View Full Version : Vets be warned
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-21-13, 17:55
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition
Just FYI your incompetent
polymorpheous
02-21-13, 17:58
Wrong link?
What's Obama's request for sob stories have to go with vets?
Moose-Knuckle
02-21-13, 19:05
You talking about this?
A buddy sent this to me earlier today.
Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition
Magic_Salad0892
02-21-13, 19:06
You talking about this?
A buddy sent this to me earlier today.
Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition
What. The. ****.
On what grounds?
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-21-13, 19:14
Thanks Moose my bad, I know two guys who got them already.
Wait...
You can enlist, be taught how to fire a weapon, carry one on a daily basis. But can't be trusted to own one when you get out?
Seriously, WTF is going on...
Wait...
You can enlist, be taught how to fire a weapon, carry one on a daily basis. But can't be trusted to own one when you get out?
Seriously, WTF is going on...
Now now we all know its not conducive to totalitarianism to allow formerly government trained soldiers to possess arms, to do otherwise is just silly :rolleyes:
That said probably not the best group of people to piss off.
Uh...you think? I could see this getting real ugly real quick
theblackknight
02-21-13, 19:58
I hate info wars types. . . . ..
But it almost seems like they are trying to push the wrong buttons.
PA PATRIOT
02-21-13, 20:14
From what I heard is that anyone with a stress, PTS or a diagnosed physiological disorder and receiving benefits do to same will fall under this policy.
From what I heard is that anyone with a stress, PTS or a diagnosed physiological disorder and receiving benefits do to same will fall under this policy.
'Anyone'.....that word really bothers me.
-Jax
'Anyone'.....that word really bothers me.
-Jax
And some people thought government run healthcare was/is a good idea...
Living in an even more Orwellian society than we do now is gonna be so much fun.
This has been in the planning and going into effect for a while now. Alex Jones (infowars.com) reported this MONTHS ago but of course everybody shrugged it off as being a "conspiracy theory" including pro-2A and "conservatives". How much more will it take to realize that they are no longer "theories" but instead "crazy ass ****ing unbelievable truths" ?!
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-21-13, 20:28
'Anyone'.....that word really bothers me.
-Jax
It should, it should scare the **** out of you! I have two buddies who got these letters so far. Neither of them are crazy at all, are they stressed out, **** ya you would be to if you walked off the back of a striker and a bullet ripped through your chest, then you spent 5 years in med hold before being retired. I'm scared as hell personally, they both got the decisions over turned but why did it ever have to happen? They did nothing wrong!
Government wants to get background checks to screen for mental illness.
Government wants to help Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen that need help with their symptoms.
Government wants to strip the rights of those they want to help.
_______________________
This is just going to cause military members to hide any problems they're having and refuse any treatment.
_______________________
Now the government screening won't work because none of the members with any problems are going to admit to them. And the brave souls that have put their asses on the line are left to deal with everything on their own.
_______________________
Great job!
SeriousStudent
02-21-13, 20:59
Government wants to get background checks to screen for mental illness.
Government wants to help Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen that need help with their symptoms.
Government wants to strip the rights of those they want to help.
_______________________
This is just going to cause military members to hide any problems they're having and refuse any treatment.
_______________________
Now the government screening won't work because none of the members with any problems are going to admit to them. And the brave souls that have put their asses on the line are left to deal with everything on their own.
_______________________
Great job!
That is exactly what infuriates me the most. Instead of being offered compassion, dignity, and thoughtful support, they get a slap in the face like this. I am afraid you are exactly right. More guys that need and deserve help, will step back and have to fight even greater challenges. :(
WTF?! This shit needs to be stopped.
Traveshamockery
02-21-13, 21:21
This has been in the planning and going into effect for a while now. Alex Jones (infowars.com) reported this MONTHS ago but of course everybody shrugged it off as being a "conspiracy theory" including pro-2A and "conservatives". How much more will it take to realize that they are no longer "theories" but instead "crazy ass ****ing unbelievable truths" ?!
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Alex should familiarize himself with that tale if he wants to be taken seriously in the future. It's hard to criticize people for dismissing IW as a legitimate source when he presents truth along with so much fiction or hearsay.
I am curious to see if they send these out for physical disabilities.. I wonder how much more will the people take before enough is enough. If ever...
I heard the toilet flush some years back, and like a toilet with bad water pressure it is still circling the bottom of the bowl..
And you can rest assured that somebody as pro American and impartial as Nadal Hassan will be making the determinations about who is ok and who is not.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
Old laws can safely be ignored.
