"Mental Illness" prohibitions on CCW permits

[BradAnderson]

I don't know, but I'd guess if the level of exposure or frequency of exposure to traumatic, life-altering circumstances matters, and if ONE such occurance can result in said nervous disorder, then I'd have to believe repeated exposure to several such instances would be... I don't know.... worse?

But I'm not looking to hijack the thread and make it all about our nation's walking wounded.

It is ironic 'the machine' that is our present system of Gov't is geared to devour and destroy us all if left unchecked.

Bingo: the government doesn't CARE a rat's ass about the individual-- just POWER. It BENEFITS from individual oppression-- i.e. it gets stronger as we get weaker:, and becomes the "Godfather" to whom we must ask favors and pay tribute for "protection", as people trade liberty for security. In fact the reason that the individual STATES, rather than the federal government, had well-regulated militias, was to prevent the federal military from being able to coerce the states by threat of force (Madison, Federalist No. 46).

PTSD results from perception of danger and experienced harm; and perception chiefly includes rational apprehension. If a person is disarmed, then the danger increases-- often dramatically-- and hence the rational apprehension that exacerbates the condition-- i.e. the people who need protection most, are deprived of it first, out the person's rational fear, being declared secondary to a irrational public fear of the person. And thus, might makes right.

PTSD theorists used to believe that the disorder only resulted from a single traumatic incident, however more recent studies are finding that it's also cumulative to long-term exposure, largely in response to an inescapable and helpless experience of harm or danger.
Likewise,imply IGNORING a real danger is completely insane.

And there's nothing ionic about government destroying us: Jefferson was clear about the need for eternal vigilance and consent of the governed. William Pitt likewise observed that "necessity" was always the plea of the tyrant and the creed of slaves, being the argument for every destuction of human freedom (ala the "necessary" German gun-bans which enabled to the "necessary" genocide that followed as a matter of course).

Here, we have society arbitrarily disarming people selectively, based on pure stigma and public hysteria-- i.e. mob-rule and popularity-contests, rather than blind justice. It's simply inevitable, that government without guard-rails simply follows the path of least resistance to chaos and tyranny.

[NCjones]

I don't remember which state, but in one state I was disqualified for their CCW. Their application states if you are receiving disability from the SSA then you are considered mentally ill.

I receive disability for PTSD, which disqualified me.

[G50AE]

What's next, they disqualify you for collecting SNAP benefits (Foodstamps)?

[BradAnderson]

Actually, many combat vets returning from theater operations are being "screened" to help determine and/or identify PTSD issues etc etc.

The answers to some of these "routine post-deployment screenings" can and likely will be used by Homeland Security to ID those who will not be legally obtaining firearms. Many GI's are aware of this, and whether they purpose to purchase firearms in their future or not, it fuels the fire to NOT disclose how you really feel - just tell them what they need to hear and clear out.

This is a very interesting topic, and made all the more convoluted when the mainstream media exploits each and every incident when someone who shouldn't have access to firearms shoots up some place and kills some people - typically in a gun-free area. The brush used in painting "shooters" keeps getting more and more broad. Of course, their spin is that NO ONE should have access to firearms because guns are "evil."

Trying to navigate the topic of mental health while addressing 2A rights... very, very difficult road to travel.

What do you mean? Statistically, such non-adjudicated persons are no more likely to commit gun-crimes than the general population. They're simply an easy target, and so are "red-flagged" and blown out of proportion by the general media whenever an incident occurs.

The problem is most difficult, when involving disability-payments; then the person is forced to choose between their gun-rights and their benefits.

In any event, it's ALWAYS definitely best to classify the problem as something physical like chronic fatigue rather than ssomething "mental" like depression or PTSD-- once you get that stigma on you, it NEVER comes off in terms of public hysteria. For example, the questionairre for the CCW-application reads "Have you EVER been diagnosed with a mental illness?"

Furthermore, by signing the form,you ALSO give them pemission to search all medical-records in order to verify your statement; and if you're wrong, you will be prosecuted for perjury.

