Should have been tuned up like a grade school piano.it had a good outcome - 'other-than-honorable discharge'.
Army splits with West Point grad who touted communist revolt
WATERTOWN, N.Y. (AP) — The images Spenser Rapone posted on Twitter from his West Point graduation were intentionally shocking: In one, the cadet opens his dress uniform to expose a T-shirt with a blood-red image of socialist icon Che Guevara.apnews.com
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Veteran gun rights
- Thread starter imgone
- Start date
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,929
- Likes
- 23,540
honestly if you're going to make an anti-2a statement on a gun forum you're gonna catch some shit. go to masscops and say that cops are the real sovereign citizens, go to ls1.com and say the alternator is in the wrong place, go to pbnation.com and say Team Bob Long only ever won because they had the best funding.
if you're gonna troll you're gonna get some troll responses.
i just don't understand why you would defend this abhorrent statement in post 2.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,929
- Likes
- 23,540
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 1,539
- Likes
- 1,459
If that happens to someone while theyre in their rack or fartsack on a bivouac, sure. Theres also the party in the woodline where men of all ranks go to solve their problems and then thats the end of it.
TayNinh_66
NES Member
I could have word crafted my sentence differently but I stand on my statement.
"If you are unable to manage your financial affairs and a court of appropriate jurisdiction has determined you are incompetent to manage your financial affairs and has appointed a rep-payee, you are probably unable to safely manage a firearm. "
I have dealt with many DMH clients over the years and my personal experience is MA courts have set a very high bar before they will grant a request for rep-payee. Typical cases are elderly with dementia or young people who are very very psychotic. Elderly are more apt to be assigned a conservator, mentally disabled a guardian.
This has nothing to do with veterans. I know a lot of combat vets, all with PTSD. (Only one who was a frequent flyer at Coatesville and who is automatically a PP) I have never heard of any vet with PTSD denied due to PTSD. I am simply agreeing with existing federal law on PPs:
18 USC 922(d)(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older;
Mental defective could be defined as 'found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, is a danger to himself or herself or others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.' If you are appointed a rep-payee (fiduciary) ergo, you are a PP. Interesting to note that psychotic individuals who have lost complete touch with reality are encouraged to sign voluntary pysch hospital admission forms and that is a voluntary admission, not a commitment. They can then sign a three day letter and the hospital must release them or go to court to hold them longer. A homicidal nutjob can suck it up and game the system for a long time before becoming a PP.
"If you are unable to manage your financial affairs and a court of appropriate jurisdiction has determined you are incompetent to manage your financial affairs and has appointed a rep-payee, you are probably unable to safely manage a firearm. "
I have dealt with many DMH clients over the years and my personal experience is MA courts have set a very high bar before they will grant a request for rep-payee. Typical cases are elderly with dementia or young people who are very very psychotic. Elderly are more apt to be assigned a conservator, mentally disabled a guardian.
This has nothing to do with veterans. I know a lot of combat vets, all with PTSD. (Only one who was a frequent flyer at Coatesville and who is automatically a PP) I have never heard of any vet with PTSD denied due to PTSD. I am simply agreeing with existing federal law on PPs:
18 USC 922(d)(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution at 16 years of age or older;
Mental defective could be defined as 'found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, is a danger to himself or herself or others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.' If you are appointed a rep-payee (fiduciary) ergo, you are a PP. Interesting to note that psychotic individuals who have lost complete touch with reality are encouraged to sign voluntary pysch hospital admission forms and that is a voluntary admission, not a commitment. They can then sign a three day letter and the hospital must release them or go to court to hold them longer. A homicidal nutjob can suck it up and game the system for a long time before becoming a PP.
This is a much better and cogent argument. Are you aware of references in this thread about what the VA was trying, and accomplished in small parts, to veterans during the Obama administration?
Obama to Ban Thousands of Senior Citizens from Owning Firearms | GOA
Scroll down to the “How to Take Action” section below and submit your outrage with Obama’s plan to ban hundreds of thousands of senior citizens from owning guns — thus setting the stage for massive gun confiscations. Not a GOA member yet? You can join Gun Owners of America today for only...
www.gunowners.org
O's admin "mental defective list" concern.
Why Is President Obama Prohibiting Veterans From Owning Guns?
Senator Chuck Grassley is asking the Obama administration why so many veterans and their families are being denied their right to own firearms. by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
thenewamerican.com
Here's A Complete List Of All The Times Obama Said He Wants To Take Away Your Guns
The number might surprise you.
Now, for the NES comedic relief in a serious thread:
"Overruled"
Last edited:
A court order does change the argument, though I don't think revocation of firearms rights should be automatically linked to financial incompetence. I'd make them separate proceedings, both with an extremely high bar and an appellate process.
Like, a bar high enough that the state is forced to generally conclude that the juice is not worth the squeeze except in the most egregious cases. I don't want to simply prevent the state from taking away RKBA; I want to prevent the state from even thinking about taking away RKBA.
Still not making the finances / firearms connection. So some hillbilly kid in the mountains with a first grade education can't safely use a shotgun? How about some rich-kid who has always had everything provided for them and never had to worry about the balance on their gold card? Are they also going to tell folks they can't drive a car, operate a table saw, cook a meal, clean a toilet, run a lawnmower or take a bath if managing money is too much of a challenge? You know, 'cause they're "probably unable to safely" do all those other things.
How high does the bar have to be to deny someone the right to speak freely? To have to provide evidence against themselves? To submit to warrantless searched and seizures?
Financial incompetence vs. enumerated rights is comparing apples to park benches.
How high does the bar have to be to deny someone the right to speak freely? To have to provide evidence against themselves? To submit to warrantless searched and seizures?