Kinda like how FOPA doesn't protect collectors who engage in favorable trades or sales as much as it did years ago.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
This is M4C, you don't really expect anyone to actually read an entire article or do any basic research before they jump to conclusions, do you?
From what I read you are not off base IG. Someone tell me if I'm off base.
IG, that's what I thought myself.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Interesting. There have been some FOPA issues, but they come from retard states and not across the board.
Old laws can safely be ignored.
Kinda like how FOPA doesn't protect collectors who engage in favorable trades or sales as much as it did years ago.
Don Robison
02-22-13, 00:24
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
That's my understanding as well.
What I've read in other sources is what they are doing is entering a person's name into NICS and that the FBI/DOJ won't remove your name under the "relief from disabilities" program it unless the VA notifies them that your condition no longer exists.
As far as I know the VA isn't recognized as a legal authority for determining mental competence in any state. What is really screwed up is they are exempted by federal statute from state court so to appeal their rulings in court it has to be done in Federal Appeals court or the Supreme court.
Found an article from 2 years ago talking about.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/
What's really sad is a lot of vets will NOT seek treatment for their PTSD in order to preserve their rights. That's sad.......real ****ing sad.
Submariner
02-22-13, 07:29
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
No one has provided us with the applicable statute from the United States Code. I can't find it. Can you?
Further, OP knows of the existence of two such letters. Bogus?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-22-13, 08:40
No one has provided us with the applicable statute from the United States Code. I can't find it. Can you?
Further, OP knows of the existence of two such letters. Bogus?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
Not bogus, and the party's involved where not "adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge". The VA to my knowledge did not share the info with LE or anything like that.
NavyDavy55
02-22-13, 11:37
The VA can determine a veteran incompetant to handle their finances. The veteran is first sent a letter to propose incompentency. The veteran can argue their case. The VA makes a determination and notifies the veteran. The veteran can appeal the decision and the lost right of firearm ownership.
VA letter about all of this that says: "Since there is definitive finding of incompetency by a physician in this case, and the claimant is not shown to be able to manage personal affairs to include disbursement of funds, we propose to make a determination of incompetency for VA purposes. {38 CFR 3.353}"
Then on the following page under the section "How This Decision Could Affect You" it says "A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any prohibition, pursuant to section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as implemented by Public Law 103-159 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.
If we decide that you are unable to handle your VA funds, you may apply to this regional office for the relief of prohibitions imposed by the Brady Act with regards to possession, purchase, receipt, or transportation of a firearm. Submit your request to the address at the top of this letter on the enclosed VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. VA will determine whether such relief is warranted."
Larry Vickers
02-22-13, 12:12
Call your congressman and state senators - bend their ears on this
As Walter White said to the neo Nazi organizing his hits within a 2 minute timeframe -'Figure it out ; that's what I'm paying you for'
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Congress passed a law the specifically protects veterans from having their 2nd Amendment rights infringed based upon PTSD or similar claims.
2. You must be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent by a judge and not some bureaucrat at the VA or other office.
Again, if I am off base please let me know.
Since when has a law stopped anyone from taking action that defies said law??? That applies to everyone, from your local pedophile all the way up to government idiots.
Also what makes you think that there isn't some federal flunky judge willing to rubber stamp the VA proposal?
Seems to me they are forcing vets to prove their innocence rather than how it's supposed to be you know all that innocent till proven guilty stuff.
The end result will be that a lot of vets will do the paperwork to clear their names. Lots won't and will get chewed up. As this crap gets around, more and more Vets will stop seeking VA assistance and just "deal" with things on their own or spend their own $$ on private help. Looks like a win win for uncle Sugar. He gets a number of people denied firearms and gets to siphon their VA benefits. He also sees a long term cost savings due to people not coming in for the help they need and deserve.
Legal grounds or no, this is going to drive vets away from seeking help.
The VA can determine a veteran incompetant to handle their finances. The veteran is first sent a letter to propose incompentency. The veteran can argue their case. The VA makes a determination and notifies the veteran. The veteran can appeal the decision and the lost right of firearm ownership.
VA letter about all of this that says: "Since there is definitive finding of incompetency by a physician in this case, and the claimant is not shown to be able to manage personal affairs to include disbursement of funds, we propose to make a determination of incompetency for VA purposes. {38 CFR 3.353}"
Then on the following page under the section "How This Decision Could Affect You" it says "A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any prohibition, pursuant to section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as implemented by Public Law 103-159 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.
If we decide that you are unable to handle your VA funds, you may apply to this regional office for the relief of prohibitions imposed by the Brady Act with regards to possession, purchase, receipt, or transportation of a firearm. Submit your request to the address at the top of this letter on the enclosed VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. VA will determine whether such relief is warranted."
