260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database. Thirty-eight states have that now.

Hopefully left loons such as yourself will be added to it

Why? I'm a veteran with two expert weapons qualifications and no history of mental illness.

 

[Wildman]

Whoop de fucking do

.. .. .. .. ..

 

[xband]

The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database. Thirty-eight states have that now.

Hopefully left loons such as yourself will be added to it

Why? I'm a veteran with two expert weapons qualifications and no history of mental illness.

You do not suffer mental illness because you write coherently. Believe you me that there are a lot of nut jobs out there both vets and people who never served.

 

[kaz]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

I am a Vietnam Combat Vet and exposed to Agent Orange but never used any benefit from Uncle Sam. There are a few Vietnam Combat Vets who are off their rocker.

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

Where does it say it's court ordered? "they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters"

Most elderly who have this do it voluntarily, commonly with their children. The VA would know that as they would have to set up with the VA that they are allowed to make decisions on behalf of their parent

 

[Iceweasel]

Good for the VA

With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm

Because the ONLY way to kill yourself is with a gun. You are such an idiot.

no, but the gun sure makes it easier to be successful.


the statistics are out there. gyn ownership and suicide rates positively correlate

Also thought provoking and informative.

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

You said nothing about being determined mentally incompetent by a court. We were discussing PTSD and the VA, you hopped into the wrong thread or didn't understand the big grown up words.

No, right thread. This is about people who have been assigned a fiduciary trustee to handle their affairs. The assignment is made through an order of the courts, and is an "adjudication of mental defectiveness".

That's not the same as being declared mentally incompetent. They may need someone to handle their benefits for any number of reasons. Automatically considering them a threat to themselves or society is just wrong and mindless. But government is good that that.

 

[Wildman]

Not the only way,but the easiest way, and I think the most used way

taking a high dive off the "Golden Gate Bridge" is pretty damned easy also. with a gun, one must obtain it, load it and.... welll you know the rest of the story. i have talked to two people who were going off them selves, in the process of doing the above they had time to think/realize what they were doing and........., well they told me their story.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good for the VA

With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm

Because the ONLY way to kill yourself is with a gun. You are such an idiot.

no, but the gun sure makes it easier to be successful.


the statistics are out there. gyn ownership and suicide rates positively correlate

Also thought provoking and informative.

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

You said nothing about being determined mentally incompetent by a court. We were discussing PTSD and the VA, you hopped into the wrong thread or didn't understand the big grown up words.

I took my Vietnam Army Combat Vet friend nicknamed Coot, over 100% disabled by the VA and he was card carrying KKK. Coot broke into a house and severely beaten by the owner with a log. I took Coot to the VA hospital over 100 miles away but they would not admit Coot because he had a lot of knives on him. Coot brought his knives to me waiting in my truck in the parking lot. I waited a long time for Coot to come back and he said his spleen was broke and almost died. I took Coot back to his live in van and that was the last time I saw him. The last I heard of Coot he was living under a bridge.

Some people shouldn't have guns, regardless of their military service. But it is a right and we need to be careful about making quick decisions.

 

[Iceweasel]

The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database. Thirty-eight states have that now.

Hopefully left loons such as yourself will be added to it

Why? I'm a veteran with two expert weapons qualifications and no history of mental illness.

snicker

 

[hazlnut]

It's about time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

I am a Vietnam Combat Vet and exposed to Agent Orange but never used any benefit from Uncle Sam. There are a few Vietnam Combat Vets who are off their rocker.

my brother in law came back shot up one leg a 1/2 inch shorter then the other a chunk of one of his ear lobes missing

and shrapnel around his heart

he came home a little "crazy"

after time he settled back down finished a teaching degree

taught for years at a local community college

and never lost his rights to firearms

in fact he was very vocal about being safe with guns

 

[xband]

Not the only way,but the easiest way, and I think the most used way

taking a high dive off the "Golden Gate Bridge" is pretty damned easy also. with a gun, one must obtain it, load it and.... welll you know the rest of the story. i have talked to two people who were going off them selves, in the process of doing the above they had time to think/realize what they were doing and........., well they told me their story.

Clara Barton, please OD me with pharmasutiical morphine on my death bed.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am a Vietnam Combat Vet and exposed to Agent Orange but never used any benefit from Uncle Sam. There are a few Vietnam Combat Vets who are off their rocker.

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

Where does it say it's court ordered? "they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters"

Most elderly who have this do it voluntarily, commonly with their children. The VA would know that as they would have to set up with the VA that they are allowed to make decisions on behalf of their parent

There are two different types of fiduciary. The one you describe is contractual, and is a voluntary agreement entered into as you describe. The other type is an assigned fiduciary where someone is appointed by the court. These are the ones who are being reported. There is no reason why the type you describe should be denied guns, and they aren't. It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

....which is often temporary or treatable, correct?

 

[xband]

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

Where does it say it's court ordered? "they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters"

Most elderly who have this do it voluntarily, commonly with their children. The VA would know that as they would have to set up with the VA that they are allowed to make decisions on behalf of their parent

There are two different types of fiduciary. The one you describe is contractual, and is a voluntary agreement entered into as you describe. The other type is an assigned fiduciary where someone is appointed by the court. These are the ones who are being reported. There is no reason why the type you describe should be denied guns, and they aren't. It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

Anyone who accepts government assistance is incompetent in my eyes and I am right all of the time. Everyone is exactly where they want to be.

 

[kaz]

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

Where does it say it's court ordered? "they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters"

Most elderly who have this do it voluntarily, commonly with their children. The VA would know that as they would have to set up with the VA that they are allowed to make decisions on behalf of their parent

There are two different types of fiduciary. The one you describe is contractual, and is a voluntary agreement entered into as you describe. The other type is an assigned fiduciary where someone is appointed by the court. These are the ones who are being reported. There is no reason why the type you describe should be denied guns, and they aren't. It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

Thanks for telling me what I already know. My question was how you know it's court ordered not voluntarily assigned

 

[kaz]

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?

Got more to do with the courts saying you need someone to be responsible for you than it does with not making enough money. Surely you understand the difference.

Where does it say it's court ordered? "they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters"

Most elderly who have this do it voluntarily, commonly with their children. The VA would know that as they would have to set up with the VA that they are allowed to make decisions on behalf of their parent

There are two different types of fiduciary. The one you describe is contractual, and is a voluntary agreement entered into as you describe. The other type is an assigned fiduciary where someone is appointed by the court. These are the ones who are being reported. There is no reason why the type you describe should be denied guns, and they aren't. It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

Anyone who accepts government assistance is incompetent in my eyes and I am right all of the time. Everyone is exactly where they want to be.

It's veterans who fought for their country, not welfare for freeloaders

 

[BULLDOG]

It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

....which is often temporary or treatable, correct?

I'm sure most things are treatable to some extent or the other. There would need to be another determination to remove the fiduciary's responsibilities.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

We should be disarming the "bros" in the hood.
They commit 80% of the murders in this country.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We should be disarming the "bros" in the hood.
They commit 80% of the murders in this country.

most of them lost the legal right to arms years ago

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is only the ones where the court had to assign someone to be responsible for them who are affected. PTSD seems to be one of the main reasons for an assigned fiduciary at the VA.

....which is often temporary or treatable, correct?

I'm sure most things are treatable to some extent or the other. There would need to be another determination to remove the fiduciary's responsibilities.

what ever happened to due process

now just because someone says so

another loses a right