Posted on 04/05/2016 7:12:53 PM PDT by kitchen
“These vets have 100% disability for mental disorders and have been adjudged by multiple doctors as incapable of receiving their own check and administering their own affairs.”
Are you speaking as a VA senior administrator with access to the personal medical files of 260,000 veterans?
If not, you are asking every other veteran to trust in the infallibility of the VA mental health evaluation process, and nothing less.
Give em hell+ when I go to the VA clinic for medical purposes I am always happy, never had a bad day, ever. I know the games the leftards play.
ComDems are afraid of “Vets with Guns”, when it becomes clear what their real Political Agenda is.
Funny how there is no real adjudication or even due process of any kind. We create a trust that allows the owner to withdraw as trustee and appoint a successor to take control of the trust property (I.e. Guns) ifor the benefit of the trustmaker. This will prevent clients with important family collections to avoid guns being deemed " contraband" by ATF which would make it subject to confiscation.
Sorry about the rant but this stuff is pissing me off!
So strip the VA of all funding, Chuck. You have the power.
L
Just another DOG AND PONY SHOW!
QUIT LYING, You Have ALL the Necessary Tools and Authority to get to the Bottom of ANYTHING you so Desire.
These SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN have the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to get All the Answers they wish and they can act on those answers as they wish. Instead they JUST WHINE AND BITCH, while DOING NOTHING!:
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
That is absolutely not true.
And as far as knowing what is going on, I attend a weekly group with a dozen of these guys...and have for many years.
Those that can be found and stabilized that is.
Additionally, guns are not being confiscated, they are putting these guys on a list that means they can't buy a gun legally.
For decades the NRA and other groups have been complaining existing law is not being enforced. This is simply preventing the legal purchase of firearms by the mentally deficient.
You want to give 'em one, go ahead.
They can't even handle their own money and you want them to be able to buy a gun?
Nah it doesn’t work like that. Have you ever felt.. Got you. Do you fit in this box... Got you. Never talk to these people if you can avoid it. They are not your friend.
Since 1964 at least 30million have served, that we have 1% that are complete nutcases should not surprise anyone.
You probably know a lot more about this issue than I do, but 260,000 seems like a ridiculously high number of vets who can’t buy a gun.
“Mentally deficient” and “mentally defective” are not medical diagnoses or medical terms. They are legal terms.
As shawnlaw points out above, no doctor is consulted in the process that results in the vet being put on a gun no-buy list. It is a purely administrative set of federal rules that automatically designate any vet with a feduciary to go on the no-buy list.
Mariner, I’m not disagreeing with all your points. You are right that people deemed mentally unstable should not buy guns. But that is not what is happening in this instance.
No specific requirement guarantees a mental or medical evaluation. Feduciary status is judged by the Agency to indicate mental instability. De facto. The vet may never see a single doctor and get on this list.
This is removal of 2nd amendment rights through solely bureaucratic and impersonal means.
it is essential for O to disarm Americans if the IslamoNazi invasion forces O’s bringing in... are to have the easiest-possible path to ultimate victory in conquering USA
the IslamoNazis are no different than the original Nazis...
they want to disarm the citizenry to render our self-defense impossible
there is truly very little new under the sun
history repeats itself, especially when the masses of people are not paying attention
“Obama wants answers why VA allowed 19 million vets to keep gun rights”
I’ve told friends of mine that are trying to get service connected PTSD not to do it, they will eventually lose their 2nd amendment rights. I would never claim it nowadays, but do worry that the dems might try and use any service connected disability as an excuse to take our guns away.
I have the facts. Disagreement is not cause to assume a lack of understanding or information on a matter.
.
The CFR which gives the VA the ability to judge incompetency is narrowly defined as relating to insurance and VA financial benefits.
The VA is not granted the ability to make that judgement outside of their legal constructions.
In instituting their NICS reporting policy they are assigning themselves the role of a legal authority under an ATF rule which has not been granted to them specifically in law. Commitment, whether voluntary or involuntary, and a noted danger to themselves or others remain reports which are based on a medical opinion, and the VA as a medical provider may of course (and should) report such findings.
I'd be interested in finding out how many of those 260,000 are over 80. I'd wager it is the majority.
It really is simple. If one isn't allowed, then all are not allowed. Should these 260,000 be forbidden from addressing others in public, as if they are unfit for gun rights, why would they have the rights of free speech? Heck, imprison them, no need to have a jury of their peers. Either the bill of rights is intact under these conditions, or you might as well outfit them for striped jumpsuits.
SCOTUS has been rather clear - denying anyone their rights is a strict scrutiny situation in courts, there has to be an overwhelming government interest, and there's not one here.
If some 95 year old wants to go buy a howitzer and blow out his ear drums firing it into a hill, that's his right. Of course, these people also don't hold the checkbooks over their own finances. Those who administer the money would have to approve the purchase and provide the funds. So I think that there is absolutely no government interest at stake here, and these names should immediately and irrevocably be removed from the list.
And truthfully, I'd get it done as soon as possible, because at any moment, some lawyer's going to realize that he's got a massive class, many of whom are decorated service members, and all have little to fear from an angered government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.