There are millions of Americans who are incompetent to handle their own finances. WTF does that have to do with firearms? Seems to me a test case supported by the NRA-ILA up to SCOTUS is in order here! :mad:
They should be screening for mental capacity when it comes disbursement of welfare funds more so than this BS.
But hey more justification for universal background checks.. gotta make sure those crazy vets don't get ahold of a:rolleyes:
Submariner
02-22-13, 15:40
They should be screening for mental capacity when it comes disbursement of welfare funds more so than this BS.
Piss test, too.
So, anyone, where is the Second Amendment Protection Act in the US Code?
H.R. 2615 (112th): Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011
Introduced:
Jul 21, 2011 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Sponsor:
Rep. Ronald “Ron” Paul [R-TX14]
Status:
Died (Referred to Committee)
Not Ron Paul? What a 'tard...
You must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by an appropriate court, board, commission etc....18 USC 922(g)(4) discusses this among other things
The VA can only determine your incompetence as it deals with your benefits and insurance. 38 C.F.R. 3.353, amongst others
A medical finding alone, like of PTSD, is insufficient for you to be judged mentally incompetent....again, it says it right in 18 USC 922
The finding must be made by a court or appropriate legal body, as defined by state or federal law, due process is accorded, and the presumption is of competence.
This "letter" is not telling Veterans anything new. If they were adjudicated to be mentally defective after gulf war 1 they couldn't own firearms either
This is a notice from your medical and mental health provider informing you of consequences of findings
There are plenty of people diagnosed with PTSD that still own firearms, and are not adjudicated mentally defective, just like there are people diagnosed with depression that own firearms
Could a VA finding be used as evidence at a legal proceeding to define you as mentally incompetent? Sure. But you get to present evidence to the contrary, and again the presumption is competence.
Fwiw, according to PTSD.va.gov the prevalence of PTSD in the general population is just under 8%, and just under 14% in vets of OIF, and OEF...people who witness violent crimes...or are in car accidents...or house fires...and are diagnosed with PTSD aren't randomly losing their right to keep and bear arms either.
I have yet to hear of anyone, veteran or otherwise, who has been declared mentally incompetent without due process. If those stories are out there, please share them.
But there are plenty of things to get wound up about right now, I don't think this is one of them
You must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by an appropriate court, board, commission etc....18 USC 922(g)(4) discusses this among other things
The VA can only determine your incompetence as it deals with your benefits and insurance. 38 C.F.R. 3.353, amongst others
A medical finding alone, like of PTSD, is insufficient for you to be judged mentally incompetent....again, it says it right in 18 USC 922
The finding must be made by a court or appropriate legal body, as defined by state or federal law, due process is accorded, and the presumption is of competence.
This "letter" is not telling Veterans anything new. If they were adjudicated to be mentally defective after gulf war 1 they couldn't own firearms either
This is a notice from your medical and mental health provider informing you of consequences of findings
There are plenty of people diagnosed with PTSD that still own firearms, and are not adjudicated mentally defective, just like there are people diagnosed with depression that own firearms
Could a VA finding be used as evidence at a legal proceeding to define you as mentally incompetent? Sure. But you get to present evidence to the contrary, and again the presumption is competence.
Fwiw, according to PTSD.va.gov the prevalence of PTSD in the general population is just under 8%, and just under 14% in vets of OIF, and OEF...people who witness violent crimes...or are in car accidents...or house fires...and are diagnosed with PTSD aren't randomly losing their right to keep and bear arms either.
I have yet to hear of anyone, veteran or otherwise, who has been declared mentally incompetent without due process. If those stories are out there, please share them.
But there are plenty of things to get wound up about right now, I don't think this is one of them
The .pdf of the letter posted in the article specifically states that if the VA deems the vet too incompetent to handle their VA benefits (pay), that they will also be barred from firearms possession under the Brady Act. Reports indicate that over 100,000 veterans have been reported to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS system as prohibited. The letter also doesn't seem to presume competence. Quite the contrary. It was enough of an issue that bills have been introduced (and mostly quashed by gun rights foes) to prevent it. By all outward appearances, the VA is considering it's competency hearing for benefits disbursement as "adjudicated mentally incompetent by an appropriate board or commission".
If you have proof that this isn't happening, I'd suggest you post it. Otherwise, where there's smoke...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/
You must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by an appropriate court, board, commission etc....18 USC 922(g)(4) discusses this among other things
The VA can only determine your incompetence as it deals with your benefits and insurance. 38 C.F.R. 3.353, amongst others
A medical finding alone, like of PTSD, is insufficient for you to be judged mentally incompetent....again, it says it right in 18 USC 922
The finding must be made by a court or appropriate legal body, as defined by state or federal law, due process is accorded, and the presumption is of competence.
