Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on February 22, 2013, 10:12:57 AM
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/shock-report-veterans-receive-letters-from-va-prohibiting-ownership-or-purchase-of-firearms/
Appears on Friday. Outrageous on its face when we see it, but we knew it was going to happen.
I figger the alternative media will be aflame by Tuesday next (assuming the story is corroborated).
-
I'd be supremely intersted in reading that letter in it's entirety.
-
Well, returning Veterans are terrorists according to the DOJ.
-
I'd be supremely intersted in reading that letter in it's entirety.
Here is the entire letter. http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition (http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition)
I would love to hear the context around the person who received this letter.
-
The letter is available at the Red Flag site via the first link.
If the Government follows the same policy for people receiving Social Security or other recipients of Federal benefits, and there is the option of an administrative or judicial hearing to contest the findings with the patient represented by an advocate, then I am not unduly alarmed by this. I do see that the primary point of the letter is to determine if someone is incompetent to handle their financial affairs. I do think it is interesting that the agency makes the determination of incompetency, and again, I would be curious to see if this is consistent with the approach used by other agencies. I would also want to know what are the clinical grounds for assuming that the recipient is financially incompetent. Is it someone who has sustained a profound traumatic brain injury, or what? Finally, I would have to read the Brady Law to see if the finding of incompetency as a firearms disability applies to an administrative finding by a government agency versus a judicial finding.
The notion that veterans should get a pass on this just for being veterans is not valid, in my book. If this is the law, it should be applied equally across all recipients of Federal benefits, with the codicils mentioned above. I bet this will discourage veterans from seeking treatment at VA facilities, though.
-
After reading the whole thing, there is a laid out process for contesting this finding, and for requesting a hearing. It's in the letter. And this isn't out of the blue. This person's doctor felt like he couldn't handle financial responsibility and started a laid out process to help the person.
Now the doctor could very well be full of it, but he at least had to present evidence, and the person is given a chance to refute said evidence. I agree with Millcreek that just because the person is a vet, and the VA is handling this doesn't mean he gets a pass. Plenty of vets in this country are messed up enough that this process would be a good idea.
That said, as someone who deals with the VA (And the Army's programs to help soldiers still in the service) I always counsel my troops to be frugal with the information they share, and keep in mind that telling an Army (or VA) doc is the same thing as telling the Army. If you need help, get it. But be cautious. Things have a way of sticking around longer then anticipated.
-
If a person is ruled mentally incompentent to handle his own affairs, manage his own finances, or possess firearms . . . how can he still be considered mentally competent enough to stand trial for violating some related government edict?
I know that if I were a juror, I'd consider an earlier government finding of mental incompetence a powerful and compelling argument for some variation of an insanity defense.
-
Vets are costing the fed.gov a lot of money, inconsiderate jerks trying to get help for their injuries and all. I sometimes wonder if the VA is deliberately trying to keep people from using the services they have a contractual right to as a cost saving measure? I know I'll never set foot inside a VA hospital again.
-
That said, as someone who deals with the VA (And the Army's programs to help soldiers still in the service) I always counsel my troops to be frugal with the information they share, and keep in mind that telling an Army (or VA) doc is the same thing as telling the Army. If you need help, get it. But be cautious. Things have a way of sticking around longer then anticipated.
^^ This, in spades.
The Free *expletive deleted*it Army has many faces.
Nothing is free. You want privacy, then pay for your own shrink or see your clergy of choice.
Keep your medicine out of the government's hands, and they'll keep their nose out of your gunsafe. Hopefully.
(I routinely change my PCP doctor and do not give my new doctor my prior medical history, partly because I have a very boring medical history and partly because I don't believe in centralized medical records systems for patients at all. I will share with my doc what I feel is relevant to my treatment at this time, and he can keep his treatment tailored to that situation. This degree of autonomy is not possible with Army docs or with the VA, but the volunteering of information certainly is. See non-gov docs for sensitive things. See gov docs for everything else.)
