Previous Post
Next Post

Earlier today, Colin Goddard of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence retweeted our post on the New York State Attorney General’s strong arm tactics with gun show promoters. The heads-up thing works both ways. Cruising the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s Facebook page I learned that Senator Coburn is adding an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to make it possible for veterans to claim benefits for being mentally incompetent (i.e. PTSD) without necessarily losing their Second Amendment rights. I’ve posted the CSGV’s URGENT ALERT on the amendment after the jump. Suffice it to say, you can use the phone number provided to support the change, if you like. Thank God for Al Gore’s Internet . . .

URGENT ALERT: Folks, Senator Tom Coburn is attempting to attach a dangerous amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow veterans who have been declared mentally incompetent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to own and purchase firearms. Please call your U.S. Senators IMMEDIATELY at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to oppose this amendment. It is a sickening attempt by the National Rifle Association to sell guns at the expense of our safety, and the safety of veterans who are likely to be struggling with depression.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The Brady Campaign doesn’t want depressed veterans who are worried about their second amendment rights being stripped from them to seek out psychiatric help?

    How cruel and un-American of them.

    Tweet that.

    • Remember, the Brady Campaign says all guns sales must involve a background check, yet they demanded that Federal law maintain that the only way for 18-20 year olds to purchase a pistol is without a background check. They are not capable of rational thought and should not be treated as such.

  2. Being depressed does not mean suicidal. If the person putting out that message feels that way, they should seriously consider treatment. Veterans should find that announcement insulting, and let them know about it. Will they attack veterans as well?

  3. The legislation Sen. Coburn is proposing specifically stipulates that only those veterans that have been ruled to be no danger to themselves or others be exempted.

    How then, does the Brady Campaign justify its claim? It’s their willful disinformation that I find “sickening”.

  4. It is a slippery slope. But even still, and I don’t mean to sound crass or rude, but I don’t think we have seen PTSD soldiers go postal on a campus or anything. At least not in alarming numbers. I am sure there are case of domestic type issues which might have escalated, but I don’t know if that involves PTSD specifically or whether a gun or a knife or a crossbow would be used so type of weapon wouldn’t have mattered. If we want to look at crimes committed and such, I would think the largest number of PTSD soldiers and guns would be suicide. I am guessing here, so please correct if needed, but as sad as that sounds we also know that if they didn’t have a gun they would use something else.

  5. I’m not in favor of limiting anyone’s second amendment rights, but if you’re going to limit the rights of those with mental incompetence I don’t understand the logic of excepting those that have extensive training in how to use weapons and are more likely to use them.

    I don’t know how PTSD makes someone mentally incompetent. I would say anyone in that condition is well beyond your basic PTSD as it’s being sold to the military (i.e., as a way to get more money from the VA and to use as an excuse for being grumpy a lot). PTSD is real and many suffer from it, but incompetent is incompetent and if they are indeed incompetent then they shouldn’t have firearms. I don’t see a reason to except them.

    Remember, mental incompetence is a very high standard to meet in a court of law. Being grumpy or even excessively angry is not at that level. Incompetence means you can’t function, you have PTSD to the point of being catatonic or the like.

    It seems to me the real problem is there seem to be some veterans who want to be declared incompetent to get higher benefits from the VA, yet they still are able to function in life.

      • +1000

        I have a friend in my agency suffering from PTSD. He saw terrible things while in the Corps, and while working as an LEO. He has sought counseling, and is back at work. He’s got an AR15 and several handguns. I asked him, after ensuring that he was ok, if they took away his guns. They did not. Unless there are specific, articulable facts such as terrorist threats or overt threats, I do not support taking away firearms. Thankfully, my department seems to agree.

    • PTSD is a big issue since it can be different for everyone. While there may be some people who have played up an issue to increase benefits, most Vets do not. The potential problem is any mental issue including mild depression or social anxieties could rate a percentage for benefits. So at 10% rated disability for a little depression could effectively disqualify you from owning firearms. That is why an adjudication by a judge should be required.

  6. why are we worried about the gun grabbers?

    the 2012 NDAA allows the US government to indefinitely detain american citizens if they are deemed “hostile”. no legal representation and the whole nine yards.

    yet were worried about something the brady bunch posted on facebook. /facepalm. its nice to see the double standards of “americas left intelligentsia”.

    “”I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” – bloody barack (i dont dignify tyrants the respect of addressing them by their proper name or with capital letters)

    if there is any senator phone calls to me made, its to address the issue of section 1031.

    • They all must be doctors of some sort. Can you be an ordained doctor online!? Remeber Bloomberg wanting to ban big gulps and something health related about breast feeding.

      Let us not forget Al Gore for bringing us the internet and global warming.

      So yea, they are doctors, or something. Ill accept a PHD written in crayola on a napkin.

  7. Actually, it is sen Chuck schumer pushing this mentally ill argument. Essentially, he argued that anyone who gets treatment should not be allowed to have 2nd amendment rights. Ever. Esp college kids. Which will just serve to have people not seek treatment. Ever. In fact, schumer said something to the effect of that if any college kid argued for their right to carry on campus that this was a sign of mental illness (for which college administrators not doctors would determine) and said students would be stripped of their rights. Schumer is a slimy POS.

  8. I suffer from both PTSD and TBI and i have been to a mental health hospital and i seek regular councling at the VA. I was discharged from the military because i was no longer able to handle war or duty stress but I do own firearms and I am a member of theNRA the worst thing ive do with my guns to date its shoot the crap outta paper targets with my 5yr old daughter. I truly belive that is a vet is on the edge and cannot conduct oneselve in society it makes sense to limit there ability to own or use a firearm. But for many of us vets with combat stress we use firearms and shooting as part of our rehibilitation since many of us did grow up with them in the home as children. This blanket attempt to take away our rights without just cause is ridiculous and other reason why we should all look at how big govt is moving into small town usa…Remember the more a govt can give is also just as much as they can take away.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here