Posted on 07/12/2024 9:00:44 AM PDT by 11th_VA
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials testified during a Wednesday House hearing that the department would not comply with proposed legislation barring it from sending certain information about U.S. military veterans to the federal government’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
The VA reasons that reliance on a fiduciary indicates a beneficiary is mentally incompetent. Federal law states firearms dealers receive a “deny message” if a NICS check for a potential buyer determines the buyer has been adjudicated as a mental defective.
…
Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) challenged the VA witnesses later on in the hearing to explain their opposition to the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act. …
VA Deputy Director of Pension and Fiduciary Service Kevin Friel denied that referring to veterans as mentally incompetent makes them less likely to want to seek the VA’s help …
…
“Is it the VA’s position that the VA will not comply with an act of Congress?” he asked.
“Yes sir. I guess, based off of what you have in testimony, yes sir,” Friel replied.
“That you would not comply?” Rosendale reiterated.
“Yes sir,” Friel said again.
“Well, I’m glad everybody hears that on the record—that the VA is going to refuse to comply regardless of what we actually pass here,” Rosendale said.
Minutes later in the hearing, Crane again pressed Friel to explain his thought process for deciding whether to follow the laws passed by Congress.
“The problem is we’re talking about veterans’ rights and due process and their right to bear and keep arms, another constitutional premise. But you, you’re willing to do what your boss [Biden] tells you to do, even if it violates their rights,” Crane said. “You should do some soul searching sir, you really should.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanmilitarynews.com ...
We’re going to need a bigger gallows.
That article was not particularly impartial.
1) A veteran rated 100% disabled for Mental Health reasons, service connected, will almost always have a Fiduciary appointed. Meaning, they lose all control over their own money. That’s why that specific witness was there. He is in charge of Fiduciary appointments and people, heads up on this, once one is appointed it is almost impossible to get them removed.
The point being made is the Fiduciary appointed is going to control the Veteran’s money and that Veteran will not have a gun purchased authorized by the Fiduciary because at 100% mentally disabled they are not going to pass a background check anyway. So he is saying he won’t forward such information to the background checking agency because the veteran cannot buy a gun regardless.
This is not a major controversy. Fiduciary entities are not appointed for a veteran at 20% disabled or 50 or 70. At 100% it is almost automatic, for the veteran’s own good. Most of these guys have not been able to hold a job for decades and are on the VA’s $16K/yr pension. The Fiduciary has control of all of that.
This is not a big 2nd Amendment controversy. This is a congress guy not up to speed on VA norms.
Pass the legislation, send the lawbreaking VA officials to federal prison.
Lawbreaking by public servants ends when lawbreaking public servants are held personally liable, both civilly and criminally, for their lawbreaking. Put them in prison and impoverish their families. It's fair: it's what they (try to) do to We the People.
Assuming for the moment that this is true, the bureaucrat is still in the wrong. Bureaucrats don't get to violate the law just because the law contradicts their "norms". They are bound to obey the law, and to change their "norms" when the law requires them to do so. If this bureaucrat is convinced that the proposed law is a bad idea, he has the right to explain his reasoning to Congress. In the end, though, he must obey the law even if he doesn't like it.
His other option is to resign.
Thank you. I see that the bill is the opposite of what I had feared. I can see why Biden might pressure VA not to comply. I predict Biden will not sign the measure.
I seem to recall that back in the Obama days, Pelosi favored red-flagging all veterans, I don’t know if because of a presumed propensity for PTSD or a rational fear she might one day face well trained riflemen in an insurrection.
If a veteran is incompetent to handle their own affairs, there’s no sane reason to provide them with access to firearms - even for political points. It’s no different than any other mental health issue.
Screw the soul-searching.
Just Prison.
Drip Drip Drip
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.