-
That said, as someone who deals with the VA (And the Army's programs to help soldiers still in the service) I always counsel my troops to be frugal with the information they share, and keep in mind that telling an Army (or VA) doc is the same thing as telling the Army. If you need help, get it. But be cautious. Things have a way of sticking around longer then anticipated.
Fear not. When obamacare comes into full swing, everyone will get the same treatment that soldiers get from the VA, if not worse. Its an absolute certainty that doctors will be treating 'political' diseases as much as mental and physical diseases.
-
Fear not. When obamacare comes into full swing, everyone will get the same treatment that soldiers get from the VA, if not worse. Its an absolute certainty that doctors will be treating 'political' diseases as much as mental and physical diseases.
Possibly. Then I fear our standard of care will plummet.
Doc: What's wrong?
Me: got a cold.
Doc: Anything else bothering you?
Me: Nope! Everything is fine. Feel great!
Doc: Why were you limping on the way in?
Me:..............Not Limping. I'm fine. You need to get your eyes checked out.
There needs to be some trust between a person and their doctor. Which is why the only VA benefit I've used is a mortgage. But DO trust my civilian doc. Otherwise, why would I let him work on me?
-
I already don't trust doctors. =(
I refuse to see a doctor unless I have severe injuries.
-
If a person is ruled mentally incompentent to handle his own affairs, manage his own finances, or possess firearms . . . how can he still be considered mentally competent enough to stand trial for violating some related government edict?
I know that if I were a juror, I'd consider an earlier government finding of mental incompetence a powerful and compelling argument for some variation of an insanity defense.
That's the exact same question I had.
-
The letter is available at the Red Flag site via the first link.
If the Government follows the same policy for people receiving Social Security or other recipients of Federal benefits, and there is the option of an administrative or judicial hearing to contest the findings with the patient represented by an advocate, then I am not unduly alarmed by this. I do see that the primary point of the letter is to determine if someone is incompetent to handle their financial affairs. I do think it is interesting that the agency makes the determination of incompetency, and again, I would be curious to see if this is consistent with the approach used by other agencies. I would also want to know what are the clinical grounds for assuming that the recipient is financially incompetent. Is it someone who has sustained a profound traumatic brain injury, or what? Finally, I would have to read the Brady Law to see if the finding of incompetency as a firearms disability applies to an administrative finding by a government agency versus a judicial finding.
The notion that veterans should get a pass on this just for being veterans is not valid, in my book. If this is the law, it should be applied equally across all recipients of Federal benefits, with the codicils mentioned above. I bet this will discourage veterans from seeking treatment at VA facilities, though.
Not saying I disagree, per se. Except the VA like any other government program has plenty of incompetent bureaucrats and processes. This is an opt-out provision. Suppose the letter is lost in the mail. Suppose the VA mails it to Taiwan. Suppose the VA's database says the letter went out when it never did. The person will be stripped of their legal rights without due process. "Prove your competence within sixty days, else you're magically a felon if you own firearms" is a bit harsh and I'd be curious to see a SCOTUS ruling on it.
I would state that it should be opt in or have judicial oversight PRIOR to making folks felons by administrative decree.
Most of my LE and medical buddies tell me they can't declare folks crazy. If someone is crazy or automatically if they say the magic words (self-harm), they go to the loonie bin for a determination. Which then goes to a judge for the stamp. And that stamp is not permanent. Judge has to restamp every so often. This is required for habeas corpus and all that. You can't use loonie bins as prisons to bypass the judiciary, like the Soviet Union regularly did.
-
You can't use loonie bins as prisons to bypass the judiciary, like the Soviet Union regularly did.
They can as long as they have more and bigger guns. =(
I fail to see how any letter has any legal force whatsoever unless sent by registered mail with return receipt, or delivered by means of process service. I never got it.
