VA declares veteran to be incompetent, denied RKBA

[Charles L. Cotton]

I also don't know why the NRA, SAF, or some other RKBA organization isn't all over this. Granted the story came out last week.

- Jim

"All over this" in what way?

Chas.

[seamusTX]

I don't know. It could be anything from requesting congressional investigations to filing a lawsuit.

The SAF seems to be suing everyone left and right. They file a lawsuit against a government entity every couple of weeks. I realize they are not very effective, but that's what they do.

- Jim

[Hoi Polloi]

I think the crux of the issue is what happened in the gap between PTSD diagnosis and his CHL/CCP being revoked. If he was adjudicated by a court to be legally incompetent and is now receiving benefits because of that, but did not understand that this would be one of the consequences of that action, then there isn't really anything to get in a huff over.

If he was medically diagnosed as having significant impairment due to his PTSD (a requirement of PTSD, but not one that necessarily precludes safe handling of firearms depending on what areas are affected) and his medical information was shared with NCIS then there's an issue of privacy, database collecting and sharing, etc.

[Mike1951]

I am reminded of a couple of things that were forgotten until reading this thread.

First, an email I discounted as rumor. Please don't accept it as fact.

Subject: Fw: They want our gun$ ... So look at what is new

>
>
> Sent to me by a friend that is a VN vet.
>
>
> Last month, at my VA med visit, they asked me exactly the same questions as below
> and I asked them why they never asked them before and their answer was that it
> is a new policy that they must ask all vets!!!!!!
>
> From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:
> I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and
> found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While
> going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the
> end of the exam, three questions:
>
> 1. Did I feel stressed?
>
> 2. Did I feel threatened?
>
> 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?
>
> The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I
> would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical
> records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.
> Looks like they are going after the vets first.
>
>
> Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then
> when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have?
>
>
> Be forewarned and be aware.
> The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and
> gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not,
> you've been warned. If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on
> to them. Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.

Second, I was reminded of GOA's stance on HR 2640, which they called the "Veterans Disarmament Bill".

http://gunowners.org/ne0713.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BATFE's illegal regs can be found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person."

I initially didn't believe either the rumor or GOA's rantings. This was the reason I dropped my GOA membership.

Was I wrong?

[seamusTX]

I can't answer whether you were right or wrong.

I got that e-mail, and I get similar ones all the time. If I believed every one and tried to investigate it I could do nothing else.

I looked on the GAO web site to see if I could find something more credible. I couldn't.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't know. It could be anything from requesting congressional investigations to filing a lawsuit.

The SAF seems to be suing everyone left and right. They file a lawsuit against a government entity every couple of weeks. I realize they are not very effective, but that's what they do.

- Jim

I don't know that there is anything to be done, since we don't know what happened. Plus, I just got back from NRA HQ for committee meetings and a Board meeting last week. I'm on several committees including the NRA Legal Affairs Committee. During that committee meeting, we covered a 62 page report of all the cases we are involved in or are supporting. There are several matters on each page. I'm also on the Board of Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund and during that meeting we responded to over three dozen requests for assistance or funding of cases.

We are very heavily involved in numerous cases and we simply cannot take on everything. SAF is involved in a handful of cases, we're in hundreds. Plus, we make sure we learn the true facts before getting involved and as I mentioned, I have no idea what really happened. As a final note, we can't file suit on behalf of anyone, or take any other action, unless they ask us to do so.

Chas.

[chartreuse]

I don't know that there is anything to be done, since we don't know what happened. Plus, I just got back from NRA HQ for committee meetings and a Board meeting last week. I'm on several committees including the NRA Legal Affairs Committee. During that committee meeting, we covered a 62 page report of all the cases we are involved in or are supporting. There are several matters on each page. I'm also on the Board of Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund and during that meeting we responded to over three dozen requests for assistance or funding of cases.

We are very heavily involved in numerous cases and we simply cannot take on everything. SAF is involved in a handful of cases, we're in hundreds. Plus, we make sure we learn the true facts before getting involved and as I mentioned, I have no idea what really happened. As a final note, we can't file suit on behalf of anyone, or take any other action, unless they ask us to do so.

Chas.

And that, Sir, is why I'm more than happy to pay my membership fee each year. To misquote an old saying; Firebrands are fine, but a considered response is more effective.

[seamusTX]

Charles, I appreciate your work, and you know that I have supported the NRA and TSRA at almost every turn. I understand that neither organization can do everything that every member would like, never mind the critics who are not members.

It just seems a shame that this guy is left hanging. Maybe that's the way it has to be, given the laws and regulations and the facts of his case.

- Jim

[Barbi Q]

What's the actual diagnosis or adjudication that gets him extra money? Until we know that we're all just firing blind.

[seamusTX]

The article said he was not competent to manage his finances. I doubt any more specific information will be made public.

- Jim

[G26ster]

Here's an update for veterans related to this topic, from the NRA

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=6024" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[puma guy]

This is a little off topic, but having never pawned a weapon is it a requirement to do a background check to take the weapon out of pawn? I am under the pehaps misguided understanding that to pawn an item is simply collateral for a loan.

[seamusTX]

This is a little off topic, but having never pawned a weapon is it a requirement to do a background check to take the weapon out of pawn?

Yes, redeeming a pawned firearm is the same as buying one from scratch, with respect to the Form 4473 and NICS check.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-l ... redemption" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Hoi Polloi]

The article gives that missing piece of information we were all wondering about.

Currently, when a person has a fiduciary appointed to handle his or her veterans' benefits, the federal government considers that person to have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. According to Rep. Moran, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reported the names of more than 117,000 veterans and family members to the FBI for use in instant background checks.

[Liberty]

One more reason why I pay exorbitant insurance bills to avoid the VA benefits I am supposedly entitled too.. Big Government making privacy and freeedom tradeoffs for benefits is nothing new.