Long time since we've been here!!

[2HighSpeed]

We're back.
Sorry it's been a while since we've been in here. So much has happened.
Cory is now out of the army. He is recieving both social security and VA. His VA is 100% plus homebound. We are fighting to get his honorable discharge under patterns of misconduct upgraded to a medical retirement. A news article was just released about him in the Raleigh newspaper yesterday. We live in TN, but are looking to move to KY once we find a nice piece of land.
Kids are doing great, we homeschool them now. And Cory's medical and mental issues are being effectively managed.
oh, and they took away his right to own firearms. That really pisses me off! They said with a rating of 100% for ptsd, he is mentally incompetant. Stupid VA!

[Harter66]

Well except for that last little bit it sounds like things are coming along nicely.

[Bzcraig]

Glad to hear your preserversance has paid off! Since Cory isn't allowed firearms, does that by default mean you can't either?

[2HighSpeed]

No I can own. But I can't have any untill we get a better gun safe. Thier requirements are it needs to be a keyed and combination lock. Ammo stored seperately. And those safes are far too expensive right now. We're still fighting to get him what he deserves, but it is worth the fight. The change I've seen in him since he left active duty makes this all worth it. I have my husband back, my children have thier father back. And that in itself is worth all the sleepless nights, tears and endless phone calls and letters.

[jmort]

Good news. Thank God you all are on the upswing.

[LUBEDUDE]

Overall great news!

With your perseverance, I'm sure that you will work most of the details out.

[MaryB]

The **** of pulling gun rights over PTSD needs to stop. I hound my congress idiots about it every so often. PTSD does not always mean you are going to hurt yourself or someone else.

[btroj]

The **** of pulling gun rights over PTSD needs to stop. I hound my congress idiots about it every so often. PTSD does not always mean you are going to hurt yourself or someone else.

Next time someone posts here about keeping guns away from those adjudicated mentally ill or taking a psych med remember that. Those are the "tools" being used to take rights from those with PTSD. It is just the tip of the iceberg as that goes.

[freebullet]

Glad to hear he is doing better.

Shall not be infringed. Rolling in graves.

Muzzle loaders & air rifles are not regulated as firearms so long as they don't use modern primers. You might look into that.

[Moonie]

I have a very good friend that has PTSD, he is a Marine and ex-army, he was in a Hummer that hit an IED. He was turned down for a concealed permit but has no problem getting pistol purchase permits (a NC/Jim Crow thing) and can own firearms, at least for now, the ones he didn't lose in the lake...

I do understand they just wish to protect PTSD sufferers from themselves, but that isn't the governments job.

[Wayne Smith]

The govt needs to realize it is a changable thing and have a mechanism for them to recover their rights. Legitiable loss of competency does not mean that competency cannot be recovered, especially with the right medication. If that is not in the current law harrass your congressmen until it is.

[shdwlkr]

Good to hear you are done with the military, active duty part at least. Good to hear you all are doing better.
The last part is something that really is confusing as PTSD isn't always something that the individual with will self harm or harm someone else. Have you had him checked by someone not attached to the VA, Military that is in the mental health profession? Fighting the ruling will require that to begin with and maybe even several over a period of time.
As to the gun safe finding a good one with a combination lock and key lock will require you to read the choices of locks as you look at safes, also the size you choose will affect cost also, look for scratch and dent models they usually are sold for less and you are going to scratch it anyways.
just my thoughts

[lightman]

Welcome Back! Glad things are better for you and hope they continue to improve.

[starmac]

I may be way off base here, but getting a private doctor to see about declaring him fit for firearm ownership, might affect his chances of any medical retirement.

[Wayne Smith]

I doubt it, Starmac. Medical retirement has much more to do with his ability to work than his ability to carry or own a firearm. With all the problems he has he should be 100% disabled and unable to work. That does not prevent firearm ownership.

[NavyVet1959]

The problem is that even people who CLAIM to be pro-2nd-Amendment have succumbed to the leftist propaganda that some restrictions on a natural born right might be acceptable. They are well on their way down that slippery slope and it has happened so gradually that they don't know it.

[2HighSpeed]

He is rated 100% P&T with housebound compensation. They rated him 100% for the ptsd and 70% for the tbi. He has a 60%, 3-4 30%'s and at least 5 10%'s thrown in the mix too. The incompetency (the manage finances or own weapons), came from his suicide attempt last December. I'm not sure if youns remember that or not. They said he has to be stable and non suicidal for 5 years to get his rights back. He has found a way to manage his PTSD, it is not by the 22 pill per day VA cocktail though. I have wrote to my state legislators urging them to back bill HR4498. Maybe those of you who support the bill will write thier representatives too.
This has nothing to do with his retirement. We are fighting to procure that for him now. The process is painfully slow.

[TXGunNut]

We need to quit calling it PTSD, IMHO Post Traumatic Stress is a normal reaction to a bad situation. Gun ownership rights should be on a case-by-case basis and not an automatic DQ.
I'm glad things are going well for you and yours, Andrea. Circumstances have improved greatly for you since I last heard so I ought to be thankful for that, and I am. Thanks for checking in!

[NavyVet1959]

Gun ownership rights should be on a case-by-case basis and not an automatic DQ.

So, you're saying that you believe that one of our most basic human rights that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not absolute as intended by the Founding Fathers? So, do you also think that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to say what religions we can and cannot worship? As long as we are not hurting others with our religious beliefs (or the firearms that we possess), then why should the government have anything to say about it? If we are hurting others, then punish the crime that resulted from the hurting of the others, not the mere tool that we might have used to accomplish that.