Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Be specific explain how a bureaucracy nameless and faceless knows the facts and weighs them and gives the accused an opportunity to defend ones self? As opposed to say a Judge in a Court of Law? Then remind us how you are just fine with no legal procedures removing rights of US Citizens then explain what happens when those rights are yours they are removing at some future juncturewhat makes a judge competent in deciding if someone is mentally deficient?Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.
why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?
Local AND state police records if they had to do a back ground check at all by that states law.really? where did gun dealers get their background checks before the passage of the brady bill?because until the passage of the brady bill there was nowhere to report it.So why didn't the VA do that for 30 YEARS after the law passed in 1968????first, the va has been reporting this since 1998. obama has nothing to do with it.to recieve their funds, nothing else, which is the whole point of the thread. The Obama regime is abusing the authority of the VA.
second, the va is only able to determine competency for benefits, but the 1968 gca says that determination of mental deficiency means they can't own or buy guns.
Could it be that they KNEW they weren't the adjudicating authority, until they finally exceeded THEIR authority????
roflmao, that is so stupid.
The VA had places to send their reports, lol.
I know that the Senate is taking the VA's actions up again, and their budget is on the line in these hearings....i read and understand my links. you don't appear capable of following them.For who they disburse funds to!!!which means they have the legal authority to determine competency.gee, wikipedia didn't give you all the information? imagine that!
38 CFR 3.353 - Determinations of incompetency and competency.
From your own damned source, jack ass.
§ 3.353Determinations of incompetency and competency.
(a)Definition of mental incompetency. A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.
Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for purposes of: insurance (38 U.S.C. 1922), and, subject to §13.56 of this chapter, disbursement of benefits. Such determinations are final and binding on field stations for these purposes.
13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in § 13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
Where the beneficiary is rated incompetent, the Veterans Service Center Manager will develop information as to the beneficiary's social, economic and industrial adjustment; appoint (or recommend appointment of) a fiduciary as provided in § 13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in § 13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
If in the course of fulfilling the responsibilities assigned in paragraph (b)(2) the Veterans Service Center Manager develops evidence indicating that the beneficiary may be capable of administering the funds payable without limitation, he or she will refer that evidence to the rating agency with a statement as to his or her findings. The rating agency will consider this evidence, together with all other evidence of record, to determine whether its prior determination of incompetency should remain in effect. Reexamination may be requested as provided in § 3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
The VA only has authority to rate veterans on their ability to handle and receive funds from the VA, and nothing else.
Are you really so retarded you can't read your own links???
You've posted NOTHING that states the VA has the right to make a legal determination of competency THAT WOULD AFFECT VETERANS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS... INCLUDING DETERMINATIONS THAT WOULD DENY SAID RIGHTS....
Those decisions are reserved for the COURTS, Dumbass!!!!!
but hey, don't take my word for it
Senate Report 113-86 - VETERANS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
so that means that Senators Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, Michael B. Enzi, James M. Inhofe, James
E. Risch, Pat Roberts, John Thune, David Vitter, Roger F. Wicker, Thad Cochran, Jeff Sessions,
John Boozman, and Jerry Moran all believe that the VA has the authority to deem someone mentally deficient, and that when they do that determination means they can't own or buy a gun.
now, do you think you know more than all of those senators and their staff? you're the expert and they (and I) are wrong?
nope.Look you RETARD until December the Government NEVER did what it is doing with the VA and SS. So explain again slowly how anyone would have complained prior to this happening? Be specific.falseBecause until THIS year no one denied people their rights that way which you know perfectly well.so in 48 years why hasn't anyone challenged the law?Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.
why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?
The Brady Act also requires federal agencies, upon the request of the Attorney General, to submit to the FBI information on persons prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The Attorney General made such a request to VA in 1998. Under a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the FBI and
VA, VA agreed to make available for inclusion in the NICS database information about VA beneficiaries who are determined to be mentally incompetent on account of their inability to contract or manage their own affairs pursuant to section 3.353 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. Determinations of
incompetency under section 3.353 result in an appointment of a fiduciary.
if the bill had passed the rules would be different and the thread wouldn't exist.I know that the Senate is taking the VA's actions up again, and their budget is on the line in these hearings....i read and understand my links. you don't appear capable of following them.For who they disburse funds to!!!which means they have the legal authority to determine competency.gee, wikipedia didn't give you all the information? imagine that!
