Replies

This is ominous. He goes on to suggest those on social security could get a letter preventing them from buying or owning a firearm because they are OLD.

So, how do they get the guns from the old people? If they knew the old people had them, then they could withhold their social security check until they turned in their guns. Some states now that require a gun to be registered, would provide the data base for that state and the feds would stop those SS checks until the guns were turned in.

In states where guns are not registered, how would they know which old people had them and how many they had?

Never register a gun. When you pass 65, if that is the age limit, you could lose your guns or your check.

Hussein wants our guns and he will make “rules” to get them.

I would like to clarify a couple of things about this. People are correct to be suspicious about the lack of judicial involvement in these decisions, however I don’t think it’s as sinister as it appears (YET).

I am in the VA system for PTSD, so I think I can chime in from a knowledgeable position.

There is a difference between being rated for PTSD and being found incompetent to handle one’s financial affairs. The VA proposes the incompetence hearing when it believes you are incapable of using the money they are sending you to care for yourself. There are veterans who receive thousands each month and are homeless because they do not have the mental capacity to find or maintain housing, to buy groceries or to otherwise care for themselves due to serious service-connected disabilities.

The incompetence hearing is a mechanism by which VA can designate someone else to receive your benefits as a Payee, and then that person becomes responsible for paying your rent, buying your groceries and other life sustaining bills. The Payee is always your spouse, brother, sister, adult child, or other immediate family member if such person exists and you authorize them to be Payee. If not, VA appoints a trustee.

The logic at VA goes on to conclude that if you are incapable of sustaining your own life with the money they are giving you, then you probably are not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

Now, there are plenty of arguments to be made that this blanket policy is unfair (and likely unconstitutional) because it doesn’t involve judicial determination of competency to possess firearms, and I agree with most of those arguments.

Currently, a veteran can challenge the VA’s competency findings in court. There was a proposal recently that would have stripped the veteran of this judicial review and made the VA’s findings final. In other words, a VA employee could forever ban a veteran from possessing firearms under that recent proposal. As it stands now, it can still be challenged.

I believe this is a terribly dangerous power for a bureaucrat to wield, and I agree that any incompetency assertion should be challenged by a veteran unless they agree that it is accurate.

However, I believe that there are, in fact, veterans who are incapable of managing their own affairs due to their service-connected disabilities, and that it probably is a good idea for any veteran determined to be so mentally incapable that they cannot buy their own food to be reviewed for suitability to possess firearms.

In summary, the INTENT of the incompetency hearings are probably reasonable in almost all cases, they just need to be conducted by a court rather than VA. That’s my opinion.

A finding of incompetency is not tied to a diagnosis of PTSD. It’s primary use is in cases where a veteran is so mentally incapacitated, most often by dementia than anything else, that they need someone to oversee their VA benefit payment to ensure they are not taken advantage of. Why it is also used to take guns away beats me. The incompetency decision is based on a statement from a physician, usually a V A doctor. The VA has noticed too many doctors indicating vets can not handle their own funds (to cover their own butts probably) and have began looking for evidence to support the doctors statement and not making a decision only on one doctors statement.