PTSD and gun ownership

[voodoo_man]

Well, without putting too fine an edge on it, I'll just say I seriously doubt your claimed experience, because of my own experience as a fed, dealing with this federal law, in federal court.

However, no one needs to take either your word, or mine, about experience with the topic. They can read what you wrote, which I quoted, then they can read the relevant statute, Title 18, Section 922(g)(4) of the US Code ( LINK: 18USC922 ), and the link I provided earlier, and will provide again, from ATF, who I guarantee have way more experience with it than I do, and I have a ton. ( LINK: ATF explanation of 18USC922(g)(4) ). Anyone who bothers to read what you wrote, and then those two citations, will see that you were and are 100% wrong.

Good job confusing people for no reason.

Do yourselves a solid and contact your local PD to find out what exactly puts a person on the prohibited side of things in your specific state.

Speak to a CIT officer and make sure you get specific info. The law changes widely from FL to CA, for example.

Nothing I originally stated is wrong and I have personally testified to some of those facts in mental adjudication hearings.

I have no idea what has gotten up your ass, but this will be the last time I respond to you. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on topics before posting.

[joshs]

I need to know if a person is diagnosed with PTSD what is the result of gun ownership and CCDW or CCW.
Please if you don't know don't speculate.
Sources appreciated.

As has been pointed out, the federal mental health prohibition applies to a person who has been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as a mental defective. Congress (very unhelpfully) didn't feel the need to include definitions for these terms in the statute, so ATF has provided definitions via regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.11. Those definitions are:

Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include -

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

And:

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

As you can see, a diagnosis for any mental illness will not automatically trigger the federal prohibition (state laws vary and I would need to know which state you are concerned with, especially for CCW prohibitions).

The primary issue with the VA is that when the VA assigns a person a fiduciary to handle their VA benefits, the VA considers this an "adjudication as a mental defective."

[joshs]

Good job confusing people for no reason.

Do yourselves a solid and contact your local PD to find out what exactly puts a person on the prohibited side of things in your specific state.

Speak to a CIT officer and make sure you get specific info. The law changes widely from FL to CA, for example.

Nothing I originally stated is wrong and I have personally testified to some of those facts in mental adjudication hearings.

I have no idea what has gotten up your ass, but this will be the last time I respond to you. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on topics before posting.

I think DMF13s point is that the law actually does not change from state-to-state with regards to the federal prohibition. For example, state law can go beyond federal law with regards to a firearm prohibition (subject to Constitutional minimums), but it doesn't matter if a state does not go as far as federal law because federal law still applies through the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Your point that the law changes widely from FL to CA is simply wrong with respect to the application of 18 U.S.C.A. S 922(g)(4). There may be small variations between U.S. circuit court interpretations (with the primary circuit split on this issue coming from the Eighth Circuit), but the law otherwise has uniform application.

[voodoo_man]

I think DMF13s point is that the law actually does not change from state-to-state with regards to the federal prohibition. For example, state law can go beyond federal law with regards to a firearm prohibition (subject to Constitutional minimums), but it doesn't matter if a state does not go as far as federal law because federal law still applies through the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Your point that the law changes widely from FL to CA is simply wrong with respect to the application of 18 U.S.C.A. S 922(g)(4). There may be small variations between U.S. circuit court interpretations (with the primary circuit split on this issue coming from the Eighth Circuit), but the law otherwise has uniform application.

I have not nor did I initially refer to the federal code, so maybe that was his issue.

[voodoo_man]

Just so people don't get confused...I'd verify this locally...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx

Most states have their own stricter or sometimes varying definitions of, and how they apply it sometimes varies.

[ranger]

As a combat vet who is dealing with the VA now - I have to point this out - once you are formally diagnosed with PTSD you are formally labeled with PTSD forever. This issue may not be what is the law now but what is the law in the future. If you need help - by all means get it.

[UNK]

Forever? There is no way to have this decision reversed? Counseling meds treatment etc etc

As a combat vet who is dealing with the VA now - I have to point this out - once you are formally diagnosed with PTSD you are formally labeled with PTSD forever. This issue may not be what is the law now but what is the law in the future. If you need help - by all means get it.

[jeep45238]

Depends on the state, but err on the side of caution. In Ohio for example, if you're determined by court to be mentally ill (with definition, and the judge isn't a councilor or therapist), you're not ever going to get a concealed carry. That can carry over to 4473s and effectively keep you from buying and owning.

On an unrelated front, you're not that far away from me. I can't say that I'll be able to directly relate, but I'm here to vent, talk to, drink beer, lift weights, and out shoot me on the range. No judgement, and I've had some friends that almost took their lives over this. One had their only bad primer they've experienced on a Speer GD with the muzzle in their mouth- that shit isn't worth hiding onto.

Hit me up.

[olstyn]

As has been pointed out, the federal mental health prohibition applies to a person who has been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as a mental defective. Congress (very unhelpfully) didn't feel the need to include definitions for these terms in the statute, so ATF has provided definitions via regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.11. Those definitions are:

Hm, the way that first one is worded seems to indicate that it's impossible for women to be a danger to themselves or others, and that they are all able to manage their own affairs. That, or it's just REALLY poorly written, at least in terms of pronoun choices. Not often you find something that's even accidentally sexist against men. :P

[DMF13]

I have not nor did I initially refer to the federal code, so maybe that was his issue.

No, my "issue" is that you made a statement that is not true, about the "only" way a person could be prohibited from possessing firearms/ammunition, and then started acting like a jerk when your error was pointed out.

Again, you said, "The only time any mental health issues cause a person to be restricted from carrying, handling or buying a firearm is when they have been committed for mental evaluation *and* admitted for something."

That is not true, as I explained, because the federal law (18USC922(g)(4)), which applies to the whole US, states that an adjudication as a mental defective can create a firearms disability, and no commitment (or as you choose to say, "admitted for something") is required. It happens quite frequently that someone is adjudicated a mental defective, but has never been committed ("admitted") for treatment related to the mental health problems. The adjudication alone creates the prohibition on owning firearms, and therefore your statement that the "only" way to be prohibited includes having "been committed for a mental evaluation *and* admitted for something,"(sic) was not correct at all.

You said something that was utterly and completely false about the law, and as someone who claims to be a LEO people might rely on that bad info, so it needed to be corrected.

Your statement, which I've quoted again, was completely wrong. You chose to make that statement, when you were clearly ignorant of the legal realities. Rather, than read what was posted explaining the error (including the citation of the relevant law), and understand you posted bad info, you decided to act like a baby.

If this is how you act with regard to errors you make about the law, I feel sorry for your co-workers, the attorneys, judges, and juries, that have to deal with you on the job.