TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I will go with Grassley on this. I will side with the veterans.

Huh?

I'm only responding because you quoted me but why does siding with the veterans require over dramatizing the situation? Why is stating things accurately a bad thing? You have gone past anything Grassley has said so how is that going with Him?

You are the one who stated up front you doubted the veracity of the article. Why is that? Do you have proof that veterans are not being labeled as incompetent and placed on the NICS list unnecessarily? Do you have proof that Grassley is lying? It is a fact that there are immense problems with the VA administration and that veterans are not receiving the care promised them for their service to our country. It is a fact that the DHS has stated that veterans should be considered as domestic terrorists. It is a fact that the current administration has no respect for the veterans. All you have to do is look at both their actions and inactions on the veterans issue.

I posted the article because I believe it is spot on as an example of the lengths the VA is going to to mistreat veterans and violating their rights. Just because a veteran cannot handle his finances ad benefits is totally irrelevant to their 2A rights. Their 4A right to due process has been violated as well.

If you want to deny facts and argue that the article is untrue do so. I stated that I side with Grassley's comments an the veterans. What is it about my standing by them causes you confusion?

You really do not need to answer my questions; consider them rhetorical.

I will go with Grassley on this. I will side with the veterans.

“It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them,” Grassley wrote.

Veterans are targeted immediately upon contact with VA personnel.

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

Where did I say That? I just pointed out that what was being claimed was not accurately portraying what was going on. Your statement also isn't accurate as to the situation situation. This is not a veteran having someone else handle things, it's someone who the VA has determined can't handle their own finances. Those are two different things. As to whether or not I have issues with that, I don't have enough info but most likely there are people incorrectly identified as mentally defective and it's most likely overly difficult to challenge such a determination.

From the article:

That means veterans “are particularly singled out,” Grassley wrote, “those they deem incompetent to manage fiduciary benefits might be placed in the ‘mental defective’ category but the VA doesn’t actually consider “whether a veteran is a danger to himself, herself, or others,” which is the federal standard for denying someone a gun.'”

Because the veterans can't manage fiduciary benefits and have not determined them to be a danger the VA determines them to be mentally defective. There is a large number of people on the government teat who cannot manage their finances but are not deemed mentally deficient. The veteran's constitutional rights are being violated without due process.

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System has a mentally defective category that is almost completely filled with veterans – 99.3% to be exact. The names are supplied by the VA from a list of veterans who required bookkeeping services.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/tens ... ning-guns/

The veterans addressed in the article only needed assistance with their finances.

Those who trust the government to determine mental fitness should take note. You are only a pencil whip of a federal regulation away from being felon if you own firearms.