Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators

[opsspec1991]

Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators
By: Dean Garrison
A few days ago, several media sources started to report that our veterans are receiving letters which deprive them of their second amendment rights. I am rarely, if ever, the first to a story. This is the nature of being a “small potatoes” blogger. By time it gets to me the best thing I can do is develop it and fill in the blanks that the original sources omitted in their haste to be first. Sometimes the details are worse than the original story and I believe this is one of those cases. It really just depends on how deep you want to dig.
Yet again the American public is caught by surprise despite being warned that this was coming. I think there is a natural assumption, due to the mention of “The Brady Act” that this was put in place years ago and this is simply a new interpretation. This is not the case. Let’s go back to December 3, 2012 to find the only evidence I can see of a senator trying to stop this from happening. By the way, by my findings, the only big media sources to report this side of the story were Fox News and The Huffington Post. This is how they sneak these things through.
Here’s your warning shot:
Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Read More;
Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators |

 

[3gunshooter]

First off Schumer is a dirtbag. "Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?" Are they judging that on if they pay their bills on time? If so, a good part of America could be on the list not just veterans.

 

[S&W645]

First off Schumer is a dirtbag. "Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?" Are they judging that on if they pay their bills on time? If so, a good part of America could be on the list not just veterans.

Heck, who is the gov't to judge the vets. They can't handle the budget in DC themselves. So that should ban all of them from anything to do with firearms or weapons by their own rules.

 

[buckey01]

We have a government in which the majority is not fit or competent to govern. Honor and honesty are concepts that to these political pieces of crap are foreign concepts. Yet these low-life political whores consider themselves fit to make judgements on the rights of men who are far superior and have contributed far more to this country. The veterans should be judged only by their peers and not by people who have not served in combat or risked their lives for this country.

NO, I don't want those with serious mental problems to have guns; but allowing people like Schumer or Feinstein to judge them is an obscenity. We also have an Administration with an anti American and anti military bias that is trying to form a socialist, Utopian country. They are afraid that veterans and honest hard working Americans might object to what is being done to this country. This is why this Administration and the progressives are so intent on destroying the Second Amendment. Government fear of the people is an indication that we still have a small amount of individual liberty remaining. When government has a monopoly on force we will all become slaves of the tyranny. We have maintained our liberty in this country (we are the oldest republic that has ever existed) because of an armed populace; and that's exactly why the founders gave us the Second Amendment.

 

[Rhino]

The headline is a lie, but that's not exactly something new. 98 Senators voted to pass the $631 billion defense appropriations bill, not to deny rights to veterans. Most of them probably didn't even know this provision was in there. And Senator Tom Coburn, who led the opposition to this provision, is still doing exactly that. He just plans to do it with other legislation rather than trying to hold up the entire defense budget over it. The fact that this battle is being fought at all is a major step further forward from where we were six months ago. It's pretty low for someone to misrepresent it in a headline to make it sound like something it isn't when we're actually making some progress.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

No one but The Lord Almighty may deprive me of ANY of my Natural Born Rights.
Link Removed


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[jdweesner]

When the government stops trying to manage the American publics private lives then and only then can we as Americans give a sigh of relief, Till then stay on the alert for anything that may alter our rights as individuals.

 

[opsspec1991]

The headline is a lie, but that's not exactly something new. 98 Senators voted to pass the $631 billion defense appropriations bill, not to deny rights to veterans. Most of them probably didn't even know this provision was in there. And Senator Tom Coburn, who led the opposition to this provision, is still doing exactly that. He just plans to do it with other legislation rather than trying to hold up the entire defense budget over it. The fact that this battle is being fought at all is a major step further forward from where we were six months ago. It's pretty low for someone to misrepresent it in a headline to make it sound like something it isn't when we're actually making some progress.

I don't give them any slack for not reading what was in the bill, if they signed the bill their still responsible for what's in it and should be held accountable for signing it.

 

[Rhino]

I don't give any slack for not reading what was in the bill, if they signed the bill their still responsible for what's in it and should be held accountable for signing it.

I didn't say I was giving anyone slack for not reading it. I said they chose not to hold up the entire defense budget over this one provision. If they did that for every bill that had unsavory provisions or amendments tacked on, almost nothing would ever pass Congress. While that may not sound like such a bad idea at first glance, it would prevent critical functions of the government, such as national defense, from functioning. What Coburn and others did, and quite wisely in my opinion, was choose to deal with this particular issue in a way that didn't hold the defense budget hostage.

 

[yarlan]

who is to decide who is mentally incompetent?
the gov sure isn't qualified

 

[bp27]

Very good points! In addition, veterans beware of the following received from a Navy Seal battle buddy of mine:
Do you have a gun in the house?
GOOD TO KNOW!

When a friend had his gallbladder taken out and spent 4 days in the hospital for what should have been an overnight stay. He had home nurse visits for two weeks after and was asked if he had guns in the house. He responded that if he did he would not tell them. So the below has some merit.

FYI, I am passing this along... There are comments from two other people I have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask.

Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn't. My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered yes to both questions Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack.

The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.

Just passing this along for your information: I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation.. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!!

So it is out there! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!!

Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners... Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctor's appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists.Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED !

If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.

 

[Jay]

Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners... Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctor's appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

Looks like they are going after the vets first.
If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.

Respectfully, sir... not true..... both from experience as a VA employee, and ...

Veterans can lose their weapons permit if they answer yes to three questions in a medical exam-Fiction!

