Veteran's Administration Denying Veteran's Their 2A Rights


PDA






Alnamvet68
December 4, 2012, 08:39 AM
Without going into the excrutiating details, the combat heroes at the VA who have been flown armor plated desks at the VA in support of and in justification of their bureaucratic jobs, are reporting veterans to the FBI's NICS data base as "mentally incompetent" for having the audacity to have been appointed a fiduciary trustee who will manage the veteran's financial affairs...in short, can't balance a check book because of a disability, then per the Brady Bill and the dilitantes at the VA, you're mentally deficient. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Veteran's Administration Denying Veteran's Their 2A Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnBT
December 4, 2012, 09:49 AM
I believe that fiduciary trustee reporting system has been in place since 1999 iirc. The situation you describe is clearly listed in the regs and there's a lot more required than not being able to balance a checkbook. It's more a matter of not being able to manage their own affairs and activities of daily living that most people complete without a second thought - remember to pay rent, keep the utilities on, buy food, take meds, bathe, etc.

The problem with the VA trustee system seems to be that there's no appeal once they decide on a trustee.

Social Security has a similar representative payee system, but I don't know if they're reporting to NICS.

John

psyopspec
December 4, 2012, 10:22 AM
As a veteran, this would be very easy to have a knee jerk reaction too that would cause me to call up my reps and tee off on the VA before dropping some harshly worded letters in the mail.

Now before I do that based on an internet post, how about some source material?

12Bravo20
December 4, 2012, 10:48 AM
I believe that fiduciary trustee reporting system has been in place since 1999 iirc. The situation you describe is clearly listed in the regs and there's a lot more required than not being able to balance a checkbook. It's more a matter of not being able to manage their own affairs and activities of daily living that most people complete without a second thought - remember to pay rent, keep the utilities on, buy food, take meds, bathe, etc.

The problem with the VA trustee system seems to be that there's no appeal once they decide on a trustee.


True, but there is a way to appeal in place to restore one's 2nd amendment rights.

Alnamvet68
December 4, 2012, 11:41 AM
This fiduciary trustee system has been in place since 1999, but what is happening now is that military members who have, say, seeked counseling for PTSD are now being reported to the VA once they have been discharged from the military, and some VA centers have been taking it upon themselves to report these members to the NICS data base. The bigger picture here is that a system so out of control like the VA, which cannot even properly care for service members, and who's first subjective impulse is to reject virtually every claim for disability the first time around, is now going to be in charge of deciding who is mentally challenged? As for the poster who wants sources, I could provide numerous source sites, but you would be better served to Google it yourself....much quicker that way.

Frank Ettin
December 4, 2012, 12:37 PM
...As for the poster who wants sources, I could provide numerous source sites, but you would be better served to Google it yourself....much quicker that way. Sorry, but if you're going to make a claim it's up to you to provide the evidence to support it. It's not our job to do your research for you.

RatDrall
December 4, 2012, 12:48 PM
I believe that they have to be notified in writing, and have a chance to appeal the decision at a hearing.

Can anyone cite the Supreme Court Decision where they reaffirmed that you cannot restrict Constitutional lolrights without due process?

BSA1
December 4, 2012, 07:57 PM
Form 4473 Question f; Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

How does the adjudication process work with the VA?

1 old 0311-1
December 4, 2012, 08:04 PM
I am a 100% disabled Vet and a such spend a lot of time at the VA Hospital. For years they have been asking 'set up' questions that are obviously NOT going to work out well if you answer a certain way. Nothing new here but it is sad that some won't get the help they need based on the VA's anti policy's.

12Bravo20
December 4, 2012, 08:07 PM
I am a 100% disabled Vet and a such spend a lot of time at the VA Hospital. For years they have been asking 'set up' questions that are obviously NOT going to work out well if you answer a certain way.

Same here, they ask those loaded questions every 6 months.

Averageman
December 4, 2012, 08:45 PM
I knew this was going to eventually happen. I have warned folks about answering questions and taking PTSD money.
You should have known better.

