What veterans can do about bad NICS data

[Robert Hairless]

Veterans who are concerned by Gun Owners of America's attack on H.R. 2640 as what it calls "The Veterans Disarmament Bill" should take comfort in this clear statement by Larry Scott on VA Watchdog.org:

I have yet to hear from a single veteran who ended up on the NICS list in error. I have heard from a veteran who has a diagnosis of PTSD and was voluntarily committed for observation. He purchased a handgun with no trouble.

VA Watchdog is an established independent defender of veterans rights. Its interest isn't new and its committment to veterans is evident, so its endorsement of this legislation carries weight.

Read what VA Watchdog has to say about "The NICS Improvement Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640), then click here to become an activist and tell your Senators and Representatives that you want them to help veterans by supporting this bill. That link will take you to Military.com for an easy e-mail form you can use.


Both VA Watchdog.org and Miltary.com support H.R. 2640 because they know that "The NICS Improvement Act of 2007" will help veterans and prevent them being denied their right to own firearms because of wrong or obsolete information in the NICS database.

In a previous article published on both VA Watchdog and Military.com, Larry Scott said "Gun Bill Not Anti-Veteran" and explained why in useful detail.

On October 3, VA Watchdog updated its defense of H.R. 2640 with this new information from a Veterans Administration document that has been rescinded:

UPDATE: VA DOCUMENT EXPLAINS HOW VETS GOT ON NICS FIREARMS BAN LIST
2000 VA Fast Letter also details veterans' rights and how they can be removed from list.

Two days ago I posted an article about H.R. 2640, the latest amendments to current firearms legislation.

The article here... http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfOCT07/nf100107-1.htm

There has been much confusion about veterans getting on the NICS "gun ban" list.

A reader dug out an old VA document to help answer those questions.

This is a VA Fast Letter from 2000 that explains when, who, why and how many.

You will notice there is no mention of PTSD and it appears VA complied to the "letter of the law" when providing names of veterans.

Also note that the letter goes into great detail on how a veteran can get off the NICS list if they should not be on it.

(NOTE: I have yet to hear from a single veteran who ended up on the NICS list in error. I have heard from a veteran who has a diagnosis of PTSD and was voluntarily committed for observation. He purchased a handgun with no trouble.)

The document no longer appears on the VA web site (that I can find). That's not unusual as the letter has been rescinded.

VA Fast Letter below: ​

June 2, 2000 In Reply Refer To: 212

Fast Letter 00-44

Director (00/21)

All VBA Regional Offices and Centers

SUBJ: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Process

Background:

The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Brady Act) of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). When drafting the regulations for NICS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) defined the seven categories of individuals prohibited from purchasing or redeeming firearms.

ATF incorporated the VA definition of incompetent "because of injury or disease lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs" into the category of those adjudicated as a mental defective.

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is providing the FBI with information on veterans rated as incompetent, incompetent surviving spouses, adult helpless children and dependent parents.

Licensed gun dealers are required to check the NICS system to see if an individual is in a prohibited category before transferring a firearm to that individual.

What VBA has Done:

In November 1999, VBA provided NICS with an initial load of data on incompetent veterans, surviving spouses, adult helpless children and dependent parents from information in the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) and the Fiduciary Beneficiary System (FBS). This consisted of data on 88,898 beneficiaries which were loaded into the NICS index.

Rights of Denied Firearms Purchasers:

If a veteran or beneficiary is denied the right to purchase or redeem a firearm, he or she may request the reason for the denial from the agency that conducted the check of the NICS data. If that individual wishes to challenge the accuracy of the record upon which the denial was based or if he or she wishes to assert that his or her rights to possess a firearm have been restored, he or she must appeal to the denying agency, i.e. the FBI or state or local law enforcement agency.

If the denying agency is unable to resolve the appeal, the denying agency will inform the individual of the reason for the denial, as well as the name and address of the agency that provided the information upon which the denial was based. If the denial was based on a VA rating or court order of incompetency and the individual denied writes to the VA Central Office VBA Contact Point requesting a correction of the record, the request will be forwarded to the regional office with jurisdiction over the claims file.

If the denial of the purchase or redemption of a firearm was because the individual was rated as incompetent by VA or because of a court order, under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, he or she has the right to request a correction or amendment of his or her records if the incompetency finding is found not to have been correct.

If the regional office determines that the incompetency determination was correct and the records cannot be amended, the claimant must be informed by the regional office that he or she has the right to appeal the decision not to amend the records by writing to the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20420.

