TexasCHLforum.com

The article gives that missing piece of information we were all wondering about.

Currently, when a person has a fiduciary appointed to handle his or her veterans' benefits, the federal government considers that person to have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. According to Rep. Moran, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reported the names of more than 117,000 veterans and family members to the FBI for use in instant background checks.

I think the crux of the issue is what happened in the gap between PTSD diagnosis and his CHL/CCP being revoked. If he was adjudicated by a court to be legally incompetent and is now receiving benefits because of that, but did not understand that this would be one of the consequences of that action, then there isn't really anything to get in a huff over.

If he was medically diagnosed as having significant impairment due to his PTSD (a requirement of PTSD, but not one that necessarily precludes safe handling of firearms depending on what areas are affected) and his medical information was shared with NCIS then there's an issue of privacy, database collecting and sharing, etc.

C-dub wrote:So, depression could be an issue in this case that hasn't been mentioned. Maybe.

Now, the thing that I find interesting is that there are probably LE officers in various agencies diagnosed with PTSD and currently undergoing treatment that are still allowed to carry a gun and continue to work in their law enforcement capacity. What is different about a human being that is LE versus anyone else?

Indeed. He could have extreme insomnia with night terrors, could have problems with extreme aggression and hyper-reactivity, and could have hallucinations for all we know. Or he could stay at home all day because he can't bear to see triggers like military memorials or waving flags or some other great sensitivity which causes him to melt into a puddle of sobs as he has flashbacks. Or maybe he has survivor's guilt and has expressed suicidal ideations.

These are extreme and unlikely examples, but they do serve a purpose. In the first, it would be extremely unwise for him to have ready access to a firearm because he would be very likely to use it against someone else, while the second wouldn't change much of anything if he had a firearm, and in the third, he'd be very likely to use it against himself. What symptoms he has associated with his PTSD and what severity they are would be directly relevant to whether it would affect his ability to safely keep a firearm and whether it was an issue of prudence or imminent safety.

C-dub wrote:The problem I see with the confidentiality here is that the government is his doctor. However, isn't being treated for or having a diagnosis of depression grounds for denial or revocation of a CHL? And I know what PTSD stands for, but isn't it also a form of depression and many of the same meds are used for both?

It's a form of anxiety that develops due to a traumatic event and lasts for an extended period and significantly affects one's ability to function. While those who have PTSD can also be depressed, and pre-existing depression increases one's chances of developing PTSD following a traumatic event, PTSD is not a form of depression nor is it a mood disorder like depression.

Beta-blockers (primarily a cardiac medication), hormonal steroids like hydrocortisone, morphine, anti-anxiety medicines, anti-depression medicines, and others are all used for PTSD patients. They actually have no idea how exactly many of these medication work on the body and brain, despite the cute little pharmacology ads to the contrary, and they just try it to see if it will work based on the particular symptoms that the patient is having the most difficulty with (re-experiencing, avoidance, or hyperarousal). They call it the practice of medicine for a reason.