Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    LePetomane's Avatar
    LePetomane is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Woodbury, Mnnesota
    Posts
    80

    Article in Fox News

    An article appeared on the Fox News website entitled, "Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill". This bill would put the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own finances into the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.

    I wish these guys would stop picking on the veterans who have sacrificed for our freedoms and start going after real criminals. Mental illness databases for civilians do not interface with the background check system. That's how we ended up with the nut shooting up the Colorado theater, Jared Loughner and other armed nuts.

    Hell, the thought of financial responsibility as a requirement would eliminate all of Washington. These guys have a lot of nerve.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Scott9mm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    117
    As I understand the issue, the VA routinely puts these folks in the NCIBC now and the amendment is intended to stop that practice.

    From Huffington: "The number of veterans directly affected by the VA's policy doesn't appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June."

    What's large IMO is the 127K vets who are already being treated like dangerous criminals. If a VA shrink determines a patient is a danger, I have no problem with dangerous vets getting the same treatment as anyone else. But this VA current policy is a blanket overreach that must make the gun grabbers and the anti-military folks very happy. Maybe they figure vets are more likely to resist enemies of the Constitution.

  3. #3
    usmcj's Avatar
    usmcj is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    403

    • Being retired from a Veterans Administration Psych facility... I"ll offer this......

      Adjudication is the key word regarding competency....


      HR 2640 Section 101 (c)(.1)

      (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

      (A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

      (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

      (C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


      • ...and just for the hell of it.... I've been diagnosed with PTSD for over 20 years, and I buy guns at will.

        Have there been specific cases where a Veteran had problems that should not have been? Certainly. Whose life has been perfect? With the massive influx of Veterans to the Veterans Administration Health Care System, some problems are likely to occur. Please refrain from knee-jerking in reacting to some highly provocative internet postings, that have surfaced in recent years.... and this one has been around for a while.

        Get ALL THE DETAILS.... then grab yer tin-foil hats if you feel the need.



















  4. #4
    rex
    rex is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,299
    Ironic,the Gov't is the reason for putting them in a situation to cause the problem,and want to screw them again.Same ol' same ol'.

  5. #5
    Scott9mm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    117
    For USMCJ: I'm somewhat confused by your post. HR 2640 was signed into law in Jan 08. The current Defense Authorization fight is about restricting release of such information to Justice, not increasing it. So this is not a knee jerk to the current issue.

    Question: What does the VA actually do now? Do they in fact routinely put all those who "need" help with financial affairs in NCIBC?

  6. #6
    usmcj's Avatar
    usmcj is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    403
    In my years in the VA system, I have not been aware of any fiduciary cases that have been turned over to Justice. 2640 prevents release of info without adjudication... regardless of diagnosis. (but obviously there have been some) I think the current issue will/should clarify the adjudication aspect. The knee jerk is that this is the second time around, for a similar process, and the blame is often attributed to the VA, who is simply trying to decide who to listen to.

  7. #7
    n4aof is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott9mm View Post
    As I understand the issue, the VA routinely puts these folks in the NCIBC now and the amendment is intended to stop that practice.

    From Huffington: "The number of veterans directly affected by the VA's policy doesn't appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June."

    What's large IMO is the 127K vets who are already being treated like dangerous criminals. If a VA shrink determines a patient is a danger, I have no problem with dangerous vets getting the same treatment as anyone else. But this VA current policy is a blanket overreach that must make the gun grabbers and the anti-military folks very happy. Maybe they figure vets are more likely to resist enemies of the Constitution.
    One problem is that there are a number of supposedly Veterans Organizations around the country that encourage all combat veterans to seek disability compensation for PTSD, and will help guide them in making the claim show that the aftermath of their combat experience reaches the level of a 'disability' (i.e. it interferes with normal life activities).

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Springfield Armory

» HGF Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1