If the beneficiary has not been rated or determined to be incompetent, he or she should be so informed. Also, the appropriate centralized VBA NICS contact point (See paragraph 9 below) should be informed of that information by telephone or e-mail so that the information may be passed on to the FBI NICS office.

How Data Quality is Determined:

For quality assurance purposes, NICS is requesting a quarterly review of a sampling of approximately 100 cases to confirm the determination of incompetency, as well as the beneficiaries� Social Security number and date of birth. From the initial load of data, they requested a review of 107 cases. This review was completed by employees at 44 regional offices and the incompetency finding was found to be appropriate in all cases.

However, a number of cases were found in which the veterans' or beneficiaries' names were incorrectly spelled or required a full first name, middle initial, or suffix, such as Jr. A number of other cases required the provision or correction of the beneficiaries' Social Security number or date of birth. The next review is due in June 2000. A special review by FBI personnel of 200 claims folders will also occur this year in Washington.

What You Need to Know for this Program:

Under the law, we are to routinely provide updated information on "new" incompetents. If an individual previously rated incompetent has their competency restored, under the law they are still permanently restricted from purchasing or redeeming a firearm and information concerning that individual will not be stricken from the NICS index. We are now developing procedures for providing NICS with data on veterans and beneficiaries that have been determined to be incompetent since November 1999 and for periodic future updates.

Non-Retention of Records Related to NICS Background Checks:

The NICS law prohibits the retention of records as to inquiries on potential firearms purchasers. Do not retain any information related to a NICS background check for reference or backup purposes. Do not create a memorandum for file or contact report. Information that may not be maintained and must be destroyed includes but is not limited to: all inquiry and response messages relating to the initiation and result of a NICS background check, all records relating to the individual or the transfer created as a result of a NICS background check, notes, system records, hard drives, disks, letters, personal logs, etc.

Questions:

Questions should be directed to the contact listed on the appropriate

Calendar page at:

vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm

Rescission:

This letter is rescinded effective June 1, 2001.

/s/

Robert J. Epley, Director
Compensation and Pension Service

 

[Phil Lee]

So, when the NRA's Chris Cox says in his interview:

The Clinton administration stuck 90,000 veterans who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder into that system.

He would be mistaken since "there is no mention of PTSD" in the VA fast letter.

I wonder what other "mistakes" Cox has made in his statement or is it possible that Scott's article is wrong and deliberately misleading? It appears certain that either way, you haven't been paying close enough attention to know.

BTW when you advise people to direct veterans to material as stale as this (rescinded effective June 1, 2001) you might also pay attention as to whether the web addresses are useful -- then you would know that clicking on vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm will give you "The Web page you are looking for (http://vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm) is temporarily unavailable."

Also, you might be more careful in your material, H.R. 2069 in the current Congress (110) is entitled "Save Our Climate Act of 2007".

 

[Robert Hairless]

Phil, give it a rest. While you're doing that, take some time to learn how to read English and how to read messages on this message board.

For example, when you see the word "Quote:" at the beginning of an indented and highlighted portion of a message such as the one I posted, that is a "Quote" or a "Quotation." Such material is quoted from a text: the quoted words belong to the person who wrote that text, not the person writing the message that includes them. You use that technique succesfully in the message you've just posted so there's no reason why you can't understand its significance in other people's messages.

That's one reason why this comment of yours isn't awfully smart:

when you advise people to direct veterans to material as stale as this (rescinded effective June 1, 2001) you might also pay attention as to whether the web addresses are useful -- then you would know that clicking on vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm will give you "The Web page you are looking for (http://vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm) is temporarily unavailable."

(The material immediately above, by the way, is a "Quote"--in that example it is a quotation from your message. In other words you wrote it.)

My message--the one you're attacking while you attack Chris Cox and the NRA--consists of my introduction to a brief article by Larry Scott of VA Watchdog.org. It shouldn't have been hard to follow. Mr. Scott's article begins after the word "Quote:" in my message. Mr. Scott included a verbatim transcript of the VA document. You can tell where that document begins by reading what Mr. Scott said in the line immediately above it: "VA Fast Letter below: "

In his article Mr. Scott published the letter in its entirety. In my message I reprinted Mr. Scott's article verbatim, with some minor formatting changes to make it easier to read in a message here.