This "letter" is not telling Veterans anything new. If they were adjudicated to be mentally defective after gulf war 1 they couldn't own firearms either
This is a notice from your medical and mental health provider informing you of consequences of findings
There are plenty of people diagnosed with PTSD that still own firearms, and are not adjudicated mentally defective, just like there are people diagnosed with depression that own firearms
Could a VA finding be used as evidence at a legal proceeding to define you as mentally incompetent? Sure. But you get to present evidence to the contrary, and again the presumption is competence.
Fwiw, according to PTSD.va.gov the prevalence of PTSD in the general population is just under 8%, and just under 14% in vets of OIF, and OEF...people who witness violent crimes...or are in car accidents...or house fires...and are diagnosed with PTSD aren't randomly losing their right to keep and bear arms either.
I have yet to hear of anyone, veteran or otherwise, who has been declared mentally incompetent without due process. If those stories are out there, please share them.
But there are plenty of things to get wound up about right now, I don't think this is one of them
Excellent summary. I'd be interested to hear of any vet who has been denied their 2nd Amendment rights or adjudicated mentally incompetent without due process.
The .pdf of the letter posted in the article specifically states that if the VA deems the vet too incompetent to handle their VA benefits (pay), that they will also be barred from firearms possession under the Brady Act. Reports indicate that over 100,000 veterans have been reported to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS system as prohibited. The letter also doesn't seem to presume competence. Quite the contrary. It was enough of an issue that bills have been introduced (and mostly quashed by gun rights foes) to prevent it. By all outward appearances, the VA is considering it's competency hearing for benefits disbursement as "adjudicated mentally incompetent by an appropriate board or commission".
If you have proof that this isn't happening, I'd suggest you post it. Otherwise, where there's smoke...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/
If that's the case, any vet so denied would have cause of action for being unconstitutionally stripped of their rights....I hadn't seen that Washington times article yet...fwiw, I am a disabled veteran, and haven't received that letter yet
18 USC 922 specifically says that it must be a court, commission or board with the appropriate legal standing...if something has now defined the VA board as an appropriate legal authority to make that decision, I haven't seen that yet. The CFR specifically says
From 38 C.F.R. 3.353
§ 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.
If the VA is following its own procedure, there is due process and a presumption of competence, the same as a "civilian" would expect to get from a court.
If that's the case, any vet so denied would have cause of action for being unconstitutionally stripped of their rights....I hadn't seen that Washington times article yet...fwiw, I am a disabled veteran, and haven't received that letter yet
Have you been accused by the VA of being incompetent to handle your own disbursements? If not, then you probably won't get one. This appears to be the way the VA is approaching this, through the only justifiable authority they have, which has nothing at all to do with whether one is a danger to themselves or others.
Please understand that I don't want anyone who's a danger to themselves or others to have access to firearms. But in order to safeguard the rights of all veterans and ensure Due Process, there needs to be a court adjudication or competency hearing finding (with the veteran and their counsel present to ensure his or her rights are protected) before being reported to NICS. There also needs to be a method to have their rights restored if they happen to complete treatment and be determined to no longer be mentally incompetent. JMO
Not gun rights related, but there has been a landmark case where the VA was determined to not be affording vets Due Process. I believe it was Cushman vs, Shinseki, circa 2009.
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-22-13, 17:49
Neither of the two NCOs I know were deemed incompetent, they are married with kids and in there 30 and 40s.
This guy (http://kerry-patton.com/dear-shit-for-brains-authenticate-your-crap/) has a different opinion on the subject.
Nothing pisses me off more than some jackass willing to write disinformation in an attempt to place fear into the hearts of Americans. But if you really want to make me want to rip your larynx out of your throat, write that disinformation utilizing veterans to pitch your crap. And that’s exactly what some shit for brains just did.
While writing about Red Flag News and some jack ass named Michael Connelly spreading false reports about the Veterans Administration sending out letters to vets and their 2nd Amendment rights, something forced me to go back and read his report just one more time.
Obviously my blood is boiling right now.
Why wouldn’t Michael Connelly show his readers this rumored letter drafted by the VA? Was it to protect the identity of the recipient? No. That would mean Connelly actually does care about at least one veteran.
Let me tell you why I now despise this piece of crap claimed attorney by exposing the real shit-bag he truly is.
Mr. Connelly decided not to reveal the letter in its entirety because he didn’t want any of his readers to know the truth about the letter. Let me explain.
