So Now the VA Wants to Deny Vets the Right to Arm Themselves

[Gewehr98]

I'd like to learn more about this particular individual's story before getting too wrapped around the axle.

[SteveS]

I have some experience with VA disability claims.  Declarations of incompetency are very uncommon and they can be contested through an administrative hearing where the person is represented by a zealous advocate.  If they disagree with that ruling, then they can still file an appeal through the VA and eventually through the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

[Waitone]

The only reason I posted the article is because DHS has gone out of its way deeming returning vets a security risk (along with a host of formerly white bread  groups).  Add to that FED.gov intentions to crack down on nut cases with guns and I come to the conclusion FED.gov just showed us their opening gambit.  Now there may well be reasonable and rational and responsible reasons for administratively blocking those who are mentally incompetent from purchasing firearms.  But the reality of the matter is FED.gov will use any excuse as precedence for restricting the rights of a group to own firearms, particularly when FED.gov and announced a specific group is a terrorist threat.

[SteveS]

The only reason I posted the article is because DHS has gone out of its way deeming returning vets a security risk (along with a host of formerly white bread  groups).  Add to that FED.gov intentions to crack down on nut cases with guns and I come to the conclusion FED.gov just showed us their opening gambit.  Now there may well be reasonable and rational and responsible reasons for administratively blocking those who are mentally incompetent from purchasing firearms.  But the reality of the matter is FED.gov will use any excuse as precedence for restricting the rights of a group to own firearms, particularly when FED.gov and announced a specific group is a terrorist threat.

I understand, but these procedures aren't anything new, nor is the ban on people that have been adjudicated mentally defective from owning firearms.  This was part of the GCA of 1968.  According to the law, the person must have the opportunity for a hearing.  If they weren't, then they have not been properly adjudicated and the ban does not apply.

I have had a number of clients that had people appointed to manage their affairs.  In almost all of the cases, the individual requested it because they clearly needed the help.  Personally, I have never had one that I didn't think needed the help.  If they wanted to fight it, I most certainly would have fought it.  I am not saying that abuse never happened, just that I never got the impression that the decision makers wanted to appoint guardians without a compelling reason. 

[Waitone]

The fact that policies and procedures have been in place for decades does nothing for my suspicions.  Carbon dioxide is now a hazardous substance thanks to an obscure provision in a law written in '72 IIRC.  I suspect our federal register is just riddled with such provisions awaiting activation by an administration willing to use them.

[SteveS]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the .gov is going after vets and giving them guardians for the specific purpose of denying their gun rights?  Is there any evidence to suggest that the number of vets with guardians is on the rise or is somehow being improperly used?  

I read the original article and it makes it seem like this is just some kind of sneaky loophole the the .gov just figured out.  As I said, it has been against the law for quite some time for a person that has been adjudicated mentally defective to possess a firearm.  Therefore, any vet that has an appointed guardian since 1968 cannot possess a firearm.  The CFR defines adjudicated mentally defective as:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.


ETA that I just read the article from Redflagnews by the director of the United States Justice Foundation​.  He seems pretty ignorant of the procedures in place for hearing VA disability claims, the appeals process, and the NICS Improvement Act provisions for dealing with the restoration of rights of someone with a mental prohibition based on a federal program or agency.  His article contains more than a few inaccuracies. 

[MillCreek]

You are missing the point, Steve.  Far better to whip up the masses into a frenzy: ZOMG! JBTs from the VA are coming to declare us incompetent and take our guns!  And we are veterans! Eleventy!

I would have hoped for a little bit more critical thinking.

[SteveS]

You are missing the point, Steve.  Far better to whip up the masses into a frenzy: ZOMG! JBTs from the VA are coming to declare us incompetent and take our guns!  And we are veterans! Eleventy!

I would have hoped for a little bit more critical thinking.

I agree.

[Balog]

.gov declaring people mentally incompetent is a slippery slope.  And .gov "oversight" is like the coyotes keeping the foxes out of the henhouse.

On the one hand, I agree with this.

On the other, pretty much everything .gov does has horrific potential for abuse.

[Tallpine]

On the one hand, I agree with this.

On the other, pretty much everything .gov does has horrific potential for abuse.

So, you have become an anarchist, now?   

[Balog]

So, you have become an anarchist, now?   

 

No, I still think that .gov has legitimate functions. Government is a universal fact of life, and I think we'd be best served by accepting that and doing everything we can to constrain it instead of holding out for an impossibility. When I talk to anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists more often) about how exactly society would function in Anarchotopia, the response is either utopian nonsense or a shrugged "Well, anything has to be better than this."