So the link you say you clicked on is part of the letter written by Robert J. Epley, quoted by Mr. Scott, who was quoted by me. If you don't like what Mr. Epley wrote--including the reference you say is a "link," spread a little of your sunshine by writing Mr. Epley and complaining about it to him as author of the letter. Let him have the pleasure of trying to communicate with you.

But in fact, though, you've been distorting again. What you said was a "link" wasn't a link, and when you say you "clicked" on it you didn't do anything of the kind. You cut and pasted the words "vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm" from Mr. Epley's letter into your address bar, prefixed them as necessary to get to the web site, and discovered what anyone should have realized on seeing the word "calendar" in that reference. The page that was there seven years ago isn't there today. A "calendar" isn't forever. And, of course, as I said and Mr. Scott said and the letter itself said, the letter is not current and has been rescinded: it was written in 2000 and was rescinded in 2001. Since everyone involved said so, there was no sense in trying to find the calendar page it referenced or in criticizing me because you didn't use common sense.

Your persistent efforts to attack the NRA seem to know no bounds and your scattergun attacks such as this one are disjointed and apparently irrational. It's human to dislike being criticized but there's no need to carry on a vendetta that spans multiple message threads because I criticized your methods in another thread. You're using some of the same methods here.

There's a pattern. In that other message thread you attacked the "NICS Improvement Act" by using the 1980s case of Joyce Brown as an example of someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the then mayor of New York City to say veterans should be afraid that an adjudication could be done that way. In fact there were court hearings about the Joyce Brown committment, Joyce Brown won, the mayor's action was repudiated, and Joyce Brown returned to her crazy behavior assaulting people on the streets of New York City. You misled people, either because you don't know what you're talking about or you don't care how you make a point. Your gadfly attacks not only mislead people but also waste their time.

I offered the information for whatever help it might give to veterans. You're trying to twist this thread into one of your attacks on the NRA.

Be rational instead of devious. If you see a problem with something Chris Cox said, be a man and write him for an explanation or argue with him about what he said. Mr. Epley didn't mention Chris Cox in his letter: his letter is not about Chris Cox. Mr Scott didn't mention Chris Cox in his article: his article is not about Chris Cox. I did not mention Chris Cox in my message: my message was not about Chris Cox.

It's simply irrational to think that I can explain what Chris Cox said any better than he can or that I can explain better than he can what he meant. But you're not really interested in explanations or clarifications anyway, because your interest is in attacking the NRA and not in helping veterans.

You're correct that I had mistyped the number of the bill: it is H.R. 2640. Thank you for calling my attention to the error. I've corrected it so as not to risk confusing anyone.

 

[Phil Lee]

Mr. Hairless' explanation is that he quote things that he doesn't believe without taking issue with them. So, it is unfair to take quotes he gives as representing his point of view.

Unbelievable!

He presents as new information that VA Watchdog "updated its defense of H.R. 2640 with this new information from a Veterans Administration document" as supportive of his views, yet didn't bother to check whether this updated defense was currently correct.

Why would he do that? What does a 6+ year outdated memorandum add to the discussion?

Mr. Hairless lectures me on understanding quotes, yet he fails to note I used no quotes when I wrote previously the words "you would know that clicking on vbaw.vba.va.gov/bl/21/calendar/index.htm will . . ." and so my "clicking" reference was for the link I supplied not the text in the message he wrote.

Talking about snide!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Phil Lee, I don't think your representation here is either fair or accurate on a number of levels.

I wonder what other "mistakes" Cox has made in his statement or is it possible that Scott's article is wrong and deliberately misleading?

So basically you are complaining that Chris Cox said "PTSD" instead of saying "incompetence" per the FAST letter. I take it you feel that this is a mistake of such significance that we need to question anything Chris Cox might say? Alternatively you suggest that the mistake is one of such significance that it makes the Scott article misleading. That reasoning baffles me. Perhaps you could explain it better?

It appears certain that either way, you haven't been paying close enough attention to know.

I always hate it when I write something snotty about somebody else's knowledge and then fail to read critical information in their post that makes it clear I was the one lacking in understanding. Doesn't it make you just want to crawl under a rock?

He presents as new information that VA Watchdog "updated its defense of H.R. 2640 with this new information from a Veterans Administration document" as supportive of his views, yet didn't bother to check whether this updated defense was currently correct.

Actually, the quote you are referring to says that VA Watchdog "updated its defense of H.R. 2640 with this new information from a Veterans Administration document that has been rescinded." Yet you chose not to quote that last part of the sentence in your reply? Tell me, what editing choice made you quote an entire sentence and then chop off those last three words as irrelevant?