38 CFR 3.353 - Determinations of incompetency and competency.
From your own damned source, jack ass.
§ 3.353Determinations of incompetency and competency.
(a)Definition of mental incompetency. A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.
Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for purposes of: insurance (38 U.S.C. 1922), and, subject to §13.56 of this chapter, disbursement of benefits. Such determinations are final and binding on field stations for these purposes.
13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in § 13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
Where the beneficiary is rated incompetent, the Veterans Service Center Manager will develop information as to the beneficiary's social, economic and industrial adjustment; appoint (or recommend appointment of) a fiduciary as provided in § 13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in § 13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
If in the course of fulfilling the responsibilities assigned in paragraph (b)(2) the Veterans Service Center Manager develops evidence indicating that the beneficiary may be capable of administering the funds payable without limitation, he or she will refer that evidence to the rating agency with a statement as to his or her findings. The rating agency will consider this evidence, together with all other evidence of record, to determine whether its prior determination of incompetency should remain in effect. Reexamination may be requested as provided in § 3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
The VA only has authority to rate veterans on their ability to handle and receive funds from the VA, and nothing else.
Are you really so retarded you can't read your own links???
You've posted NOTHING that states the VA has the right to make a legal determination of competency THAT WOULD AFFECT VETERANS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS... INCLUDING DETERMINATIONS THAT WOULD DENY SAID RIGHTS....
Those decisions are reserved for the COURTS, Dumbass!!!!!
but hey, don't take my word for it
Senate Report 113-86 - VETERANS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
so that means that Senators Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, Michael B. Enzi, James M. Inhofe, James
E. Risch, Pat Roberts, John Thune, David Vitter, Roger F. Wicker, Thad Cochran, Jeff Sessions,
John Boozman, and Jerry Moran all believe that the VA has the authority to deem someone mentally deficient, and that when they do that determination means they can't own or buy a gun.
now, do you think you know more than all of those senators and their staff? you're the expert and they (and I) are wrong?
So I guess YOU are saying YOU are smarter than the US Senate, right????
And BTW, it was so considerate of you to list a bill that NEVER PASSED as your "authority"....
Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act (2013 - S. 572)
Thank you for playing, Dumbass...
View attachment 70165
and the va was not required or asked to provide their records.Local AND state police records if they had to do a back ground check at all by that states law.really? where did gun dealers get their background checks before the passage of the brady bill?because until the passage of the brady bill there was nowhere to report it.So why didn't the VA do that for 30 YEARS after the law passed in 1968????first, the va has been reporting this since 1998. obama has nothing to do with it.
second, the va is only able to determine competency for benefits, but the 1968 gca says that determination of mental deficiency means they can't own or buy guns.
Could it be that they KNEW they weren't the adjudicating authority, until they finally exceeded THEIR authority????
roflmao, that is so stupid.
The VA had places to send their reports, lol.
I am a Vietnam Combat Vet and exposed to Agent Orange but never used any benefit from Uncle Sam.
Given you claim that PTSD is a coward's disease AND that you were in the shit in Nam, then I conclude you're either lying and stealing the valor of those who were there doing the bleeding and the dying OR you're a fucking REMF that was in Germany for your 2 years of combat with the frauleins in the ratkellers OR neither!You will boo me for this but I think PTSD is a coward's disease....
i understand the disagreement with the law. i do. i don't personally disagree, but i understand.i have no problem with opposition to the law and the rules. that makes sense to me (although i would disagree with it). i do have a problem with pretending that the law and the rules are something other than what they are, which is what you insist on doing.
