260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[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.

And veterans have the right to appeal decisions made by the VA concerning the selection of a fiduciary:

“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

meaning they have due process

The have judicial and executive branches of government, but not the judicial, and 2 out of 3 aint bad! Actually, 2/3 is bad when Constitutional rights are being removed ...

 

[kaz]

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?

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?

We know liberals can't make sound financial decisions. If the executive branch can remove their right to vote like the liberals are arguing the executive branch can remove other Constitutional rights on their own goes with the deal, I'd have to consider that

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good for the VA

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

You will boo me for this but I think PTSD is a coward's disease.

I believe it is real but overused as an excuse. Constant stress takes it's toll on you, even in business I've felt the effects. They used to call it shell shocked. But having some quack decide whether you can have a gun is wrong UNLESS you have made threatening comments. And I don't think I'd trust a shrink with a gun.

Better safe than sorry

But not with ID to vote right? Then we should just let anyone do it cause after all it is a right?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

"All", isn't my language. It's the language that the anti-gunners use.

Of course it is not "all"

That is the gun nuts standard. Unless a legislation can prevent all gun deaths, it is not worth doing

 

[Arianrhod]

Meanwhile:

New Trend: Seniors Are Packing Heat

So y'all still have ample opportunity to kill each other and your spouses and children and friends and relatives and neighbors and...

 

[ogibillm]

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

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

 

[kaz]

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

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.

Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Only for the simple minded.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Which is why most wont seek help...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

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?

people on 'welfare' do have their finances managed, to a point, by the government.

If you want to say those who cant manage their lives due to PTSD than a ghetto rat who cant manage their lives due to social stresses shouldnt be able to own a firearm.

 

[eddiew]

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
3000 and more lost their gun rights when the ah gwb buried them in his bs war

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.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Typical right wing whine. "If it's not 100% effective don't even bother" -----that's stupid.

You got that link yet?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

and yet it does

Link?

you want a link between the increase in thesuicide rate of gun owners compared to the rest of the population?

ok
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

That isn't what I asked for. Try again.

 

[ogibillm]

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

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

 

[ogibillm]

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.

and yet it does

Link?

you want a link between the increase in thesuicide rate of gun owners compared to the rest of the population?

ok
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

That isn't what I asked for. Try again.

It's exactly what you asked for, you just don't want to admit to it

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

What law?