Why would he do that? What does a 6+ year outdated memorandum add to the discussion?

The six year old document shows how veterans got on the VA list to begin with and what the VA policy was from 1999 to 2001 (when this letter and the policy were rescinded).

Perhaps you wouldn't need to ask these questions if you spent a little more time reading the posts and less time looking for reasons to argue?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Thanks, Bartholomew Roberts. You've covered the ground. No more need be said, I think.

I hope that the information in the first message I posted is of some help to the people who serve our country, especially veterans who have been alarmed needlessly about this bill, and that they will skip over the irrelevancies of the ensuing quarrel.

 

[Phil Lee]

First Reply to Bartholomew Roberts

I'll divide my reply in several parts. This is the first part.

If you examine the subject matter of the original posting by Mr. Hairless you will see "What veterans can do about bad NICS data". Mr. Hairless' opening statement is "Veterans . . . should take comfort in this clear statement by Larry Scott . . .". Scott uses the present tense when he says ". . . the letter goes into great detail on how a veteran can get off the NICS list . . . "

Now how are we to interpret the subject of the posting as anything other than the present tense of "What veterans can do" today? Can they? The answer is no.

Mr. Hairless posted this material as a general defense of HR2640 and his opening statement is again in the present tense "should take comfort" implying that Scott new material is relevant to Veterans today. Scott uses the present tense implying the letter describes "how a veteran can get off the NICS list." Can he?

Scott doesn't [just] use present tense once, but also used it earlier in the quoted material from Mr. Hairless "VA Fast Letter also details veterans' rights and how they can be removed from list."

If Mr. Hairless had commented that this was old information or if Scott had said instead "VA Fast Letter also detailed veterans' rights as they existed 6 years ago and how they could have been removed from list six years ago", I would have had little objection, although I might have wondered about the present relevance.

But you should know that rescinding a memo is not the same as rescinding a policy described in the memo. So, I was led to check the web references and found they don't work. Now, it seems clear to me that Mr. Hairless should have labeled this material as of historic interest, used past tense, and not claimed that Veterans can take comfort in this posting. So should have Scott. They are both careless.

And, if there is a comparable policy today, Mr. Hairless should find it and document it for us -- at least that would be relevant.

Now tell me this response isn't fair.

 

[Phil Lee]

Second Reply to Bartholomew Roberts

Bartholomew Roberts says

So basically you are complaining that Chris Cox said "PTSD" instead of saying "incompetence" per the FAST letter. I take it you feel that this is a mistake of such significance that we need to question anything Chris Cox might say? Alternatively you suggest that the mistake is one of such significance that it makes the Scott article misleading. That reasoning baffles me. Perhaps you could explain it better?

Complaining? Such a loaded word. I would have said I noted a discrepancy between what was said by Cox and said by Scott. If 90,000 veterans are on the list for PTSD, Scott's quoted message says there are none that he knows about implying Scott's knowledge base is so narrow that we can dismiss him as a serious source of information on this point. If Scott is correct so few veterans are on the list for PTSD, Cox should correct his error.

And I don't think it is for me, Mr. Hairless, Scott or Cox to speculate what the truth is.

The truth is always significant, Mr. Roberts -- you should know that.

 

[Phil Lee]

Third Reply to Bartholomew Roberts

Bartholomew Roberts says

I always hate it when I write something snotty about somebody else's knowledge and then fail to read critical information in their post that makes it clear I was the one lacking in understanding. Doesn't it make you just want to crawl under a rock?

Now you have me at a loss -- exactly what information in Mr. Hairless' post did I miss?

 

[Phil Lee]

Fourth Reply to Bartholomew Roberts

Bartholomew Roberts says

Actually, the quote you are referring to says that VA Watchdog "updated its defense of H.R. 2640 with this new information from a Veterans Administration document that has been rescinded." Yet you chose not to quote that last part of the sentence in your reply? Tell me, what editing choice made you quote an entire sentence and then chop off those last three words as irrelevant?

Simple -- the issue is whether the policy has been rescinded. Memos may be rescinded and new similar and updated policies be placed in effect. The fact that the memo was rescinded is of lessor importance than the policy. Even links sometimes survive over time. So, I was led by the post's use of the present tense to expect that some similar policy might be found by checking the listed web addresses for policy and found a dead end.

