260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[BULLDOG]

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

Because the article in the OP quoted the VA saying they were assigned fiduciary's.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So you don't want anybody who goes to the VA to have guns?

 

[kaz]

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.

So if you do some reading on the matter, when it's forced not voluntary, the VA itself determines competency, it's not a court. There is no legal basis to deny them gun ownership.

Clearly depriving them of gun rights without going to court to do so is a direct violation of the fifth amendment, your liberty cannot be removed without due process of law

 

[kaz]

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

Because the article in the OP quoted the VA saying they were assigned fiduciary's.

Who assigned them is my question. Turns out it's the VA (per my last post) not the courts, you should have done your homework. You made a flagrant assumption, I questioned it

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

The country with the world's highest suicide rate has next to no private gun ownership.

Care to ram your OTHER foot into your mouth, now?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

How many Vietnam vets do you know that are shooting up schools?

Most of the Iraqi vets I've heard of that are shooting cops are blacks......but they're doing it because of Blacklivesmatter, not because of the war.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Whose sock are you, trollboy?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Good for the VA

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

That should be determined by qualified physians to determine not the government to "assume" for all to be told after their service to defend this nation. Rather veterans of PTSD should be offered assistance through federal funded programs if Obama showed any real serious interest in helping veterans. Doubtful, but he could at least appear to show some real concern.

 

[rightwinger]

Good for the VA

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

That should be determined by qualified physians to determine not the government to "assume" for all to be told after their service to defend this nation. Rather veterans of PTSD should be offered assistance through federal funded programs if Obama showed any real serious interest in helping veterans. Doubtful, but he could at least appear to show some real concern.

If you are diagnosed and being treated for PTSD it is only common sense that you surrender your guns for the protection of yourself and others

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Because the article in the OP quoted the VA saying they were assigned fiduciary's.

Who assigned them is my question. Turns out it's the VA (per my last post) not the courts, you should have done your homework. You made a flagrant assumption, I questioned it

You got a link to that or are you just making up stuff again.?

 

[kaz]

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

Because the article in the OP quoted the VA saying they were assigned fiduciary's.

Who assigned them is my question. Turns out it's the VA (per my last post) not the courts, you should have done your homework. You made a flagrant assumption, I questioned it

You got a link to that or are you just making up stuff again.?

You made up that the courts determined it, Holmes. I questioned you on it.

As for looking it up, you can't look up on the Internet yourself on how the VA assigns fiduciary trustees based on a determination of incompetence? You need me to do it for you? Really? OK, here you go:

"If the VA finds you aren't competent to manage money, it can appoint a fiduciary to receive your checks for you."

When a Veteran Will Be Appointed a Fiduciary for Benefits Purposes | Nolo.com

 

[ogibillm]

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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

 

[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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

Absolutely not, but according the the Bill of Rights you cannot have life, liberty or property removed without "due process of law." As you read on in the discussion you'll learn a court didn't make that determination, the VA did itself. That isn't due process of law enabling your rights to be suspended

 

[ogibillm]

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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

Absolutely not, but according the the Bill of Rights you cannot have life, liberty or property removed without "due process of law." As you read on in the discussion you'll learn a court didn't make that determination, the VA did itself. That isn't due process of law enabling your rights to be suspended

Federal Law on Mental Health Reporting

some good info. if they want to fight the law, go ahead. i don't think they'll have much luck

 

[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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

Absolutely not, but according the the Bill of Rights you cannot have life, liberty or property removed without "due process of law." As you read on in the discussion you'll learn a court didn't make that determination, the VA did itself. That isn't due process of law enabling your rights to be suspended

Federal Law on Mental Health Reporting

some good info. if they want to fight the law, go ahead. i don't think they'll have much luck

Irrelevant, this doesn't contradict what I said. I agreed if a court declares them incompetent following the due process of law, then their rights can be Constitutionally restricted. This says the same thing we already agreed on, it says if they are declared incompetent in court their Constitutional rights can be restricted.

