VA To Deny Vet's 2nd Amendment Rights?

[delldude]

Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

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).”?
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. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.
The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.
The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.
-- Michael Connelly, J.D.
Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation​

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"... He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation..."

Oh please. Whose nation is his guy referring to?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Unfortunately, sanity is not a requirement of the bar.

 

[delldude]

"... He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation..."

Oh please. Whose nation is his guy referring to?

Make the letter from the VA go away then......

 

[southwind]

I like the way they say, " If WE decide you can't handle YOUR VA funds" !

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Below is From the 2008 print edition of the US Code. Of course This has been on the books for a long time before 2008. Once again, someone has cherry picked some regulation and tried to make it something it is not.

It is also interesting that the actual letter this guy purports to have is nowhere to be found.

"§3.353 Determinations of incompotency and competency.
(a) Definition of mental incompetency. A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, includ- ing disbursement of funds without lim- itation.
(B) Authority. (1) Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and in- competency for purposes of: insurance (38 U.S.C. 1922), and, subject to § 13.56 of this chapter, disbursement of benefits. Such determinations are final and binding on field stations for these pur- poses.
(2) Where the beneficiary is rated in- competent, the Veterans Service Cen- ter Manager will develop information as to the beneficiary’s social, economic and industrial adjustment; appoint (or recommend appointment of) a fidu- ciary as provided in § 13.55 of this chap- ter; select a method of disbursing pay- ment as provided in § 13.56 of this chap- ter, or in the case of a married bene- ficiary, appoint the beneficiary’s spouse to receive payments as provided in §13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
(3) If in the course of fulfilling the re- sponsibilities assigned in paragraph (B)(2) the Veterans Service Center Man- ager develops evidence indicating that the beneficiary may be capable of ad- ministering the funds payable without limitation, he or she will refer that evi- dence to the rating agency with a statement as to his or her findings. The rating agency will consider this evi- dence, together with all other evidence of record, to determine whether its
38 CFR Ch. I (7–1–08 Edition)
prior determination of incompetency should remain in effect. Reexamination may be requested as provided in §3.327(a) if necessary to properly evalu- ate the beneficiary’s mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
(c) Medical opinion. Unless the med- ical evidence is clear, convincing and leaves no doubt as to the person’s in- competency, the rating agency will make no determination of incom- petency without a definite expression regarding the question by the respon- sible medical authorities. Consider- ations of medical opinions will be in accordance with the principles in para- graph (a) of this section. Determina- tions relative to incompetency should be based upon all evidence of record and there should be a consistent rela- tionship between the percentage of dis- ability, facts relating to commitment or hospitalization and the holding of incompetency.
(d) Presumption in favor of competency. Where reasonable doubt arises regard- ing a beneficiary’s mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including the disbursement of funds without limitation, such doubt will be resolved in favor of competency (see § 3.102 on reasonable doubt).
(e) Due process. Whenever it is pro- posed to make an incompetency deter- mination, the beneficiary will be noti- fied of the proposed action and of the right to a hearing as provided in § 3.103. Such notice is not necessary if the ben- eficiary has been declared incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction or if a guardian has been appointed for the beneficiary based upon a court finding of incompetency. If a hearing is requested it must be held prior to a rating decision of incompetency. Fail- ure or refusal of the beneficiary after proper notice to request or cooperate in such a hearing will not preclude a rating decision based on the evidence of record.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))"


"§ 3.353
Determinations of incompetency and competency.
(a) Definition of mental incompetency. A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.
(B) Authority. (1) Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for purposes of: insurance (38 U.S.C. 1922 ), and, subject to § 13.56 of this chapter, disbursement of benefits. Such determinations are final and binding on field stations for these purposes.
(2) Where the beneficiary is rated incompetent, the Veterans Service Center Manager will develop information as to the beneficiary's social, economic and industrial adjustment; appoint (or recommend appointment of) a fiduciary as provided in § 13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in § 13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.
(3) If in the course of fulfilling the responsibilities assigned in paragraph (B)(2) the Veterans Service Center Manager develops evidence indicating that the beneficiary may be capable of administering the funds payable without limitation, he or she will refer that evidence to the rating agency with a statement as to his or her findings. The rating agency will consider this evidence, together with all other evidence of record, to determine whether its prior determination of incompetency should remain in effect. Reexamination may be requested as provided in § 3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
(c) Medical opinion. Unless the medical evidence is clear, convincing and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, the rating agency will make no determination of incompetency without a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities. Considerations of medical opinions will be in accordance with the principles in paragraph (a) of this section. Determinations relative to incompetency should be based upon all evidence of record and there should be a consistent relationship between the percentage of disability, facts relating to commitment or hospitalization and the holding of incompetency.
(d) Presumption in favor of competency. Where reasonable doubt arises regarding a beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including the disbursement of funds without limitation, such doubt will be resolved in favor of competency (see § 3.102 on reasonable doubt).
(e) Due process. Whenever it is proposed to make an incompetency determination, the beneficiary will be notified of the proposed action and of the right to a hearing as provided in § 3.103. Such notice is not necessary if the beneficiary has been declared incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction or if a guardian has been appointed for the beneficiary based upon a court finding of incompetency. If a hearing is requested it must be held prior to a rating decision of incompetency. Failure or refusal of the beneficiary after proper notice to request or cooperate in such a hearing will not preclude a rating decision based on the evidence of record.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) )
[36 FR 19020, Sept. 25, 1971, and 40 FR 1241, Jan. 7, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 2069, Jan. 10, 1977; 58 FR 37856, July 14, 1993; 60 FR 55792, Nov. 3, 1995; 66 FR 48560, Sept. 21, 2001; 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002; 68 FR 34542, June 10, 2003]"

Look at the dates of these.