The letter Mr. Connelly discusses appears to be a cautionary, cover your ass (CYA), letter sent by the VA to a veteran. The letter appears to be confirming an offer from the VA to declare this veteran as “disabled” due to psychological issues. That is, he will have been certified as crazy if he accepts his diagnosed disability.
The paragraph is a warning that, if the veteran accepts this diagnosis and the benefits that come with it, there will also be consequences such as limitations garnered from his 2nd Amendment rights.
That’s the context that is missing from the excerpt. The “out of context” report just shares the “you will be barred from owning firearms” paragraph. And that is the part which proves Mr. Connelly has an agenda.
It is horrible and incredibly unethical blogging that promotes fear-mongering. There’s enough going on that is really bad without fools doing this. Mr. Connelly is a fool likely never realizing someone would eventually catch on.
Well Mr. Connelly, this veteran caught on. And I am doing all my brethren who served a service in exposing your sorry ass. Take warning for all you jackasses wishing to use veterans and veteran issues to promote your own agenda, I am not alone.
I, along with many like-minded veterans, will identify you and expose you if you make attempts to unethically use us and our experiences to promote your own agenda. Don’t do us any favors. We are a brotherhood for a reason. Don’t **** with us!
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-22-13, 19:14
Tell you what, tomorrow I will contact the NCOs and get the letters
I've got no dog in the fight other than looking at varying opinions that are publicly available. The VA's a pain in the ass to deal with I know, I'm a disabled veteran, but they also do a lot of good for vets as well.
I know several veterans personally who are in need of psychiatric services who will not reach out to the VA or anyone else for fear that their firearms will be taken away.
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-22-13, 21:03
I've got no dog in the fight other than looking at varying opinions that are publicly available. The VA's a pain in the ass to deal with I know, I'm a disabled veteran, but they also do a lot of good for vets as well.
I know several veterans personally who are in need of psychiatric services who will not reach out to the VA or anyone else for fear that their firearms will be taken away.
I am as well, and I know exactly what your talking about. This scares me a lot and I am hoping that through threads like this others will also worry and make the right decisions.
This guy (http://kerry-patton.com/dear-shit-for-brains-authenticate-your-crap/) has a different opinion on the subject.
Did he read the same letter posted in .pdf format on the OP's linked page? Because he got an entirely different message than I did! The letter CLEARLY states that the vet has been reported by the Portland VA as incompetent to handle his benefits disbursement, that the VA IS giving him an opportunity to challenge that report, but that the vet will have to prove that he is competent, not the other way around. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the VA WILL determine that he is incompetent, and that he will lose his 2nd Amendment rights unless he files a relief request and that the VA will determine if said relief is warranted.
Now, unless Mr. Patton is claiming that this letter is a LIE, I think he's full of shit. That letter did not in any way come across as an "offer" to declare the vet "disabled". Incompetent is the operative word and it's used repeatedly in the letter. Unless Mr. Patton is an attorney, I don't think I'd listen to him on the definition of a legal document.
My primary issue is that this process appears (according to the linked letter) to be a legally binding adjudication on a veterans 2nd Amendment rights, that is based on the vet being guilty unless proven innocent, not the other way around. The hearing that is mentioned at the end of the letter should be mandatory, not optional. If the vet can't afford an attorney to represent him, one should be afforded to him at no cost.
If the letter is a forgery, then disregard everything I've said in this post. That would have to be one monumentally stupid attorney to forge a VA document though! :confused:
Belmont31R
02-22-13, 22:23
It could be worse....oh lol it is! DHS is training kids to shoot Iraq vets...
IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html
Never visit a mental health professional, no matter how bad you feel or what shitty circumstance is going on in your life.
Never tell a doctor you are depressed.
Just wait until this is tied to Obamacare somehow, and you get into a database. Poof, no more guns for you.
Belmont31R
02-22-13, 22:37
Never visit a mental health professional, no matter how bad you feel or what shitty thing is going on in your life.
Never tell a doctor you are depressed.
Just wait until this is tied to Obamacare somehow, and you get into a database. Poof, no more guns for you.
That's not right. If some really needs help they need to see a doctor. However, even as a vet, I would not step foot in a VA facility. Go see a private mental health doctor.
My wife is bipolar, and she cannot function without medication. Whats wrong with the VA picture is they are not a court of law, and due process is not done on some gov workers desk and if they want to create some monkey courts like the domestic spying judges then thats a whole new issue.
