When a decorated Marine combat veteran is denied the opportunity to purchase a handgun, for the "crime" of telling the truth, gun laws have truly abandoned any pretense of a legitimate claim of being representative of "common sense." That, however, is just what happened in Omaha, Nebraska.
Sgt. Tim Mechaley trained fellow Marines to fire .50-caliber machine guns. He qualified as a marksman. He fought in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, and received a combat medal with a "V" for valor.
Back home, he uses a rifle for target shooting.
Yet, when Mechaley sought to buy a 9-mm Ruger pistol for protection at his midtown apartment, the Omaha Police Department rejected his application for a gun permit.
Was the rejection based on a prior felony, or an incident of domestic violence? Substance abuse? Dishonorable discharge? No, no, and no.
Mechaley, 32, has received counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder related to his service in Iraq. While completing an application for a gun permit, he responded "yes" to a question that asked whether he was being treated for a mental disorder.
"I circled yes because I wanted to be completely honest," he said.
As explanation, he wrote "PTSD from Iraq Marine combat veteran" on the form.
In Omaha, Nebraska, apparently, that's enough to disqualify one from purchasing a firearm. Evidently in accordance with Omaha's definition of shall not be infringed, permission must be sought from the local police before one can legally purchase a handgun. This permission-seeking process involves filling out the application mentioned above, which includes questions about the applicant's mental health status.
The hypocrisy of telling a man who carried heavy weapons in defense of our way of life that he may not have so much as a revolver (before anyone "corrects" me, I know that Sgt. Mechaley was trying to buy a semi-automatic, rather than a revolver, but the law would have treated a revolver exactly the same) at home to defend his own existence is breathtaking.
As one might expect of a Marine, though, Sgt. Mechaley is possessed of far too much resolve and determination to meekly accept the tyranny of the petty bureaucrats who demanded his disarmament. He appealed his permit denial, and was vindicated. As "happy" an outcome as is possible, given the outrageous reality of him having to ask permission to exercise his Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and the fact that said permission was initially denied.
Sgt. Machaley endured horrors I cannot begin to imagine--seeing eight friends killed over the course of his tour of duty in Iraq. Being human, he was affected by that, and being wise, he sought counseling to deal with it. That counseling has been a great help, and the wounds to his psyche are healing. He is, in fact, considered sufficiently mentally fit to continue to serve in the Marine Reserves.
Depending on whose statistics you want to use, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffering from PTSD and/or depression number in the tens of thousands--maybe in the hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these defenders of America are no more inclined toward crime and violence than anyone else, but because of laws like Omaha's, the thanks they receive for their courage and sacrifice is denial of the right to armed self-defense.
What message does the stigmatization of seeking help in dealing with the emotional aftermath of months of horrific combat send to our veterans? That they should hide the fact of that treatment, or not seek it at all. Is that what we want?
Although I opposed the so-called NICS "Improvement" Act of 2007 (for reasons that will have to wait for another article), I discounted Gun Owners of America's characterization of it as the "Veterans Disarmament Act" as being a bit over the top in its alarmist tone. Now, though, I'm starting to think GOA had it right all along.
(Thanks to Days of Our Trailers for initially alerting me to this outrage)
- Austin: Mexico’s gun laws responsible for violent
holocaust? - Charlotte: What is your state's Freedom Index?
- Cleveland: Fewer police on the street puts citizens at risk
- DC: Georgia legislator introduces bill to repeal permit
requirement to open carry handguns! - Denver: Mental toughness
- Los Angeles: Take Heart, Part IV: Explaining it to the
Republicans. - Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns
- Minneapolis: An open letter to Senator Jim Webb and pro-gun
democrats - National: Touching the 'third rail' of race and guns
- Seattle: At it again: Anti-gunners trying to demonize yet another
class of firearms
Comments
The government lies to us and is training us to lie to them.
Kurt, many people think GOA is alarmist, right up until some government bastard does just what was predicted.
Kurt - trying to contact you, but I haven't been able to figure out how. Email me at scott@patriotroom.com when you get a chance, please.
It's actually worse than Omaha requiring a permit to BUY a gun. Omaha's ordinance actually states it is illegal to HAVE an unregistered gun in the city limits, regardless of where you live. So technically if you're a Kansas resident traveling through Omaha on the way to South Dakota with an unloaded, cased, locked handgun, you're breaking the law. And they don't care.
Amen. It is unreal how we treat our veterans. Seeking counseling is the bravest and most noble thing to do after an experience in Iraq. Not a weak person, this is a person I would want armed in my community.
Texas refused to renew a Korean Veteran's CHL after the Vet Disarm Act because he'd sought counseling for PTSD a few times in the 1980s. Not a speeding ticket on his record. Fellow lives a bit south of me.
GOA are aware, not liars.
Thomas, I hadn't really thought of GOA as lying, just of overreacting some. Now I am beginning to see it differently.
Hecate, thanks for the information. That is indeed worse than I had realized.
SA, I'm starting to become a believer.