Sky
December 4, 2012, 10:40 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/?page=all#pagebreak

Well here is something I found about the subject from the Washington Times

Ehtereon11B
December 4, 2012, 11:22 PM
I posted the story in the Returning Vets and Purchases thread yesterday. Long story short, certain senators are trying to widen the VAs ability to declare Vets as mentally defective. Personally I think their ability is already too wide since they use an automatic system of "he/she is crazy!" and then all the guns go away. I don't know of anyone first hand who has had their firearms taken who are vets but the VA still has way too much power for being an almost 100% civilian organization. They do an amazing job at perpetuating an "us vs them" mentality with the military. But that is another soap box.

BSA1
December 5, 2012, 06:16 PM
Again how does the adjudication process work with the VA?

I have a vested interest for a family member. Is this a civil process before a judge with having the right to appear with a attorney and rebuttal witnesses?

Alnamvet68
December 5, 2012, 06:44 PM
Again how does the adjudication process work with the VA?

I have a vested interest for a family member. Is this a civil process before a judge with having the right to appear with a attorney and rebuttal witnesses?

No, it is a subjective decision made at the local VA where a veteran has sought services...not made by a lawyer, judge, or even a licensed mental health clinician. One case that I know of is a former Naval intelligence specialist who lost his security clearance secondary to a brutal divorce and subsequent bankruptcy. This veteran was deemed mentally incompetent by the VA, not the Navy, and solely based on the veteran's service record, which showed his security clearance loss, loss of MOS, and subsequent discharge. This veteran has never sought help from the VA, had no documented record of clinical depression, substance abuse, or suicidal ideation, yet the local VA reported him to NICS because of his financial difficulties, and the only way he knew he had a problem was when he sought employment as a nuclear power plant security officer, whereupon he was denied a permit to purchase and possess a firearm. It is apparent the spirit and intent of the law is being misinterpreted and applied subjectively by some civilian grocery clerk with no health care or legal license in these cases.

jcwit
December 5, 2012, 07:14 PM
Same here, they ask those loaded questions every 6 months.

I go to the VA 6/8 times a year and have for 12 years now.

Wondering just what those loaded questions are.

knifestuff
December 7, 2012, 09:33 AM
There are appeal rights to a VA decision. The VA has to 1st give notice of its intent to find someone incompetent; the vet can then disagree and/or provide evidence supporting competency an dask for a hearing. Usually, if a vet demonstrates to the VA there's going to have to be a substantive evidentiary hearing, VA'll back down. If VA does ultimately make an unfavorable decision, it can be appealed through the appropriate channels (which are first administrative, then transition to the courts). I do a fair number of these cases and my clients typically prevail--but they prevail because they go about it correctly and we get evidence favorable to the vet, not the VA. A VA incompetency proposal should be addressed seriously and with professional assistance.

JohnBT
December 7, 2012, 11:09 AM
Exactly, the VA makes an administrative decision and sends the info to NICS and THEN you get a hearing if you ask for one.

"provide evidence supporting competency"

Shouldn't the system bear the burden to prove incompetency?

Lewis Carroll would love it - "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."

Frank Ettin
December 7, 2012, 11:09 AM
There are appeal rights to a VA decision. The VA has to 1st give notice of its intent to find someone incompetent; the vet can then disagree and/or provide evidence supporting competency an dask for a hearing. ....I do a fair number of these cases and my clients typically prevail--but they prevail because they go about it correctly and we get evidence favorable to the vet, not the VA. A VA incompetency proposal should be addressed seriously and with professional assistance.Good information and very helpful.

...it is a subjective decision made at the local VA where a veteran has sought services...not made by a lawyer, judge, or even a licensed mental health clinician...Again, please provide sources or supporting evidence, and don't suggest I do the research my self. You still haven't responded to the matter I raised in post 6:...As for the poster who wants sources, I could provide numerous source sites, but you would be better served to Google it yourself....much quicker that way. Sorry, but if you're going to make a claim it's up to you to provide the evidence to support it. It's not our job to do your research for you.

Alnamvet68
December 7, 2012, 11:22 AM
Good information and very helpful.