To take a report on bicycle riding competence and use it to determine mental competence makes as much sense as misusing financial disbursement handling competence and using it as a proxy for a real mental evaluation.
funny, you call me a hack yet you can't even admit what the law isYou know this is bullshit but you keep at it anyway, because you are a libtard political partisan hack and you could not care less what is fair to vetrans or intended by the law as written - until its YOUR tail that gets caught int he government cracks.
Complete 100% total hypocrit lying bastards on the left.
And since the law you quoted in the previous post NEVER PASSED, you are out of gas....nope.Look you RETARD until December the Government NEVER did what it is doing with the VA and SS. So explain again slowly how anyone would have complained prior to this happening? Be specific.falseBecause until THIS year no one denied people their rights that way which you know perfectly well.so in 48 years why hasn't anyone challenged the law?Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.
The Brady Act also requires federal agencies, upon the request of the Attorney General, to submit to the FBI information on persons prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The Attorney General made such a request to VA in 1998. Under a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the FBI and
VA, VA agreed to make available for inclusion in the NICS database information about VA beneficiaries who are determined to be mentally incompetent on account of their inability to contract or manage their own affairs pursuant to section 3.353 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. Determinations of
incompetency under section 3.353 result in an appointment of a fiduciary.
i understand the disagreement with the law. i do. i don't personally disagree, but i understand.i have no problem with opposition to the law and the rules. that makes sense to me (although i would disagree with it). i do have a problem with pretending that the law and the rules are something other than what they are, which is what you insist on doing.
To take a report on bicycle riding competence and use it to determine mental competence makes as much sense as misusing financial disbursement handling competence and using it as a proxy for a real mental evaluation.
funny, you call me a hack yet you can't even admit what the law isYou know this is bullshit but you keep at it anyway, because you are a libtard political partisan hack and you could not care less what is fair to vetrans or intended by the law as written - until its YOUR tail that gets caught int he government cracks.
Complete 100% total hypocrit lying bastards on the left.
Until the Obama regime decide to compare apples to oranges.and the va was not required or asked to provide their records.Local AND state police records if they had to do a back ground check at all by that states law.really? where did gun dealers get their background checks before the passage of the brady bill?because until the passage of the brady bill there was nowhere to report it.So why didn't the VA do that for 30 YEARS after the law passed in 1968????
Could it be that they KNEW they weren't the adjudicating authority, until they finally exceeded THEIR authority????
roflmao, that is so stupid.
The VA had places to send their reports, lol.
that isn't the case any more.
except that it very obviously isn't. you just want it to be, basing your argument on emotion rather than facti understand the disagreement with the law. i do. i don't personally disagree, but i understand.i have no problem with opposition to the law and the rules. that makes sense to me (although i would disagree with it). i do have a problem with pretending that the law and the rules are something other than what they are, which is what you insist on doing.
To take a report on bicycle riding competence and use it to determine mental competence makes as much sense as misusing financial disbursement handling competence and using it as a proxy for a real mental evaluation.
funny, you call me a hack yet you can't even admit what the law isYou know this is bullshit but you keep at it anyway, because you are a libtard political partisan hack and you could not care less what is fair to vetrans or intended by the law as written - until its YOUR tail that gets caught int he government cracks.
Complete 100% total hypocrit lying bastards on the left.
I know what the law is, and the law as written is clearly contrary to your lie.
the lawyers at the white house? they've been doing this since 1998!But the lawyers at the White House are twisting the law to make a disbursement handling evaluation apply as a mental evaluation for the purposes of allowing gun purchases, which is not what the law calls for, but it is what lawyers are perverting the law into.
again, started reporting to the fbi in 1998...Until the Obama regime decide to compare apples to oranges.and the va was not required or asked to provide their records.Local AND state police records if they had to do a back ground check at all by that states law.really? where did gun dealers get their background checks before the passage of the brady bill?because until the passage of the brady bill there was nowhere to report it.
roflmao, that is so stupid.