 

[delldude]

Below is From the 2008 print edition of the US Code. Of course This has been on the books for a long time before 2008. Once again, someone has cherry picked some regulation and tried to make it something it is not.

Yeah, looking like the dept of Veteran Affairs.

Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.

Make the letter go away........

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.
[...]
“We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.​

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

So this is all of a sudden a hot issue even though it has been law since before Obama was elected.

It is now Obama trying to rob someone of "his" nation...

Dig some more, your hole is getting bigger and better.

 

[delldude]

So this is all of a sudden a hot issue even though it has been law since before Obama was elected.

It is now Obama trying to rob someone of "his" nation...

Dig some more, your hole is getting bigger and better.

The law is not in question, it is the Federal gov't sending out letters since late last year to Veterans threatening to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights that is the issue of the post, or in your ignorance did you miss that part?

I like how you try and change the direction of the narrative but can't due to the facts.

You're the one digging the hole.

 

[KCFlyer]

So let me get this straight...if you are mentally incompetent, you can't own a gun. Now...guns don't kill people, it's the person behind the gun. So we need to address that problem. So....mentally incompetent people can't own a gun. Sounds like a start, but no....that's a violation of their second amendment right. I wonder...if a mentally incompetent person shot up a school, would the be found not guilt my reason of mental incompetence?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

So let me get this straight...if you are mentally incompetent, you can't own a gun. Now...guns don't kill people, it's the person behind the gun. So we need to address that problem. So....mentally incompetent people can't own a gun. Sounds like a start, but no....that's a violation of their second amendment right. I wonder...if a mentally incompetent person shot up a school, would the be found not guilt my reason of mental incompetence?

I thought the fight was to stop the mentally ill from getting guns??? But now veterans should be exempt.

Unless of course Obama has his way, then he will be personally reviewing all cases and coming to confiscate all the veteran's guns. That is the only way he will be able rob all of us of "our" nation and make it "their" nation...or is it "his" nation?

 

[KCFlyer]

I thought the fight was to stop the mentally ill from getting guns??? But now veterans should be exempt.

Unless of course Obama has his way, then he will be personally reviewing all cases and coming to confiscate all the veteran's guns. That is the only way he will be able rob all of us of "our" nation and make it "their" nation...or is it "his" nation?

Yes...it's more honorable to have a school full of kids shot up by a mentally incompetent veteran than a mentally incompetent teenager

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The law is not in question, it is the Federal gov't sending out letters since late last year to Veterans threatening to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights that is the issue...

They started sending out those just late last year?

I guess you missed the due process part of the US Code that is cited in that partial letter?

This hack says: "The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Even though his chopped up letter references the law which clearly states:

"(C) Medical opinion. Unless the medical evidence is clear, convincing and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, the rating agency will make no determination of incompetency without a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities. Considerations of medical opinions will be in accordance with the principles in paragraph (a) of this section. Determinations relative to incompetency should be based upon all evidence of record and there should be a consistent relationship between the percentage of disability, facts relating to commitment or hospitalization and the holding of incompetency.

"(d) Presumption in favor of competency. Where reasonable doubt arises regarding a beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including the disbursement of funds without limitation, such doubt will be resolved in favor of competency (see § 3.102 on reasonable doubt).

(e) Due process. Whenever it is proposed to make an incompetency determination, the beneficiary will be notified of the proposed action and of the right to a hearing as provided in § 3.103. Such notice is not necessary if the beneficiary has been declared incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction or if a guardian has been appointed for the beneficiary based upon a court finding of incompetency. If a hearing is requested it must be held prior to a rating decision of incompetency. Failure or refusal of the beneficiary after proper notice to request or cooperate in such a hearing will not preclude a rating decision based on the evidence of record."

 

[delldude]

This is priceless.....first Mr Quag's attacks the 2008 law in an attempt to make me look bad.....but ignores the fact that the government is now labeling our service men and women without redress. Where do they get off with a determination of competency anyway?

Janet Napolitano was one of the first government officials to label returning US soldiers as extremists who should not be trusted . Our own government....?

The letter does not address mentally ill if you bothered to read it. It mentions being found possibly physically or mentally 'incompetent' to deal with VA benefits.

So define mentally or physically incompetent. The VA already is reporting to NICS those THEY deem incompetent.

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.

So KC Flyer and Glen Quagmire support the US government in stripping returning soldiers of their 2nd amendment rights because an unelected bureaucrat has deemed them 'mentally or physically incompetent'? Deemed them incompetent by information they have against you without redress.

You guys should be proud to be Americans.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

It is not a 2008 law.

You have not show anywhere where anyone has been denied any right or deemed mentally unfit.

You posted some hack's partial letter from his blog right wing conspiracy site and ran with it.

Now you are off on some Janet Napolitano tangent about her trying to rob you of your nation.

Be afraid, very afraid.