Decorated Marine, disarmed by law

March 6, 4:22 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

15 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

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)