Financial incompetence vs. enumerated rights is comparing apples to park benches.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I think he's saying that if a court adjudicates you as too incompetent to handle your finances, then it's a safe bet that you're too disorganized (in the clinical sense) to safely manage a firearm. He might be right about that, but then he might not be. I'm saying there'd be too many variables in each individual case to be able to make a blanket statement about it, when the consequence is the deprivation of your civil rights.
He's not saying that mere financial illiteracy or "being bad with money" should mean you're not safe with a gun. He clarified that.
And I'm saying that if a court adjudicates you as too incompetent to handle your finances, then why isn't it a "safe bet" that you're too disorganized (in the clinical sense) to safely manage all those other things? Driving a car is far more complicated than firing a gun. Same could be said for sharpening your own lawnmower blades. Why is a firearm exclusive of all those other potentially dangerous or deadly activities? My garage is a mess, as is my desk, my car and my sock drawer. Am I too disorganized (in the clinical sense) to have guns?
Also, where is there any kind of definition of what rises to the level of financial "incompetence"? Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" sort of things? Maybe all these college kids who signed up for loans they can't pay back should turn in their guns. Likewise the E3 who knocked up his stripper wife and then went out and bought himself a $35,000 4x4. Credit score below 400? Ever declare bankruptcy? No guns for you, obviously you can't manage your finances.
Show me the solid and unequivocal nexus between being able to process moderately complex equations and being able to operate a firearm while excluding other potentially risky activities and processes. I'll wait..
Also, where is there any kind of definition of what rises to the level of financial "incompetence"? Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" sort of things? Maybe all these college kids who signed up for loans they can't pay back should turn in their guns. Likewise the E3 who knocked up his stripper wife and then went out and bought himself a $35,000 4x4. Credit score below 400? Ever declare bankruptcy? No guns for you, obviously you can't manage your finances.
Show me the solid and unequivocal nexus between being able to process moderately complex equations and being able to operate a firearm while excluding other potentially risky activities and processes. I'll wait..
Good on you for clarifying your statement but you’re still not making a financial connection to no guns. Citing law on what makes someone prohibited because of some psychotic issues or problems is one thing, but strictly for finances is another.
So if you stand by the statement that if someone can’t do their own finances, they should not have guns, I think that is complete nonsense. Financial problems in a court order is the least of someone’s problems If they’re facing losing their second amendment rights, theirs probably a lot more going on with them than just the finances.
I know quite a few veterans with PTSD that were involuntary admitted to the VA by either a court order or a family member and lost thier guns. All of these cases were temporary and the veteran was going through a tough time and I only know one that ever got their shit back… it happens more than you think.
Let me ask you this:
What if some of the entities you stated besides a court finds you mentally defective and wants to take your guns away like a school board or any commission like you stated? Then they find out that you are not handling your own finances, a family member is…Do you agree with that? Should that person lose thier property and rights?
@TayNinh_66 came back and clarified, to his credit. A number of you need to actually do him the courtesy of reading what he wrote, I think. I still don't agree with him, but his position is more nuanced than a lot of us assumed.
There are court proceedings that can remove your right to handle your finances. He's assuming we're all aware of that, but the responses here are suggesting some of us aren't.
There are court proceedings that can remove your right to handle your finances. He's assuming we're all aware of that, but the responses here are suggesting some of us aren't.
I'll never support the notion of prohibited people as long as theres no realistic way to become an unprohibited person.
The government can't and shouldn't be trusted with that much power.
He's still advocating for expansion of government power and limitations of fundamental rights.
If someone's a threat to humanity they should be in jail.
If not, they should have all their rights.
I have literally 0 deviance from this because you can't compromise on fundamentals, you just end up with compromised values.
This is no different than red flag laws. An end run around the constitution to limit rights without due process.
If someone's a threat to humanity they should be in jail.
If not, they should have all their rights.
I have literally 0 deviance from this because you can't compromise on fundamentals, you just end up with compromised values.
This is no different than red flag laws. An end run around the constitution to limit rights without due process.
Wasn’t really much of a clarification.. he just added a court order and multiple Gov entities that can adjudicate you mentally AND financially unfit onto his agreement of basically supporting red flags.
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
This nonsense is the same type of argument about a DWI, if a person in Massachusetts gets a single DWI without harming a soul they instantly become a prohibited person?
It's lunacy
It's lunacy
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
A-f*cking-men
The thing is that the VA does not have as high of a bar as MA. Nor do other states. You made an extremely broad statement based on a narrow point of view. But thank you for elaborating on your opinion.
Should a senile person with dementia or a psychotic person be prohibited from firearm ownership? Possibly, those are actual mental issues that can significantly alter perception of reality.
But there are vets serviced by the VA who do indeed have their finances handled for them, because they have issues with scheduling personal/financial affairs and some memory issues due to TBI or PTSD. Nothing that would make them incapable of safely handling firearms or reasonably making self defense decisions.
TayNinh_66
NES Member
I do NOT support red flag laws and there in nothing in my statement indicating that. Red flag laws are one of the worst ideas ever adopted by uber liberal states.
My statement addressed declaration of incompetency and that is a very difficult process in MA. The court will appoint you an attorney and you will receive several psychiatric assessments. A declaration is reviewed annually and you or your attorney can have it lifted upon presentation of sufficient evidence of recovery.
Again, I am not aware of any combat vet with PTSD who is a PP based solely upon PTSD. And every vet I know is well aware of the fact that VA mental health workers are mandated reporters. I do not know any vet with TBI nor am I aware of any MA court cases declaring someone with TBI incompetent so I can not address that disability
And to the sovereign citizens who regurgitate "Shall not be infringed" read the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) by Antonin Scalia.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