If the memo was of historic interest only, the use of present tense (as explain elsewhere) was inappropriate.

The Editing choice was intended to emphasize the part of the statement that was significant and being addressed by my comment.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what other expectation prompted your question. After all anyone could read the original post by Mr. Hairless to see the full context.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If Mr. Hairless had commented that this was old information or if Scott had said instead "VA Fast Letter also detailed veterans' rights as they existed 6 years ago and how they could have been removed from list six years ago", I would have had little objection, although I might have wondered about the present relevance... Now, it seems clear to me that Mr. Hairless should have labeled this material as of historic interest.

Let's look at some sample phrases from the original post:

"2000 VA Fast Letter also details veterans' rights and how they can be removed from list."
"A reader dug out an old VA document to help answer those questions."
"This is a VA Fast Letter from 2000 that explains when, who, why and how many."
"June 2, 2000 In Reply Refer To: 212"

Is there some reason that Robert Hairless should assume his reader is illiterate in the English language and unable to see the numerous, repeated references that the FAST letter was written some time ago?

I would have said I noted a discrepancy between what was said by Cox and said by Scott.

Yes; I highlighted the discrepancy again precisely because I thought it was the type of discrepancy that I would categorize as "pointless nitpicking." I was thinking that perhaps you could explain to me why the discrepancy between Scott using the word "incompetent" and Cox using the word "PTSD" was so important it led you to reach that conclusion? Having read your explanation, all I can say is that I would consider confusion over the difference between someone diagnosed with "PTSD" by VA and someone declared as "incompetent" to be the type of minor error that can be easily made (and has been in previous discussions on this subject). I would not have reached the same conclusions you did.

Simple -- the issue is whether the policy has been rescinded.

Really? Did I miss in the original post where Robert Hairless proclaimed the policy had been rescinded? Because I don't recall reading anything like that. My understanding is that Robert Hairless offered the link to VA Watchdog because they were supporters of veteran's rights (and therefore an independent outside voice over whether this bill unfairly restricted veteran's rights)

VA Watchdog indicates they support the bill because it helps correct the error and then they offer the letter that so upset you as an explanation of how the situation happened to begin with.

The only comment suggesting the policy has been rescinded was my own comment and I have no evidence it has, so that was probably a mistake on my part. Still, that doesn't explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the policy was rescinded before I made that mistake and subsequently chose to edit your quotes to "emphasize" that by leaving out information that might suggest you were unable to read proper English.

 

[Phil Lee]

Fifth Reply to Bartholomew Roberts (last for this cycle)

Bartholomew Roberts says

The six year old document shows how veterans got on the VA list to begin with and what the VA policy was from 1999 to 2001 (when this letter and the policy were rescinded).

Perhaps you wouldn't need to ask these questions if you spent a little more time reading the posts and less time looking for reasons to argue?

I would offer two corrections to your statements above. First, I can find no statement in this memo rescinding the policy. In fact, I'd bet that some parts of that memo's stated policy clearly survive today -- e.g., "periodic future updates" of the NICS list. I believe you may be in error to think that a memo being rescinded implies anything other than some aspects of the policy have changed.

Secondly, I think you are mistaken when you say "The six year old document shows how veterans got on the VA list to begin with . . ." and this is more than semantics. This memo states that "VBA provided NICS with an initial load [88,898 beneficiaries] of data on incompetent veterans, surviving spouses, adult helpless children and dependent parents".

I would feel better if the memo had described the VA adjudication process (the how) since I think the issue for such administrative actions is whether it provided due process and whether that due process considered whether the accused had the capacity for moral judgments.

The memo has no such description and so we're left with just the number. I would guess the number has grown -- and it would be a concern to Veterans and their families how much that number has grown.

Do these points explain the concerns sufficiently?

 

[Phil Lee]

Now who is nitpicking?

Bartholomew Roberts says

Is there some reason that Robert Hairless should assume his reader is illiterate in the English language and unable to see the numerous, repeated references that the FAST letter was written some time ago?

Is there some reason you think I didn't understand that the VA letter was written some time ago? Obviously, I'm not illiterate in the English language. But, now I'm despairing of your understanding that the proper references today to the contents of this letter are past tense. The use of present tense by Mr. Hairless and Mr. Scott concerning the content of this letter written in the past implies current validity. Mr. Hairless/Scott were careless in use of tense, if they didn't intend to imply the policy was current.

To understand that point, you need to understand English grammar.