What's going to get a lot of people caught up is LYING to get benefits. I had a guy on my own team message me, and asked me to lie to whoever it was about 'what we did in Iraq'. We were commo guys, and ran an ICP and did some shit around the base. No one in my company got a purple heart on our 2nd deployment and he wanted me to lie about it so he could get medically retired and get the bennies. I did respect him when we were on the same team so I never forwarded that message to anyone but at the same time the VA is not a court of law.
That's not right. If some really needs help they need to see a doctor. However, even as a vet, I would not step foot in a VA facility. Go see a private mental health doctor.
My wife is bipolar, and she cannot function without medication. Whats wrong with the VA picture is they are not a court of law, and due process is not done on some gov workers desk and if they want to create some monkey courts like the domestic spying judges then thats a whole new issue.
What's going to get a lot of people caught up is LYING to get benefits. I had a guy on my own team message me, and asked me to lie to whoever it was about 'what we did in Iraq'. We were commo guys, and ran an ICP and did some shit around the base. No one in my company got a purple heart on our 2nd deployment and he wanted me to lie about it so he could get medically retired and get the bennies. I did respect him when we were on the same team so I never forwarded that message to anyone but at the same time the VA is not a court of law.
First, there are a lot of reasons not to step foot into a VA medical facility, and fear of losing your 2nd Amendment rights is the least of them.
Having said that, I have to wonder if some of the gun grabbing tactics is Uncle Sam responding to the flood of disability claims since 9/11. It is almost like they are calling the vets bluff. Definitely not how I'd hope they would handle suspected fraudulent claims...
Belmont31R
02-22-13, 23:24
First, there are a lot of reasons not to step foot into a VA medical facility, and fear of losing your 2nd Amendment rights is the least of them.
Having said that, I have to wonder if some of the gun grabbing tactics is Uncle Sam responding to the flood of disability claims since 9/11. It is almost like they are calling the vets bluff. Definitely not how I'd hope they would handle suspected fraudulent claims...
Well I'll just say if people who need help can afford it go to a private doctor.
And I want to add the Obama admin has been pushing for taking 'due process' out of the court's hands since Holder first got into office back in 2009 when Holder was advocating for adding the 'no fly list' to the NICS database. They want to pick and choose who gets rights, and it appears they are doing it within the VA right now. Vets are civilians. No longer on the active rolls or subject to UCMJ.
Fraud does happen, and I think based on what I've gone through and what I've had other vets tell me its not just people scamming the system but an internal problem as well. When I was ETS'ing applying for unemployment was pushed on us in the briefings. I've been told of worse things like PTSD and how to answer 'correctly' to get long term benefits.
That's not right. If some really needs help they need to see a doctor.
I know it is not right. But this is going to happen.
Belmont31R
02-22-13, 23:34
I know it is not right. But this is going to happen.
That's why I said see a private doctor. The VA is a failure and now they can't even get GI Bill benefits out before the current semester is even over. The VA councilor at my school does a great job though, and my school has had to implement new policies like tuition deferment because it now takes the VA 2-5 months (or more) to get people's contractually obligated benefits to vets.
Yet I read all the time how welfare rats can go get a 'cash' card same day worth hundreds of dollars.
I'll be honest here. I was suffering from depression a few years ago. I refused to discuss it with my Doctor. Why? Three Words: The Lautenberg Amendment. A law was passed and applied retroactively to strip Americans of their rights, even though they weren't felons. Simply put, I no longer trust my own government not to pass future laws that may take onto account, my past medical history. Fortunately I don't have a criminal history for them to take advantage of, unless they can tie speeding to gun rights. Because I also played it smart and don't have any medical history of mental health issues, the same applies there. :ph34r:
What I find most revealing is the fact that the VA appears to be targeting the rights of the physically incapacitated as well as the mentally. At face value this is a flagrant over-reach since the implied purpose of this action is to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to abuse them. How is a physical disability going to make someone prone to abuse a firearm? If anything, a person with a disability is in more need of a weapon for protection.
However, I'm saving my outrage for when we have a verified case of a vet being unjustly denied a firearms purchase. Right now I see some outrageous positions from the VA, but nobody has come forward as a victim of this policy. I'll be happy to contribute money to their legal campaign if/when a victim is identified.
Yet I read all the time how welfare rats can go get a 'cash' card same day worth hundreds of dollars.
At least you know your position on society's totem pole (or, scrotum pole might be a more accurate description).
Belmont31R
02-23-13, 00:13
At least you know your position on society's totem pole (or, scrotum pole might be a more accurate description).
My best friend did a program through the Marines, which I forget the name of, but in the Army it was 'Green to Gold', and they never told him the catch was he had to use his GI Bill benefits to pay for his schooling which he was already obligated to receive after his enlisted duty anyways. They make it sound like its an 'extra' benefit on top of anything else but all they did is release him a year early to go eat up his GI Bill so he would get stuck with another 6 years of service.