 

[Rhino]

Respectfully, sir... not true..... both from experience as a VA employee, and ...

Veterans can lose their weapons permit if they answer yes to three questions in a medical exam-Fiction!

The myth about the questions on the exam has already been exposed here. This is another issue entirely. This issue is about veterans who surrender their rights to manage their own financial affairs as they relate to their VA care. The VA interprets that to mean an admission that they are mentally unable to dictate their own lives, and thus mentally impaired to the point that they would be a danger if they possess firearms. Accordingly, the VA reports these individuals to the FBI where they get included in the NICS instant background check system and they can no longer purchase a firearm. Some jurisdictions also use that as justification to seize any firearms they may already own. This is something that came to light about a year or so ago. It doesn't affect that many veterans in the grand scheme of things, but even one would be too many. That's why Coburn and many other elected officials are dedicated to getting it changed.

 

[Jay]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't HR2640 should provide relief, absent adjudication resulting in a finding of being a mental defective?

HR-2640 Section 3. (c)(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

[Rhino]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't HR2640 should provide relief, absent adjudication resulting in a finding of being a mental defective?

Not when the supposed surrender of rights is voluntary and is a non-medical decision. The VA is playing fast and loose with semantics on this issue. They aren't using mental health decisions by physicians to base their reporting on. This all stems from financial paperwork. All veterans within the VA medical system have to wade through a massive amount of bureaucratic paperwork, much of it financial. The VA offers them the option of signing the responsibility for all of that financial paperwork burden over to someone at VA, or to a third party, typically a family member. What the VA is doing is they are treating these decisions as an admission by the veteran that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, and the VA attempts to extend that logic to assume the veterans are also not competent to handle a firearm. Since this was not a medical or legal decision, and was supposedly done voluntarily, the VA views it as a form of self commitment, and as such it is not covered by the restrictions governing legal adjudication or commitment by medical authority. This is the way I understand the situation to be as it is today, and why Congressional action is needed to close the underhanded loophole the VA is unfairly exploiting.

 

[Jay]

I read 2640 as saying that absent adjudication, there can be no finding of mental disability....

No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code

 

[Rhino]

I read 2640 as saying that absent adjudication, there can be no finding of mental disability....

The quote you provide says no federal agency may provide any record of an adjudication related to mental health that is based solely on a medical finding, but what they're doing isn't a medical finding, as I pointed out. They're treating it as the veteran voluntarily relinquishing his rights due to a supposed admission that he is not competent, basically tantamount to a self committal, and it's all based on financial forms, not medical forms. That's the way I've seen it detailed. It was actually in another thread here on the same topic. You can dig for it if you want. I don't remember what additional info was in there, if any.

 

[JimPage]

who is to decide who is mentally incompetent?
the gov sure isn't qualified

Are you sure? I thought it was a prerequisite for several positions in government!

 

[JimPage]

I have been a VA patient with a 50% disability since 1980. On Medicare since 2001. I have never been asked, and I see VA and Medicare doctors more than four times a year.

 

[desertrat12]

Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators
By: Dean Garrison
A few days ago, several media sources started to report that our veterans are receiving letters which deprive them of their second amendment rights.
Here’s your warning shot:
Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Read More;
Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators |

This has been codified at Veterans Disarmament Act signed into Law Jan 8, 2008.

The illegal back door is at BATFE's illegal regs found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person." The Veterans Disarmament Act codifies BATFE's regulations (at 27 C.F.R. 478.11), statutory law would now allow a person to be deemed as a "mental defective" from the "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" -- in other words, no longer just by a court adjudication. Emphasis added.

While this standard is INCONSISTENT with the existing federal code (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)), it would become the statutory law of the land if H.R. 2640 passes. At: The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law - Gun Owners of America Feb. 2009 (last visited July 15, 2013). So much for adjudication (face to face with accusers in a court room).

Now for us VA users, the Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007 and it's reaffirmation in 2012 and the NDAA 2012 can be problematic. These acts have been used to circumvent certain HIPAA Protections by various entities 'for cause.' FYI, there are certain HIPAA records that you cannot access even though you are the subject matter. For more [dis]cussin see http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gene...other-doctor-obamacare-required-question.html and Obama Taking Action on Gun Background Check System. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2013, from Web site: Obama Taking Action on Gun Background Check System for EOs that bypass certain HIPAA aspects and due process.

The VA is playing loose in its medical coding- if you attend a Vet group meeting on VA property, or see any medical or social services persons for your annual physical, look at the estimated benefits medical code. The codes used are usually for an intervention or support group, a psych code.

Let's look at another step that violates the 4th &5th Amendments: Gov’t sanctioned/ordered home inspections pretext.
The stories are at:Obamacare Provision: ?Forced? Home Inspections (last visited Aug. 15, 2013).

Funding Cycle View Expand Affordable Care Act - Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Details of the changes posted in this announcement Funding Cycle View | HRSA EHBs, https://grants3.hrsa.gov/2010/Web2E...ode=&OnlineAvailabilityFlag=True&pageNumber=1 (last visited Aug. 15, 2013).

The common thread through this all- no due process, the person or persons do not and generally are not identified. Even a FOIA request would go unanswered, since you are dealing with Gov't entities rather than a person. We've all seen and read about what happens to a homeowner when they ask to read or see a search warrant, it usually doesn't end well.

At: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...-doctor-asks-you-about-guns-3.html#post437916