Again, please provide sources or supporting evidence, and don't suggest I do the research my self. You still haven't responded to the matter I raised in post 6:

Mr Ettin, I did not respond to your post because you suggested that I was asking others to do the "research" for me, which couldn't be further from the truth. I have done mine, know of one specific individual who is going through this problem, and am simply posting a problem that has been going on now for about 3 years, but only recently come to the attention of a number of legislators in Congress, Senator(s) Richard Burr (NC) and Jim Webb (VA) are two of several who are pushing for the Veteran's Second Amendment Protection Act, which makes the decision to deny a veteran the right to bear arms be made by judicial authorities, and not laymen at the VA who have added financial problems as another reason to deny vet's their 2A rights.

Again, I have done my research.

Frank Ettin
December 7, 2012, 01:32 PM
Mr Ettin, I did not respond to your post because you suggested that I was asking others to do the "research" for me,.... I have done mine,...Then share your research, please. But responding to a request for sources, evidence or documentation with "Google it yourself" is never appropriate. If you can not respond substantively to such a request, why should any of us take you seriously?

This is a serious and important issue. If you have relevant and credible information, that is good, but you still need to support what you claim with sources, evidence and documentation.

knifestuff
December 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
For JohnBT: There is a presumption of competency for any veteran; the system's burden is to prove incompetency. As a tactic, I have my clients provide evidence as to competency and submit same--to show the VA they have a fight on their hand and to make it even harder for VA to overcome the statutory presumption of competency. Let's be clear--VA has to provide a notice that they propose to find incompetency; they can't make that decision until they provide notice. This is not "sentence first, verdict afterwards"; this is more accurately "propose decision, you take no action, decision is rendered".

Cosmoline
December 7, 2012, 03:32 PM
No government benefits are without strings. And in this case the sympathy over PTSD and suicide is a facade to cover FEAR of "crazy vets" who are going to kill us all. Of course PTSD has bupkus to do with murders and crime. But to the public it means you're going to wake up from a nightmare and kill puppies. So the push is on to keep the vets doped up and disarmed.

Watch what you say! Even to your doctor. It can and will be used against you. That applies to everyone, but vets in particular. Lips stay together, hands stay in pockets. Saying nothing and writing nothing is evidence of nothing. Keep the treatment focused on the actual bad back, wound or whatever, and keep them out of your personal business as much as possible.

Ehtereon11B
December 7, 2012, 03:33 PM
Sorry, but if you're going to make a claim it's up to you to provide the evidence to support it. It's not our job to do your research for you.


Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms...Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran's name in the Criminal Background Check System.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-sticking-point-in-defense-bill/#ixzz2EOdL5LS5


I'll post the article again here since the older thread is hidden.

Alnamvet68
December 7, 2012, 04:19 PM
While the VA attempts to defend its position/decision on "financial disabilities" and its relationship to mental stability, and in its reportage of veterans who have had fiduciaries appointed to handle their financial affairs, the Social Security Administration has appointed thousands of fiduciaries to handle the financial affairs of retirees and those on diability, and yet they (SS Admin) have never reported any of these benefit recipients to the FICS in an effort to label them "mentally incomepetent", hence, ineligible to own firearms.

alsaqr
December 7, 2012, 08:26 PM
Coburn backed off after a warning from McCain. The senate has approved the defense spending bill. Looks like veterans are not worthy of a filibuster.

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

After a similar plea from Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, and a warning from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, that the move could embolden Democrats’ push for filibuster reforms, Mr. Coburn eventually backed off.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight#ixzz2EPoIJF6G

krupparms
December 7, 2012, 08:51 PM
I am 100% disabled thru S.S.for injurys that took place at a broken arrow incident while on active duty! Every time I apply for S.C. disability they ask loaded questions! The incident took place on Aug.28 ,1978. The last time I applied, they questioned me about firearms. How I felt about them & did I own any? I told them nothing. They were more concerned about if I had Firearms, than my disability. I figured it SOP by now.

Alnamvet68
December 7, 2012, 08:57 PM
Coburn backed off after a warning from McCain. The senate has approved the defense spending bill. Looks like veterans are not worthy of a filibuster.



Read more: http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight#ixzz2EPoIJF6G

Excellent.

If you enjoyed reading about "Veteran's Administration Denying Veteran's Their 2A Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!