Kurt- when people start talking about banning "assault weapons", what do they mean by the term. have you ever heard a gun banner define what an assault weapon is? i have not. i am going to contact as many people as possible to simply ask that this question be put forth as often as possible. we know the reason why the term is never defined. The gun banners motive is to associate assault weapon with automatic weapon and confuse those not paying attention. Hope you write something on this topic. Thanks Rick Wagner
Rick, as I imagine you're well aware, part of the problem is that the artificial, citizen-disarmament-lobby-inspired term "assault weapons," morphs to include whatever firearm the gun prohibitionists think they can get away with banning at that time. That's why in California, even single shot rifles are "assault weapons," if they're chambered for the .50 BMG cartridge.
You may have seen the famous video of U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)--virulent enemy of privately owned firearms in general, and "assault weapons" in particular--asked in an interview to define "barrel shroud" (one of the defining characteristics of an "assault weapon," according to legislation she had introduced), and she couldn't.
"Is it the shoulder thing that goes up?"
I kid you not. Google search "Carolyn McCarthy barrel shroud."
Better yet, paste this into your address bar:
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d24-Its-The-Carolyn-McCarthy-Show
The relevant sections of the Omaha municipal code:
Sec. 20-200. Permit required for purchasing or renting firearm.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent a concealable firearm to any person who has not obtained a written permit from the chief of police as provided for in this article.
(Code 1980, § 20-200)
DIVISION 2. FIREARM REGISTRATION
Sec. 20-251. Required.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, have possession of, or maintain control over any concealable firearm which has not been registered to said person with the chief of police in accordance with this division, except when such possession or control is with the knowledge and express consent of the person in whose name such concealable firearm is registered.
Sec. 20-254. Issuance or denial of permit.
Upon the filing of an application for registration of a concealable firearm, the chief of police shall issue a permit or deny a permit and furnish the applicant the specific reasons for the denial in writing. A failure to furnish the applicant a written denial shall constitute issuance of a permit.
(Code 1980, § 20-254)
Sec. 20-255. Consideration of application by chief of police; custody of firearm pending decision on permit.
The chief of police shall be permitted seven days in which to consider an application for registration of a concealable firearm. The chief of police may take custody of the concealable firearm in the applicant's possession while the application is under consideration whenever he determines that it is in the best interests of public safety to do so.
(Code 1980, § 20-255)
Sec. 20-256. Disposition of firearm upon denial of permit.
Any person whose application for registration of a concealable firearm is denied shall have ten days in which to provide for proper registration or other lawful disposition of the concealable firearm. During this time the chief of police shall maintain custody of the concealable firearm. If the applicant fails to provide for the proper registration or other lawful disposition of the concealable firearm within this time, it shall be presumed that the concealable firearm is an unregistered concealable firearm and the chief of police may apply to the municipal court for an order of confiscation.
(Code 1980, § 20-256)
Reference: www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10945&sid=27
Search for "concealable firearm."
Dug it up for you, Kurt
Stardate: Wed, 9 Jan 2008
Author of email: Lawyer I retain for firearms purposes
I just got off the phone with ********, 81 year old veteran who has seen doctors at the VA, and was diagnosed many years ago with PTSD
(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).
He is a firearms enthusiast, and he was
calling me to discuss why his Texas CHL was recently denied. The reason was that his name was sent over by the VA and placed in the NICS database of "prohibited persons" due to his PTSD diagnosis. Suddenly, overnight, he has become a criminal for possessing firearms and ammunition.
This, for a man that previously had his Texas concealed carry license, and is in all respects a fine, upstanding citizen of the community, with no criminal record whatsoever.
His whole life in retirement centers around guns, shooting, and gunsmithing with his son. Now, to pursue his hobby is a crime.
--Thomas
Hecate, thanks again for the details--even though they make me angry.
Thomas--speaking of me being angry, that's outrageous. So is that federal law (NICS "Improvement," presumably), or Texas law?
Until the constitution is repealed people have the right to bear arms, and correct me if I'm wrong I don't think it even says anything about PTSD.
That was the Federal "NICS Improvement".
To get a Texas CHL you have to be qualified by NICS among many other things. As the San Antonio VAMC had passed along the PTSD consulting he'd had in the past to NICS, he was put on the FBI NICS Prohibited Persons List and they are still refusing to renew his CHL.
At one time, only court ordered commitment to a mental health facility mattered. There are many reasons why a person might seek "mental health counseling" having nothing to do with any violent behavior.
Perhaps a child is sick, or a brother or sister terminally ill. Some people might need a shoulder to lean on. Some might go to a minister, some might go to a doctor.
Many reasons why and how cities pass many bad laws, sometimes it is just because they lack the expertise, sometimes it is because the anti-gun lobby can ramrod bad laws through.
This municipal law and perhaps Federal involvement should be challenged.
Both Omaha and Lincoln are in violation of Nebraska state law on concealed carry. The Nebraska AG has issued an opinion to that effect. Perhaps this Marine should contact the NE AG?
Kurt, you said it:--"...in accordance with Omaha's definition of shall not be infringed, PERMISSION must be sought from the local police before one can legally purchase a handgun. This PERMISSION-seeking process involves filling out the APPLICATION mentioned above..."---Hopefully, in time, you'll write more about the anomaly that Americans have accepted asking PERMISSION (applying for PERMITS to carry concealed, for instance) of their government in order to excercise their constitutional rights. Requiring permits to "allow" citizens to excercise their First Amendment rights has been struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, by the way.
Put another way, should mentally ill people be allowed to purchase guns?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!