The VA had places to send their reports, lol.
that isn't the case any more.
just as a side note, the va did not choose the criteria.Whenever there is a mass shooting, the Right does not call for more stringent background checks. Instead, the Right invariably blames "mental illness", not guns.
Example: After shootings, GOP pivots to mental health reform
So now we have the VA identifying those who have mental illnesses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
The story in the OP link was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a letter written by Senator Grassley to the VA about their criteria for forwarding a vet's name to the NICS.
I much prefer original sources than, in the OP's case, fourth- or fifth-hand sources.
The criteria the VA chose for reporting a vet to the NICS is that if the vet requires a "fiduciary trustee", then they are too mentally defective to own a gun.
A fiduciary trustee is a person or entity assigned to handle someone's finances because they are incapable of doing so, usually due to mental illness of one kind or another.
Apparently there are a quarter million vets who can't take care of themselves.
Senator Grassley feels the VA is interpreting federal law incorrectly and should only be referring those vets who are a "danger to themselves or others" to the NICS.
They interpreted the criteria one way, Senator Grassley interprets it a different way.just as a side note, the va did not choose the criteria.Whenever there is a mass shooting, the Right does not call for more stringent background checks. Instead, the Right invariably blames "mental illness", not guns.
Example: After shootings, GOP pivots to mental health reform
So now we have the VA identifying those who have mental illnesses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
The story in the OP link was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a letter written by Senator Grassley to the VA about their criteria for forwarding a vet's name to the NICS.
I much prefer original sources than, in the OP's case, fourth- or fifth-hand sources.
The criteria the VA chose for reporting a vet to the NICS is that if the vet requires a "fiduciary trustee", then they are too mentally defective to own a gun.
A fiduciary trustee is a person or entity assigned to handle someone's finances because they are incapable of doing so, usually due to mental illness of one kind or another.
Apparently there are a quarter million vets who can't take care of themselves.
Senator Grassley feels the VA is interpreting federal law incorrectly and should only be referring those vets who are a "danger to themselves or others" to the NICS.
senator grassley is trying to make a political issue. the va is following the legal definitions.They interpreted the criteria one way, Senator Grassley interprets it a different way.just as a side note, the va did not choose the criteria.Whenever there is a mass shooting, the Right does not call for more stringent background checks. Instead, the Right invariably blames "mental illness", not guns.
Example: After shootings, GOP pivots to mental health reform
So now we have the VA identifying those who have mental illnesses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
The story in the OP link was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a story from another source which was based on a letter written by Senator Grassley to the VA about their criteria for forwarding a vet's name to the NICS.
I much prefer original sources than, in the OP's case, fourth- or fifth-hand sources.
The criteria the VA chose for reporting a vet to the NICS is that if the vet requires a "fiduciary trustee", then they are too mentally defective to own a gun.
A fiduciary trustee is a person or entity assigned to handle someone's finances because they are incapable of doing so, usually due to mental illness of one kind or another.
Apparently there are a quarter million vets who can't take care of themselves.
Senator Grassley feels the VA is interpreting federal law incorrectly and should only be referring those vets who are a "danger to themselves or others" to the NICS.
senator grassley is trying to make a political issue. the va is following the legal definitions.
when the va finds that someone lacks the mental capacity to conduct their own affairs they meet the definition of 'adjudicated as mentally deficient'
senator grassley is trying to make a political issue. the va is following the legal definitions.
when the va finds that someone lacks the mental capacity to conduct their own affairs they meet the definition of 'adjudicated as mentally deficient'
Unable to manage VA disbursements has ZERO to do with 'mentally deficient', otherwise Democrats couldnt own guns.
You don't end up with a fiduciary trustee without a court finding you mentally deficient and appointing one to you.Be specific explain how a bureaucracy nameless and faceless knows the facts and weighs them and gives the accused an opportunity to defend ones self? As opposed to say a Judge in a Court of Law? Then remind us how you are just fine with no legal procedures removing rights of US Citizens then explain what happens when those rights are yours they are removing at some future juncturewhat makes a judge competent in deciding if someone is mentally deficient?Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.
why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?
