Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Huh?anygunanywhere wrote:I will go with Grassley on this. I will side with the veterans.
rbwhatever1 wrote:That paragraph was at the bottom of anygunanywhere's original link and it was from the original DHS analysis on "right wing extremists". Full DHS assessment linked below...mojo84 wrote:rb, can you post a link to your quote? It would be good for all interested to see it in context.
http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/up ... -04-07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The amendment sought allow the VA to only report to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System if a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority determines a veteran is a danger to himself or others.
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.EEllis wrote:Huh?anygunanywhere wrote:I will go with Grassley on this. I will side with the veterans.
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?
That's my concern. I've seen too many government employees (at many different levels) that feel they should interpret, and apply, the rules as they see fit. There are those that will look for any means they can find to deny others the right to carry. "No guns" is their demand, "the rules" are just a way to get there.mojo84 wrote:...
I think it should take more than just a pencil pushing paper shuffling bureaucrat checking a box to remove one's rights. ...
This is obviously an assumption on your part and not based on the facts. Not only that, but you have misrepresented the facts (in the part that I highlighted.)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.
Note that the VA can determine that you are not physically able to handle your benefit checks. Clearly that eliminates any concerns about mental instability. Additionally, a court determination of incompetence is not even required. Not only that, but the VA's own doctors can determine you're incompetent, a clear conflict of interest.A veteran can be deemed incompetent due to mental disability, advanced age, or even physical infirmity. A finding of incompetence must be supported by medical evidence or a court ruling. In some cases, a court may have ruled you incompetent, and then the VA will also find you incompetent to manage your benefits.
Other times the VA will rely on the findings made by the VA doctor who conducted the Compensation and Pension Exam when deciding that a veteran is incompetent. The Compensation and Pension exam is the exam that is ordered to evaluate your disability after you have applied for disability compensation. The report from this exam will contain a medical opinion about whether or not your disability is service-connected, but may also include information about your mental capacity to handle money.
The VA also relies on medical findings from your routine medical visits to the VA (or a private physician) when deciding if you can handle your own VA benefits or not.
Being found incompetent by the VA to manage your VA benefits will not affect your right to handle other finances or assets you may have.
I disagree. True I could of been more specific because of course the VA can only effect money they source but I can see how it could seem that I was stating that a determination by the VA had some greater financial effect. That wasn't what I intended. To me it was obvious the VA, or anyone, would have to go thru the courts to effect other monies. So? Statements made still misrepresents that this is not about needing bookkeeping help.baldeagle wrote: This is obviously an assumption on your part and not based on the facts. Not only that, but you have misrepresented the facts (in the part that I highlighted.)
I haven't an issue with the statement that it could be a violation of their rights. I stated that people were misrepresenting the true nature of the situation.
If this is not a violation of a veterans' rights, what is? As Senator Grassley points out, it doesn't even fit within the legal definition of what justifies a NICS ban.
About as Catch-22 in the true use of the term as you can get. A gun owner is crazy if he seeks on the record help or treatment in this country today and wants to continue owning guns.mojo84 wrote:Saw this the other day and have been thinking about it.
I think they are creating a catch 22 as far as vets suffering from and needing assistance with PTSD. I think this kind of adverse treatmemt will penalize many that seek help and will discourage future vets from getting the help they need.
Many of the mental illnesses do warrant people losing their gun rights. It comes down to the specific person's illness and to the degree of their illness. Unfortunately, bureaucrats male broad sweeping decisions that effect many unnecessarily.
Stunning how we allow those that protect our rights to be treated. Whoever said, In Government We Trust?According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies.