If you don't, that's too bad for you.

When Bartholomew Roberts says

I would consider confusion over the difference between someone diagnosed with "PTSD" by VA and someone declared as "incompetent" to be the type of minor error that can be easily made (and has been in previous discussions on this subject). I would not have reached the same conclusions you did.

I couldn't disagree more. PTSD is common among combat troops. The distinction is much more important than you must think.

The issue (to me) is the degree to which PTSD is disabling and whether the disablement affects moral judgments (knowing right from wrong) and impulse control. For Cox to imply PTSD is the RKBA disabling factor, if true, would mean that huge numbers of combat troops would lose their rights. That should alarm everyone -- if it were true.

When Bartholomew Roberts says

Really? Did I miss in the original post where Robert Hairless proclaimed the policy had been rescinded?

No, you didn't miss "where Robert Hairless proclaimed the policy had been rescinded" -- he didn't. That's the point. Mr. Hairless implied through use of present tense that the policy was current.

You are the one that brought up "rescinded memo = rescinded policy". I never thought that. I thought that Mr. Hairless was providing insight into current policy using an old memo. So I checked and replied that the contents of Mr. Hairless post were misleading.

That was my conclusion then -- it is my conclusion now.

So, I have to wonder why you are defending what at best is use of bad grammar?

Finally, I suggest you read the original link to the VA Watchdog article by Scott posted earlier in another THR thread. I'm afraid you have the wrong impression of that article. That article denies that veterans with PTSD are disabled by the VA and I suspect that is correct. If it is correct, you should be after Chris Cox for the misleading information -- he is the one saying 90,000+ veterans are on the NICS list for PTSD, not me. The only error corrected by Scott is the error of those who say PTSD is disabling. Scott says in his introduction "Plainly and simply, it [HR2640] has nothing to do with veterans and will NOT bar anyone with a diagnosis of PTSD from purchasing firearms and ammo." So, if an error is corrected in that article, it is Cox's.

As to whether Scott's article tells the whole story for veterans, take a look at their comments. Some of the comments you find there from veterans who have read the bill do not agree with Scott's article or support HR2640.

I think a lot of the problems with HR2640 pointed out in these veteran comments are correct.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Suffice it to say we disagree then.

 

[devilc]

What IS PTSD anyway?
Are they using the DSM-IV diagnosis?
I am an OIF/OEF veteran. . . .perhaps I have PTSD.
Someone really aught to inform the authorities.

 

[Phil Lee]

PTSD is described in
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/information/what_is.jsp

 

[devilc]

I was being sarcastic. . . .
But thanks.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Phil, give it a rest. I'm just an ole illitterat kountry boy and I knew what he was saying.

devilc, what does sarcastic...... mean?

 

[wideym]

The whole "disarming vets" claim is a bunch of crap. I was diagnosed with PTSD when I returned from Iraq and have yet to see how it has affected my gun rights.

Since returning I have bought many firearms and gotten my CCW. The only critera about PTSD and temporarily losing your guns rights is being a danger to yourself or others and being involentarily committed. So far nobody with the group I attend has had any problem regarding gun rights(we did talk about this).

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Seriously Phil, I read Robert Hairless' post very carefully, since I am a retired vet and am very interested in vets' rights, and I find no fault with it. If you read anything looking for the least detail to pick on you can find it. I found the post informative and well presented. Enuff said!

 

[Phil Lee]

I doubt you "very carefully" read Robert Hairless' post or my replies, but if you did, your "give it a rest" message after several weeks of everyone giving it a rest on this thread is strange.

Since you are a veteran, you might be interested in the opinion letter from the American Legion on the topic of HR2640. They think the best thing for veterans to do to keep from being unfairly added to the NICS list is to oppose HR2640.

I think that too.

HR2640 needs significant revision to protect the civil rights of Americans -- both veterans and non-veterans alike. You can think otherwise, but you just haven't been paying attention if you do.

 

[JohnBT]

"Obviously, I'm not illiterate in the English language."

I don't think it's obvious at all after reading a number of your posts. I really don't. You know a lot of words, but that doesn't equate with reading for content. Sorry to have to disagree.

John

 

[Oohrah]

You don't need to be veteran to discover the system is totally
flawed. Any number of reasons or none at all can put you on
the rejected lists and it can take months to clear. What possible
reason, other than the dumb crook rule, would possess a law breaker to
go to a dealer for a rejection ????

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This thread appears to have drifted.