjusted data.   If adjusted for demographic factors, veterans' suicide rate is LESS than non-veterans!!

While I don't have the original NY Post article source here is the Thomas Sowell's 6/11 editorial about same.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on "combat trauma and the stress of deployment." Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians

Alf

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

The question does require thought beyond the obvious. Dangerous? Obviously, put them on the No Guns List. Additionally though, safe and responsible use of firearms requires sound reason and good decision making ability. If you are talking about veterans(or anybody else) with an eating disorder, no problem. Keep'em off the list. BUT how comfortable are we regarding someone who is under such mental distress that they need a guardian to attend to basic functions of adult life? Not so simple to me.

Mac.

We have a winner.

[tombogan03884]

Thanks Alf, I could not remember where I saw that.
Mac, Why should we deprive Veterans or anybody else of a constitutional right for some thing we EXPECT from many women and all of congress ?
The concept that we can keep writing checks as long as there are some in the checkbook does not make a person a danger to anyone. But my BIGGEST gripe is that any restrictions we allow will be abused. For example, NY, Washington, Berkley or San Francisco, Being socialist/ terrorist sympathizers would consider ANYONE, including you and I, who voluntarily served THIS country to be dangerous to them. And they would be correct as we both oppose communism.

[DDMac]

Tom , I agree about the probable abuse, and that's just wrong, but it will happen as you predict. But when a person repeatedly demonstrates failure to make the correct decisions as to their life responsibilities, like rampantly incurring more debt than they can handle, failure to pay bills, addictions, etc, to the point where they need a guardian, that's different than something they "might" do. I believe it is a valid indicator of what they usually do. They don't need to make those wrong decisions with firearms.
That said, people do get well, recover and regain control. Veterans should absolutely have a mechanism and help to not only regain their position as an independent member of society,  but to get OFF the no gun list. My thoughts, anyway.
Mac.

[Rastus]

............ BUT how comfortable are we regarding someone who is under such mental distress that they need a guardian to attend to basic functions of adult life? Not so simple to me.

Mac.

If they received good pay and benefits or were helped to find a job that actually pays....well, you know what I mean.  I can understand coming home wanting a few things and getting upside down.   Is the returning vet's mindset afterlaying it all on the line...life is short, grab it for now, tomorrow may never come???....I can understand having a monetary adjustment period.

Then too, it also seems as though 90% of the people I work with who are not veterans are in the upside down monetary boat.   

[tombogan03884]

If they received good pay and benefits or were helped to find a job that actually pays....well, you know what I mean.  I can understand coming home wanting a few things and getting upside down.   Is the returning vet's mindset afterlaying it all on the line...life is short, grab it for now, tomorrow may never come???....I can understand having a monetary adjustment period.

Then too, it also seems as though 90% of the people I work with who are not veterans are in the upside down monetary boat.  

That would mean these people having their homes foreclosed, because they took loans they could not pay back, all the people with credit card problems should not be allowed to own guns. Mac, leave the money problem folks out of it and I would more or less agree with you, but having messed up finances should not be a bar to excercising a civil right.