Posted on 02/21/2013 8:00:07 PM PST by wesagain
One of the letters is posted at the link, right below the article. Personal info has been redacted.
The article was written by former Army officer/ retired attorney Michael Connelly, You might try searching for info about him, to decide how much faith to put in his claims.
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 veteran's inability to handle finances does not mean he/she is a danger to himself or others. The life of a disabled vet is difficult enough without suspending their God given rights. If you don't have a reason to bar them from possessing firearms, then you have no business forcing them to defend themselves against baseless accusations.
This is why any such assertion should be made in a court, where 1. frivolous assertions would be less likely as judges don't have time for them, 2. the veteran is entitled to counsel, and 3. the determination is made under the law and not under VA policy. (By the way, this is the system in place for every other American).
I never said I want to bar veterans from owning firearms based on baseless accusations, I said I support any such accusation going through a court so that it must be proven NOT to be baseless.
No, you just said that every veteran who is incapable of handling his/her own finances should be investigated for the opportunity to deprive them of their right to own firearms.
The number of US Disabled Veterans, who are incompetent to handle their daliy affairs is quite small. Moreover, those of that group, who are buying weapons and then, attacking anyone, anywhere at anytime. This is an advancing of Clinton’s Veteran Gun Rights debacle. Illegal, immoral and unfounded in precedent of rationality. This a blanket policy designed abjure those best qualified, to resist and defend Our Country, from domestic treason.
The number of US Disabled Veterans, who are incompetent to handle their daliy affairs is quite small. Moreover, those of that group, who are buying weapons and then, attacking anyone, anywhere at anytime. This is an advancing of Clinton’s Veteran Gun Rights debacle. Illegal, immoral and unfounded in precedent of rationality. This a blanket policy designed to abjure those best qualified, to resist and defend Our Country, from domestic treason.
.
.
A very high % of those on FR are now stealth radicals that are working for da one/won - homo electus #2
Reread the comments on this thread
Insane comments revealing they themselves have judged and they want your property
Ignore the word “conservative” or and self-elevating word or title in their FR screenname(s)
“Sell your robe and buy a sword” did not include “and give it to me or else” -
.
.
I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else. That the assertion came from the VA is immaterial. There is a difference between being "inacapable" and "incompetent". It is an important distinction, as there are plenty of people incapable of being responsible with money. Being incapable due to incompetence is a different animal, and if a court rules that someone literally is mentally incompetent to house, feed and cloth themselves, then I support the temporary restriction of their right to possess arms.
I personally know two veterans who have been disarmed in this way, who after treatment proved they were then competent and got their firearms back. Both veterans agree it was in their best interest to have been disarmed at the time they were found to be incompetent.
If you think I am supporting some baseless "willy nilly" disarming of veterans who don't pay their bills on time, I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.
There will be no such court. The supposed existence of such, is a fairy tale- best told to children.
Cloward-Piven states you overwhelm until the system collapses. Also create so many laws, everyone is a criminal and to create fear is to control.
VA will be overwhelmed even more than now with claims and don’t expect to ever get your rights back, once you are in the system. The frog is cooked, too late to jump.
This is why I believe the power should be taken from VA to determine incompetence through an administrative "hearing", and be done in a court instead, like it is for all other Americans.
What the hell does an inability to handle finances have to do with being a danger to self or others? There is no connection, and no justification for assuming there is. There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.
What the hell does an inability to handle finances have to do with being a danger to self or others? There is no connection, and no justification for assuming there is. There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.
Nam Vet
Do you realize that our court system is somewhat corrupted? What federal court would decline the promotion of the blanket policy in current status? It certainly was NOT denied, by such judiciary, since Clinton’s bartered bargain.
I think I was very clear that there is a distinction between "incapable" and "incompetent". "Incompetent" means you do not possess the basic mental faculties to care for yourself. Do you support the right of a person, who does not possess the basic mental faculties to care for themselves, to possess firearms?
There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.
You are disregarding every single distinction I've made. I actually just said in a previous post that if you think I advocate disarming veterans because they don't pay their bills on time, then you misunderstand my position.
If one of my fellow veterans is literally incapable of feeding himself, I support a court making a determination whether, for his own safety, he should be allowed to possess a firearm. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I myself am a disabled veteran with PTSD.
The former Marine who was grabbed by the police a few months ago for non-threatening Facebook posts was taken to a VA hospital and held without any due process until a judge ordered him to be set free.
No, but they can be removed by force, and complacency of others to your plight.
Quote of the day;
“Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that criminals have too many guns is like getting yourself a vasectomy because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.”
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.