Is the VA arbitrarily taking away Veterans Gun Rights? Please read the entire article before you come to a conclusion.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
The Gateway Pundit ramped it up further by saying,
that makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me.
via The Gateway Pundit.
But the alarm over the VA letter seems to be unwarranted. In a post entitled, “Don’t beleive the hype on the VA letter summarily denying vets gun rights,” conservative blogger Bob Owens (who supports Second Amendment rights) debunks the rumors:
Bob Owen’s put the issue in a clearer perspective
What is really going on is that if a veteran is having financial problems, someone, usually his immediate family, can request for his benefits to be placed in guardianship. It allows the VA to pay the family so that they can handle a disabled vet’s finances and get his bills paid. When a veteran’s affairs are placed in guardianship, then this provision kicks in.
This doesn’t happen to someone just because they went into combat, or if they have some level of PTSD, or if they have a head injury. This generally applies to folks that are seriously mentally compromised. It applies to guys who are, as one veteran’s expert informed me this morning:
“either comatose, make poor life decisions, spend their VA check on drugs, or (like the guy I once represented) were pissed off that the T-Rex in the back yard was eating his vegetables.”
via Bob Owens.
Mill Blogger had this to say,
For what it’s worth, Shinseki has said that the VA is not reporting those veterans to the NICS system, this seems to be a change in procedure. But the letter, despite the breathless reporting by this lawyer dude at the blog, explains to the veteran to whom the letter is addressed how to avoid being ruled incompetent.
By the way, I looked up the cite from 18 USC 942(a)(2) which merely refers to 18 USC 922(a)(6) which, in turn says you can’t lie when you buy a gun – so all of that legal crap doesn’t say anything we don’t know and it has nothing to do with being a mentally incapacitated veteran.
But, basically, what the letter doesn’t say is that the VA is disarming veterans arbitrarily. Don’t let this letter be the reason you don’t go to the VA to get the treatment you need and earned. I doubt very much that any of you are being supervised by a fiduciary, anyway. And I’m sure if one of you had got this letter, I would have had a copy by now.
Which leads us to say again, Read news from multiple sources, Don’t rely on only one perspective, do your homework by getting the original source materials.
Another thing I suggest is to consider the writers desired outcome from writing a piece. Is the writer a journalist or a commentator? Does the writer have an axe to grind?
With the political waters we find ourselves swimming lately, division seems to be the order of the day. Sadly, you get more hits to ones website (and revenue) by sensationalizing subject matter.
The editor of this news site is a veteran and has worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs. To rule someone incompetent is a lengthy process. A veteran has many levels of due process and representation before a final decision is made. Even after, a veteran may disagree with the decision and ask for a review.
Simply put, no veteran is having their firearm rights arbitrarily removed from them without due process.