VA To Deny Vet's 2nd Amendment Rights?

[delldude]

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.

2008 law....ok but that's quite chickenshit.

You were saying?

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP)
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.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

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.
A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year’s version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn’s amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.
“All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,” Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.

Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.

 

[delldude]

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

You can cite cases where a Vet wacked a school room of children, KC?
Landza was a Veteran?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Why are you in favor of nuts with guns?

 

[KCFlyer]

You can cite cases where a Vet wacked a school room of children, KC?
Landza was a Veteran?

OLkay...so the gun ain't the problem. It's our mental health system...remember that argument? So does that mean Joe Blow citizen who is mentally incompetent should not be allowed to own a gun, but a mentally incompetent veteran SHOULD be allowed to own a gun? I guess I missing your outrage...guns don't kill..mentally incompetent people do...but you can pry the gun out of that mentally incompetent persons cold dead hands.

 

[KCFlyer]

Why are you in favor of nuts with guns?

Guns don't kill, people do. The gun isn't the problem...it's the nut behind the gun...but don't take that nuts gun away because by golly...he's a vet'

 

[delldude]

OLkay...so the gun ain't the problem. It's our mental health system...remember that argument? So does that mean Joe Blow citizen who is mentally incompetent should not be allowed to own a gun, but a mentally incompetent veteran SHOULD be allowed to own a gun? I guess I missing your outrage...guns don't kill..mentally incompetent people do...but you can pry the gun out of that mentally incompetent persons cold dead hands.

Who decides mental incompetency and who pays for defending against the decision in a court of law?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Morgan Freeman has a good answer:

" You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem."

All the instances you cite went down with mentally unstable people. There is the root cause of the problem.

The issue that needs addressed is mental competence.....

Most that are prescribed those psychotropic drugs are already on the outskirts of infinity.
Where is you government following up on this stuff?
School nurses surely know who is medicated.
Family physician knows....
The game changer, KC is not who is doing these drugs....but what happens when they quit taking them. Most cases of your slaughters was some clown who just didn't have time to take his meds.

Just qualify all of the above to exempt a veteran?

 

[southwind]

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.
© 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.
© 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.

All of the above is null and void, via Wikipedia !

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Hey moron, the Government Printing Office is not run by Wikipedia.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title38-vol1/pdf/CFR-2008-title38-vol1-sec3-353.pdf

 

[delldude]

Just qualify all of the above to exempt a veteran?

VA, for their own purposes have been labeling returning Vets as mentally or physically incompetent and notifying National Insta Check System they shouldn't have access to weapons. They haven't been deemed incompetent in a court of law, only by a bureaucracy.127,000 labeled this way and its up to them to fight the VA to change the determination.

It makes me feel good you've wasted so much of your day going through old posts to not make a point.....I think maybe you don't need to own firearms.

Thanks for playing.

 

[KCFlyer]

Just qualify all of the above to exempt a veteran?

Short answer - apparently yes.\

 

[Dog Wonder]

"Hey moron, the Government Printing Office is not run by Wikipedia."

How can you trust the government when you can source Wikipedia?

.

 

[southwind]

Trust Wikipedia far more than the current admistration !

And Quag, had you worried about your sources.......huh and btw, tried to get away from the name calling but, since you insist, LIBTARD !

 

[delldude]

Just qualify all of the above to exempt a veteran?

That's not the issue.

 

[delldude]

Just qualify all of the above to exempt a veteran?

Why should I, you and your employer have already made up your minds,,,,

At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to-- if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.​