(Thus we see as usual, that the government is under NO obligation to protect you- but they will use ANY opportunity to persecute and punish you.)

Of course this is a pure 14th Amendment violation to Equal Protection-- i.e. denying permits to persons based on purely arbitrary criteria, with asolutely no evidence of increased dangers to themselves or others. But again, that requires challenging it in court-- and the state has unlimited funds.

[BradAnderson]

I don't remember which state, but in one state I was disqualified for their CCW. Their application states if you are receiving disability from the SSA then you are considered mentally ill.

I receive disability for PTSD, which disqualified me.

Yep, me too. You should ALWAYS try to classify your condition as something "physical" like Chronic Fatigue, since that won't involve the public same public hysteria.

[Anthony_I_Am]

Yep, me too. You should ALWAYS try to classify your condition as something "physical" like Chronic Fatigue, since that won't involve the public same public hysteria.

My VA psych. asked me if I owned any guns a couple months ago. I told her yes (without thinking thru to reason for the question) and she said "I don't think with PTSD you are supposed to own any guns". I didn't comment back. I figured any rebuttal would draw more attention to the matter. She was typing on the PC the whole time so I am sure she made a note of it in her "files". I guess I ****** up.

Nobody has come knocking yet. I should buy a couple of airsoft guns so if they do I can turn them over. :)

[BradAnderson]

BradA.. None Taken, There are some good thoughts that run through this site... There is a guy down the street that is on his third Tour to the ME. Who knows what has happened/involved with there. I do agree that the "Check Box" is pretty lame. To verify your own med records is next to impossible, if not extremely time consuming. How many doc, dentists, work physicals, ect... ect... have you done? Our system does have it's faults, but It is still SO much better than in England.... So the Question Then becomes How can We fix it. We are in fair shape here in PRMI, That just means we have to work more to improve what we have.

By the way, Welcome to the site...

"Better than England" isn't saying much; our system is reallly an empire in disguise, since the Supreme Court rubber-stamps laws that violate the Constitution, but strikes down laws that uphold it.
The 2nd Amendment is case-in-point; US v. Cruikshank clearly shows that the federal govt considers the 2nd Amendment to be nothing but a guarantee to ITSELF of the right to an armed draft-pool-- while saying that citizens are at the mercy of the states in order to protect them from crime.

Nevermind that Madison expressly stated in Federalist No. 46, that the militia exist to arm the people, so that they could choose to defend their states against federal abuses!

The point is, that America is a federal republic of sovereign states-- NOT an empire over subordinate states.
A federal republic of states, by definition, CANNOT BE a nation-- UNLESS it's an empire!
If they are free states, then they MUST be sovereign.

[BradAnderson]

My VA psych. asked me if I owned any guns a couple months ago. I told her yes (without thinking thru to reason for the question) and she said "I don't think with PTSD you are supposed to own any guns". I didn't comment back. I figured any rebuttal would draw more attention to the matter. She was typing on the PC the whole time so I am sure she made a note of it in her "files". I guess I ****** up.

Nobody has come knocking yet. I should buy a couple of airsoft guns so if they do I can turn them over. :)

Well you can't lie, so just say "Why do you ask?"

THEN say "Can you cite the regulation?" and watch them go blank, since there IS no such regulation.

Put THEM on the spot.

[ricbak]

Well you can't lie, so just say "Why do you ask?"

THEN say "Can you cite the regulation?" and watch them go blank, since there IS no such regulation.

Put THEM on the spot.

I did that BA, Asked why this question is in here... The answer was REALLY Lame.. "These forms come from Detroit, Ask them,,,,"

I left the question unanswered..

[Ropadope]

What mental illness ??

If I've taken an anti depressent for anxiety, is that necessarily a "mental Illness?"

Point being, it's very subjective in my opinion. If I've been committed to a psych ward under unvoluntary conditions and diagnosed with Schizophrenia then I can see the point, but as mentioned, just taking an anti depressent for something like anxiety or enduring the loss of a loved one is not a "mental Illness" in my opinion.

It's very subjective and yet the queston that is asked on the application leaves much to be open to discussion.