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 🎁
And veterans have the right to appeal decisions made by the VA concerning the selection of a fiduciary:How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?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.
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.
And veterans have the right to appeal decisions made by the VA concerning the selection of a fiduciary:How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?
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.
“You have the right to appeal VA's decision finding that you are unable to manage your VA benefits. You also have the right to appeal VA's selection of the fiduciary.”
Beneficiary - Fiduciary
then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.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.Federal Law on Mental Health Reportingthis 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
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]
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
meaning they have due processAnd veterans have the right to appeal decisions made by the VA concerning the selection of a fiduciary:How is this money related? Lots of people buy homes they can't afford, they should lose their gun rights?so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?
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.
“You have the right to appeal VA's decision finding that you are unable to manage your VA benefits. You also have the right to appeal VA's selection of the fiduciary.”
Beneficiary - Fiduciary
Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
and yet it doesGood for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
and yet it doesGood for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
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 othersGood 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.
Why does it have to be all?Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.
this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?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 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.
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
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?
Why does it have to be all?Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.
people on 'welfare' do have their finances managed, to a point, by the government.this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?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.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.
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
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?
I'm pretty sure not everyone that depends on government welfare are fully capable of making sound financial decisions. Does this mean the government now has a right to step in and make a determination whether they should be trusted in receiving further financial benefits?
'all' absolutely was your language.Why does it have to be all?Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.
"All", isn't my language. It's the language that the anti-gunners use.
are you under the impression that obama has something to do with either the reporting or the background checks?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 othersGood 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.
That's not what I said in my response. Being diagnosed by a competent trained physician is a lot different than a government making a decision based on prejudice by assumption without any established medical facts of the individual's personal health given. If Presidrnt Obama did seriously care about veterans with PTSD he would based his decision on a case by case basis with regard to firearms
you want a link between the increase in thesuicide rate of gun owners compared to the rest of the population?and yet it doesGood for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Link?
Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.
Why does it have to be all?Good for the VA
With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm
Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.
Such a dumb weasle like claim
You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.
"All", isn't my language. It's the language that the anti-gunners use.
then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.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.Federal Law on Mental Health ReportingAbsolutely 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
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]
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
your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.
