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.
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.
Who are you really? It is maybe a little less sinister than satin himself, wake up.
I second you post but add; It’s not the PTSD in most cases ... it’s Celexa; Lexapro; Luvox; Paxil; Prozac; Zoloft; et al … Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors the infamous SSRIs’
I would add that women who have PTSD due to rape are they to be dis-armed also?
They way to beat their contention is to blame Big Pharma
and then see how fast the issue drops.