VA banning guns from vets

On Thursday, Michael Connelly, J.D., executive director of the United States Justice Foundation​, said that veterans are receiving letters informing them that the government is about to declare them incompetent to handle their own affairs. As a result, Connelly said, the government will "appoint a stranger" to handle their affairs at their expense, and restrict them from owning firearms. Worse yet, he says, this is being done without due process.

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reportedly says.

According to Connelly, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has sent this letter to "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of veterans.

"In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling," he added.

The letter contains no specifics and gives no reason for the proposed judgment other than to say that someone in the VA has made the recommendation. The letter then tells the veteran that he or she must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the veteran desires a hearing, they must inform the VA within 30 days.


"In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall '…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,'” he wrote.

He goes on to say the effort is part of the administration's effort to disarm Americans.

"Think about it," he wrote, "the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied."

Connelly then wonders if recipients of Social Security are next in line.

"Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans," he concluded.

Not sure exactly where you got this but I read that DrudgeReport.com wrote this misleading headline: "REPORT: Feds send letters to vets prohibiting ownership..." which left out the "mentally ill" part.

So they meant Mentally ill vets...not just vets.

Not from drudge

Am i the only one who finds this offensive?

I care about it. I am just trying to find more info about it. Time is what I am lacking.

Alright, in doing a bit of research, it seems that this is being blown out of proportion. The vets that are receiving those letters are those whose family have filed the papers to declare them incapable of taking care of themselves.

It isn't as bad as MR. Connelly leads us to believe (it seems that his quote may have even been taken out of context) and it isn't what Dennis would have us believe either......it isn't crazy people.

In most cases it is comatose vets.

In all cases it is only after the vet has been deemed incapable of taking care of his/her own affairs.

Here is one Marines explanation:

http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2013/02/military-veterans-receive-letters-from-va-prohibiting-ownership-or-purchase-of-firearms.html

*Sigh* Dod I dont blame you. But people are overreacting imo. You posted what the letter said yourself:

Pun wrote:On Thursday, Michael Connelly, J.D., executive director of the United States Justice Foundation​, said that veterans are receiving letters informing them that the government is about to declare them incompetent to handle their own affairs. As a result, Connelly said, the government will "appoint a stranger" to handle their affairs at their expense, and restrict them from owning firearms. Worse yet, he says, this is being done without due process.

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reportedly says.

A determination of incompetancy.

Again....

A determination of incompetancy. (ie...people hearing voices, etc.)

These sort of veterans often are people who are incapable now for whatever reason to handle their own affairs. People who need help and care. My dad worked in the psych waard at the VA hospital and took care of these sort of vets (patriots) for 30+ years. Sadly...some Vets need help and cannot take care of themselves for mental reasons. Some of these Vets turn violent.

And somehow we go from that...to people all over the net claiming that the VA is trying to strip firearms from ALL vets. My dad worked for the VA and I still deal with the VA often and I, for one, appreciate what they do for us. This is merely another case of (some) gun's rights advocates trying to demonize the govt and/or the VA.

This should not affect 99% of the veterans in this country.

Furthermore, the Brady Bill supercedes pretty much any of this. The Brady Bill was drawn up during the Reagan administration and signed into law under Bil Clinton. This bill prohibits certain persons (including people who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution) from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce.

From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.

Well first i just picked up the story from the only two sources available at the time. But to play devils advocate, just say things are the way youre saying, then why do we need a new rule or law? Surely this matter can be settled under the same processes for any civilian, but that involves a lot more than a bureaucratic appointee making a determination unilaterally. Unless the author explicily lied in saying that this wouldnt involve a judge or the same due processes as any other american citizen. And if thats case, well idk.

Pun wrote:Well first i just picked up the story from the only two sources available at the time. But to play devils advocate, just say things are the way youre saying, then why do we need a new rule or law? Surely this matter can be settled under the same processes for any civilian, but that involves a lot more than a bureaucratic appointee making a determination unilaterally. Unless the author explicily lied in saying that this wouldnt involve a judge or the same due processes as any other american citizen. And if thats case, well idk.

No, we don't need a new law, but the one in question isn't new. It is only coming to light now to spark up the anti-anti-gun people. In the past 12 years, there hasn't even been 2000 vets that have been affected. That is less than 1/2% of the total number of vets and as stated, in all cases it is when someone else has control over the well being of the vet and his/her affairs. The due process has taken place.....just not specifically towards firearms. The individual has already been through due process when it was decided that he/she could no longer take care of themselves.

Isnt that what the baker act is for?

Pun wrote:Well first i just picked up the story from the only two sources available at the time. But to play devils advocate, just say things are the way youre saying, then why do we need a new rule or law? Surely this matter can be settled under the same processes for any civilian, but that involves a lot more than a bureaucratic appointee making a determination unilaterally. Unless the author explicily lied in saying that this wouldnt involve a judge or the same due processes as any other american citizen. And if thats case, well idk.

We dont need a new law. I'm just guessing, but it sounds to me like the VA is merely saying they are going to use the provisions in the Brady bill to take weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill Vets.

The VA cant say "we're gonna make a new law". Only Congress can do that. They could, however, make rules pertaining to their organization, such as...if mentally ill people are out there owning and using guns, they will be reported and we wont give them benefits anymore.

Just saw an interview with a vietnam vet (which i dont think is related to the va thing) who found out in 2008 that he is barred from owning guns, as a result of a misdemeanor charge he got after a fist fight in....1969. And not only that, but for the last 5 years hes been fighting this to have his rights restored, and has lost several appeals.

Eh, I just had a buddy denied on the background check for.......wait for it......credit issues.

Yes sir that is correct!!!

Credit problems will stop one from exercising his/her right to bear arms!!!

Marconius wrote:Eh, I just had a buddy denied on the background check for.......wait for it......credit issues.

Yes sir that is correct!!!

Credit problems will stop one from exercising his/her right to bear arms!!!

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Eh, I just had a buddy denied on the background check for.......wait for it......credit issues.

Yes sir that is correct!!!

Credit problems will stop one from exercising his/her right to bear arms!!!

Don't ask how. A divorce will stop you from getting one as well. That one I can kinda understand, but it is still punishing one prior to committing a crime. I myself didn't know pre-crime really existed.

Then why can the government have any guns?

(Good one!)