Hard to believe it, but the gov treats welfare rats with kid gloves, even promotes it, but lies and ****s over soldiers and vets all the time.
My best friend did a program through the Marines, which I forget the name of, but in the Army it was 'Green to Gold', and they never told him the catch was he had to use his GI Bill benefits to pay for his schooling which he was already obligated to receive after his enlisted duty anyways. They make it sound like its an 'extra' benefit on top of anything else but all they did is release him a year early to go eat up his GI Bill so he would get stuck with another 6 years of service.
Hard to believe it, but the gov treats welfare rats with kid gloves, even promotes it, but lies and ****s over soldiers and vets all the time.
Humm, your buddy did not do his due diligence if he picked up 6 years of AD. Rather than do GTG, I used my enlisted GI Bill for my first 18 months of college. I then got a 2-year ROTC scholarship for the remaining portions of undergrad (I spent 3 calendar years in college due to AP credits, summer sessions, and 18-20 credit semesters). That scholarship required that I spend 6-years in the reserves.
Don Robison
02-23-13, 00:46
For those wondering what the VA considers due process; I looked up their regulation. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but unless you are already involuntarily institutionalized it appears to me that they make a determination and it's incumbent upon the veteran to disprove the VA's ruling to the VA. Oh yea and pay for the privilege unless you want to be represented by someone they approve.
It's Part IV chapter 9 if you want to pull it up for yourself.
http://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/m21_1.asp
9.13 DUE PROCESS IN INCOMPETENCY DETERMINATIONS
a. General. Before making a rating determination of incompetency (par. 17.15), VA must satisfy the requirements of notice and hearing, except as provided below. If sufficient evidence is of record to establish the necessary degree of probability that a payee/beneficiary is incapable of managing his or her own affairs (including disbursement of funds without limitation), prepare a notice of proposed rating and of opportunity for hearing.
b. Exception. A payee/beneficiary held by a court of jurisdiction to be incompetent or for whom a court having jurisdiction has appointed a guardian by reason of incompetency, is deemed to have had notice and hearing under laws of the State and does not require any additional notice and hearing.
c. Notice. If a preliminary rating is made, send notification of the proposed action to the beneficiary or to a custodian who may be recognized under 38 CFR 3.850(c). If the beneficiary is a patient in a medical center, send a copy of the notice to the Chief Officer of the hospital or domiciliary in which the person is institutionalized. Include in the notice:
(1) A short resume of the facts and evidence of record that would support a finding of incompetency.
(2) An explanation of the effect of such finding on payment of VA benefits.
(3) A statement of the right to submit evidence to show why the proposed action should not be taken, to have a hearing and to be represented.
(4) Also provide the following information:
(a) If a personal hearing to present evidence on the issue is desired, the request should be made to VA within 60 days. Claimants may bring witnesses and their testimony will be included in the record. VA will furnish the hearing room, provide hearing officials and prepare the transcript or summary of the proceedings, but cannot pay any other expenses of the hearing since the personal hearing is being held only on request.
(b) The beneficiary may be represented, without charge, by an accredited representative of a veterans’ organization or other service organization recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or may employ an attorney. If a representative has not been designated but is desired, the beneficiary should advise VA and the necessary forms will be furnished.
(c) If no action is taken either by submitting evidence or requesting a hearing within 60 days, a decision as to competency will be made on the basis of evidence of record.
NOTE: A sample letter is included in exhibit F.
d. Institutionalized Beneficiaries. If the beneficiary is a patient in a medical center (including veterans in non-bed-care status, on authorized or unauthorized absence or a domiciliary member), send the original notification of the proposed incompetency action to the beneficiary. Send a copy of the notice to the Chief Officer of the institution, requesting that the patient also be informed orally about the proposed action and of due process rights by a psychiatric social worker or other professional staff member designated by the Chief Officer of the institution. For veterans institutionalized by VA, hospital staff should record an appropriate entry describing the action in the veteran's medical record.
NOTE: Exercise discretion in dealing directly with the beneficiary as this type of notice could have undesirable consequences.