The problem is the VA isn't going to court, they are making the determination themselves. That's fine for the VA to make a determination for their own use, it's not fine to restrict their Constitutional rights without going to court, which they didn't.

[/explaining the obvious]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December"

Wrong.

Another ridiculous lie from the right, more ignorance of the law from the right.

Veterans have not ‘lost’ their ‘gun rights.’

Nor have they lost their right to due process of the law pursuant to 5th Amendment jurisprudence. They have the same right as anyone else to challenge the taking of private property in a court of law and are entitled to a hearing before a neutral magistrate.

This is yet another example of baseless demagoguery from conservatives.

 

[ogibillm]

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

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

Absolutely not, but according the the Bill of Rights you cannot have life, liberty or property removed without "due process of law." As you read on in the discussion you'll learn a court didn't make that determination, the VA did itself. That isn't due process of law enabling your rights to be suspended

Federal Law on Mental Health Reporting

some good info. if they want to fight the law, go ahead. i don't think they'll have much luck

Irrelevant, this doesn't contradict what I said. I agreed if a court declares them incompetent following the due process of law, then their rights can be Constitutionally restricted. This says the same thing we already agreed on, it says if they are declared incompetent in court their Constitutional rights can be restricted.

The problem is the VA isn't going to court, they are making the determination themselves. That's fine for the VA to make a determination for their own use, it's not fine to restrict their Constitutional rights without going to court, which they didn't.

[/explaining the obvious]

no, the law says that as legally recognized and licensed providers of mental health the va does not have to go to court for their determination.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

Another rightwing demagogue ignorant of the law.

Again, no one has ‘lost’ his Second Amendment rights, no one has ‘lost’ his right to challenge the government’s action in a court of law.

If the government has acted in a manner repugnant to the Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, a judge will invalidate that action accordingly.

 

[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?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

Another rightwing demagogue ignorant of the law.

Again, no one has ‘lost’ his Second Amendment rights, no one has ‘lost’ his right to challenge the government’s action in a court of law.

If the government has acted in a manner repugnant to the Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, a judge will invalidate that action accordingly.

Ouch, "right wing," how long did it take you to come up with that one? A while, huh, you're not very smart

 

[kaz]

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

Absolutely not, but according the the Bill of Rights you cannot have life, liberty or property removed without "due process of law." As you read on in the discussion you'll learn a court didn't make that determination, the VA did itself. That isn't due process of law enabling your rights to be suspended

Federal Law on Mental Health Reporting

some good info. if they want to fight the law, go ahead. i don't think they'll have much luck

Irrelevant, this doesn't contradict what I said. I agreed if a court declares them incompetent following the due process of law, then their rights can be Constitutionally restricted. This says the same thing we already agreed on, it says if they are declared incompetent in court their Constitutional rights can be restricted.

The problem is the VA isn't going to court, they are making the determination themselves. That's fine for the VA to make a determination for their own use, it's not fine to restrict their Constitutional rights without going to court, which they didn't.

[/explaining the obvious]

no, the law says that as legally recognized and licensed providers of mental health the va does not have to go to court for their determination.

I didn't say the VA has to go to court for their determination, I said actually they don't have to do that. I said they have to go to court to get someone's Constitutional rights restricted. Try to keep up.

Have you taken a civics class and learned how your government works? The judicial branch has the right to adjudicate, not the executive branch. Think about that, you're arguing the executive branch should be able to remove Constitutional rights on it's own.

Now in this country, who knows what the courts will rule. But the Constitution is clear. You want to remove someone's Constitutional rights? Fine, but you have to follow due process of law, which specifically means:

1) The legislative branch must enact the law you violated
2) The executive branch must enforce the law by arresting and charging you with violation of the law
3) The judicial branch must interpret the law and concur you broke it and pass a sentence which includes limiting your Constitutional rights.

There are no legitimate Constitutional shortcuts to that process