-
They can as long as they have more and bigger guns. =(
I fail to see how any letter has any legal force whatsoever unless sent by registered mail with return receipt, or delivered by means of process service, FROM A JUDGE ACTING IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AFTER HEARING PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE REMARKS. I never got it.
Mail is junk by default. I don't even open it unless I have a reason to want to hear from you. There's no compulsory reason for me to even open the stupid piece of paper you littered my mailbox with.
-
They are following the law. The recipient has the right to request a hearing, have legal counsel and present evidence, witnesses and testimony in his behalf.*
But yes, it would be interesting and helpful to know more about the individual and situation in question.
*-IIRC, Under 2007 NICS Improvement Act, the .gov has to pay for the lawyer and other expenses of the person in question if they are found competent.
-
I would say that working in healthcare, I frequently encounter people who are not competent to one degree or another. The lucky ones have family members that will take over and look after the patient's interests. The less lucky ones are able to find a government or social-service agency that will act as the fiduciary. Say what you like about the government and social service agencies, but most of them are honest and ethical in this role. The unlucky ones have people who prey on them or scam them financially. When we encounter the unlucky ones, we try to protect them by getting the police or adult protective services involved.
-
I would say that working in healthcare, I frequently encounter people who are not competent to one degree or another. The lucky ones have family members that will take over and look after the patient's interests. The less lucky ones are able to find a government or social-service agency that will act as the fiduciary. Say what you like about the government and social service agencies, but most of them are honest and ethical in this role. The unlucky ones have people who prey on them or scam them financially. When we encounter the unlucky ones, we try to protect them by getting the police or adult protective services involved.
Some libertarians may disagree with me, but I concur that this is a legitimate function of government. If someone is mentally incompetent, and there is no other party... What's the alternative?
I imagine there is oversight and auditing. The potential for abuse is very easy, and the consequences can be horrific.
-
I would say that working in healthcare, I frequently encounter people who are not competent to one degree or another. ...
Hell, I work in aerospace software, and I have a manager who is incompetent :facepalm:
-
i would like those who need it cared for financially or otherwise. the tricky part here for me is how did doc reach his determination and how it might relate to hippa. i also am concerned it will cause folks to avoid treatment. i've seen some of that buried it. its a very fine line at the top of a very steep slippery slope. this letter doesn't make me go zomg but theres not too much further before it gets tricky
-
People wonder why I dropped out of my PTSD treatment
It almost kept me from being able o become a drill sergeant
"Won't hurt your career"
My ass
I'm just about *expletive deleted*ing done with the military
-
I've deployed 3 times.
When i get back ..........SGT are you okay , do feel anger , do you what to hurt your self or someone .
I could pissed off ,at the world ,drinking gasoline and pissing vinegar.
NO SIR , I FEEL FINE.!!!
I know i'm not right , but i will be dammed, if i let it show up in me records!
-
Some libertarians may disagree with me, but I concur that this is a legitimate function of government. If someone is mentally incompetent, and there is no other party... What's the alternative?
I imagine there is oversight and auditing. The potential for abuse is very easy, and the consequences can be horrific.
I do not have a philosophical problem with systems, possibly government but preferably private, with the mission to help those who cannot help themselves. It's hard to think of a better illustration but mental illness. Our main problem currently is systems which "help" people who do not need help, or where the determination of need is subjective, and often made by those with ulterior motives.
-
Some libertarians may disagree with me, but I concur that this is a legitimate function of government. If someone is mentally incompetent, and there is no other party... What's the alternative?
I imagine there is oversight and auditing. The potential for abuse is very easy, and the consequences can be horrific.
.gov declaring people mentally incompetent is a slippery slope. And .gov "oversight" is like the coyotes keeping the foxes out of the henhouse.
-
I'd like to learn more about this particular individual's story before getting too wrapped around the axle.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.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.
-
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? =D
-
So, you have become an anarchist, now? =D
=D
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."