9-I-8
December 10, 2001 M21-1, Part IV
Change 148
e. Incompetency Determination When Child Reaches Age 18. If payments were previously made
on behalf of a minor child and an incompetency rating is needed when the child reaches age 18, send the pre-termination/reduction notice to the fiduciary previously certified by the VSCM to receive payments because of the child's minority or to a parent who is recognized under 38 CFR 3.850(c).
f. Conduct of Hearings. The Decision Review Officer is to conduct the hearings in accordance with the provisions of chapter 35. Due to the nature of the hearings, provide latitude to allow participation and assistance to the beneficiary by next of kin or any other person of the beneficiary's choice.
g. Authorization Procedure. If a rating proposes to rate a beneficiary incompetent, notify the beneficiary, Chief Officer of the hospital or VA domiciliary or custodian, whichever is applicable. Give notice of the proposed action, of the right to a hearing and of the right to submit any pertinent evidence. Control the case. At the end of the 60-day notice period take immediate rating action, if indicated. After the rating decision is completed, refer to paragraph 17.15 for procedures to follow to appoint a fiduciary.
h. Notice of Disagreement. If, after any formal rating of incompetency, an NOD is received, prepare a Statement of the Case (SOC) and send it to the beneficiary (or fiduciary, if applicable) and the beneficiary's or fiduciary's representative. Enclose VA Form 9, "Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals," with the SOC for use in completing the appeal. In preparing the SOC, carefully consider any information that may be detrimental to the beneficiary's state of mind or other matters not to be disclosed (chapter 8). A decision as to possible detriment must be supported by a physician's opinion and advice concerning the appropriate way to communicate the information directly to the beneficiary.
i. Original Claims. If evidence of record in an original claim supports a conclusion of incompetency, the rating activity will rate the case but defer the issue of incompetency. The case is then referred to authorization to give the claimant notice of the proposed incompetency determination and an opportunity to present evidence to show that such a determination should not be made. At the end of the control period or after a hearing and receipt of evidence developed through the hearing, whichever is later, refer the case to the rating activity for a final decision on the competency issue. Do not award benefits until the incompetency issue is resolved.
The last sentence of the sample letter in the regulation. The letter is dated 1996.
If you do not submit evidence or request a hearing within 60 days, we will make a decision on the evidence of record
Belmont31R
02-23-13, 00:50
Humm, your buddy did not do his due diligence if he picked up 6 years of AD. Rather than do GTG, I used my enlisted GI Bill for my first 18 months of college. I then got a 2-year ROTC scholarship for the remaining portions of undergrad (I spent 3 calendar years in college due to AP credits, summer sessions, and 18-20 credit semesters). That scholarship required that I spend 6-years in the reserves.
Yeah but he was released early from enlisted AD to go to college to eat up his GI Bill to turn around an incur additional AD time for it, and that's what their enlisted to officer program does. While think your method is better a lot of these guys can only do so much, and don't get all the information or told this stuff upfront. He was enlisted AD for 3 years before being released, and had already been deployed once to Iraq and was in AFG when he got accepted.
I was told I could go to college while I was in, and out of the entire 6 years I was in there was one semester I could have attended. Part of the problem is no one same person ever has the same experience, and Im sure some asshole out there got to go to college classes every semester he could no one in my unit ever did. lmao we had people going to JAG because my unit illegally stop-lossed people. Going to college? :rolleyes:
Did he read the same letter posted in .pdf format on the OP's linked page?
Sorry for the drive by posting... Up to my ears lately... Here's some better info. To clarify I'm not saying I agree with either one but wanted to throw out some additional info. http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265
This is yet another reason to add to a long list that justifies changes to the way the VA handles disabled Veterans. I have been dealing with the VA since 1985.
In my humble opinion, I believe that the VA should have a clearing house to pay disability payments and for medical benefits earned by Veterans. They should not have any hospitals, clinics or any other facilities owned and operated by the VA. A Veteran who has earned the benefits should be able to choose their doctors and hospitals for treatment and the VA should make payments to the medical care providers. This would save tens of millions of dollars per year in overhead and better serve our Veterans.
They should not have any hospitals, clinics or any other facilities owned and operated by the VA.
The amount of rampant nepotism in the entire federal system is staggering...
Sorry for the drive by posting... Up to my ears lately... Here's some better info. To clarify I'm not saying I agree with either one but wanted to throw out some additional info. http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265
Thanks for the update. It's beginning to appear that the actual situation is somewhere in between the two extremes. I'm absolutely against requiring the vet to provide evidence to the contrary without an actual hearing, and it shouldn't require the vet to take the reins on whether it happens, it should be automatic. After all, in every other aspect of life, we don't adjudicate someone to be a criminal or mentally incompetent unless they object. It would be different if the VA were saying "We're going to have a mental competency hearing, unless you waive this right and agree to the proposed adjudication."
It probably isn't widespread and most who are deemed mentally incompetent, probably are. But we're talking about stripping someone's right to defensive arms based on their handling of their finances. That isn't enough IMO. :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.