VA Says the VA will not comply with the Veterans' Second Amendment Restoration Act

Not just the VA, keep thy lip ZIPPED

I'll begin painting with my 68 year old broad brush.
Many of us here on TFL are of the older generation, Dr. appointments are a bigger fact of life as we age. Recognize when you cross the threshold at any hospital or clinic, you are effectively stepping on to enemy ground.
The medical profession is loaded, loaded with anti-gun individuals to a far greater percentage than most.
Shut the hell up when it comes to your gun and shooting hobbies, it is none of their business. The unfortunate fact is some in the profession will make it their business to "protect the children"
Practice your firearms hobby privately and quietly....as I post this on the frickin internet! Politely decline any firearms related questions from medical professionals, in this respect it is very unlikely they are your friends.
 
Gentlemen:

> The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, within 30 days of enactment of this Act,
> and in accordance with section 40901(e)(1)(D) of title 34, United States Code,
> notify the Attorney General that the transmittal by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
> of personally identifiable information of a beneficiary, solely on the basis of a
> determination by the Secretary to pay benefits to a fiduciary ...to any entity
> in the Department of Justice, for use by the national instant criminal background
> check system established ... was improper under the law because such
> individuals were not adjudicated as a mental defective under 18 U.S.C. 922(g).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9053/text

That's all it says. Nothing about PTSD, disability payments, or anything else.
 
I will remind, with regard to Lead if you are a reloader. Fishermen use lead sinkers, casting lead sinkers would have no difference in potential health impact versus casting bullets. Dental X-ray film has a thin sheet of good Lead in each and every piece of film, the dental office must collect the Lead for recycling. I would take the Lead off their hands for free, which they really liked. The amount I was able to collect about doubled if I told them it was for fishing sinkers versus casting bullets. I am an honest man, some of it became sinkers..:) other Lead became really fast moving sinkers.
 
Since there appears to be plenty to go around, lets play the blame game and see who it most at fault, and where, and who is merely complicit and why..

Is it the White House, for ordering all federal agencies to "share information" in the desire to improve efficiency??

Or the VA, SS and who knows what other groups for sharing their information under their in house proprietary headings, WITHOUT explanation of what those entail??

The Justice dept plugging those headings into NICS without being aware (or ignoring) the fact that they were not legal definitions under the law, but simply the classification used by other agencies without reference or adherence to the actual law??

I'd say the blame belongs on all of the above and on some other things I haven't specifically mentioned.
 
Let's not expand further than the issue at hand.
(That way madness Lies.)

at issue is
(1)
> [Reporting] ...solely on the basis of a determination by the Secretary to pay benefits
> to a fiduciary ... for use by the national instant criminal background check system.

(2)
Refusal by the head of VA -- [when] obligated under the Law -- to report this as an error.

.
 
Last edited:
politicians and those appointed by them say all sorts of things and do otherwise when the time comes, the bill isnt law yet. lets see what they do when it becomes law.
 
Mehavey said:
at issue is
(1)
> [Reporting] ...solely on the basis of a determination by the Secretary to pay benefits
> to a fiduciary ... for use by the national instant criminal background check system.

(2)
Refusal by the head of VA -- [when] obligated under the Law -- to report this as an error.
Click to expand...
When I initially opened this discussion, that's what I thought the issue was. But the head of the VA testified that he didn't think his agency is required to follow a law that somebody else (some other agency) had suggested they don't have to follow. The Veterans Second Amendment Restoration Act has not yet been made into law. What HAS been made into law is the requirement for the VA to stop reporting veterans to NICS over the issue of a designated fiduciary. I believe that's what the director was testifying that the VA won't follow.

In other words -- they'll continue with business as usual, despite having been told by the Congress that doing so is contrary to Federal law.

Of course, if the Veterans Second Amendment Restoration Act becomes law, I fully expect the VA to ignore that, as well.

The reality is that's, while infuriating, it's also silly. