House Committee Approves Protection for Veterans

[gejoslin]

[h=1]On the Hill: Senate Narrowly Rejects Pro-Gun Amendment, While House Committee Approves Protection for Veterans[/h]Posted on May 10, 2013


On May 8, the U.S. Senate took up consideration of S. 601, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2013." During the debate, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to extend the Right to Carry to lands administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps manages over 11.7 million acres, including many recreational areas. In 2009, Congress passed legislation protecting the Right to Carry in national parks and wildlife refuges, but lands under Corps of Engineers management are not covered by that law.

With strong bipartisan support for the amendment, the final vote was 56-43. However, under the rules for consideration of the bill, 60 votes were required for passage.

On the same day, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to approve a provision to require a judge or magistrate to declare that a person who receives veterans' benefits is a danger to himself or to others, before the person can be prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms.

Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs adds beneficiaries' names to the federal instant background check database when they are merely unable to manage their finances. Supporters of the provision argued that the need for help with managing money does not make a person dangerous. The chairman of the committee, pro-Second Amendment Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), said of the current situation: "It's arbitrary. It's inconsistent and it's unreasonable."
NRA-ILA | On the Hill: Senate Narrowly Rejects Pro-Gun Amendment, While House Committee Approves Protection for Veterans

 

[mappow]

I was going to the V.A. next month due to my hearing. Are you saying they'll adjudicate me for my Second Amendment Right?
On the same day, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to approve a provision to require a judge or magistrate to declare that a person who receives veterans' benefits is a danger to himself or to others, before the person can be prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms.

 

[gejoslin]

I was going to the V.A. next month due to my hearing. Are you saying they'll adjudicate me for my Second Amendment Right?
On the same day, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to approve a provision to require a judge or magistrate to declare that a person who receives veterans' benefits is a danger to himself or to others, before the person can be prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms.

"judge or magistrate to declare that a person who receives veterans' benefits is a danger to himself or to others"

We're all a danger to others if we're attacked. I think thats a given. But that's the way the article is written. I think a lot of these articles don't go in depth enough.

 

[UATKP]

I think what it means is that the VA can't arbitrarily take away a vet's right to keep and bear... it requires a judge to do that.

 

[dogshawred]

Currently an office flunky will place a check mark on a form and a veteran looses his firearms rights without any judicial oversight.
This bill will require veteran due process before they are stripped of any rights due to their recieving VA benefits. The legislator found that the current system was carprious, unjust and politially motivated.
Hopefully they will now review and reinstate all who have unjustly been classified unfit and recieve an apology for a greatful nation. There should be one at the very least.

 

[davcommander]

When a veteran has a disability rating of 100% based upon a mental health disability, the VA will propose to find the veteran incompetent for financial reasons. All the VA cares about is, can the veteran manage his or her own financial benefits. Unfortunately, if the VA makes the determination the vet can not handle their own finances as a result of the veterans mental health issues, they are found incompetent. A fiduciary is appointed in order to handle the financial benefits for the veteran. It is this finding of incompetency that is then reported and the veterans name is placed on the list. The 100% rule does not pertain to any other 100% ratings or even a 100% total disability based upon more than 1 disability. This issue is easily fought however. All the veteran needs is to go back to their mental health provider and have the provider put in writing that the veteran is competent enough to handle their own finances. The VA should then indicate that the proposed finding will be voided.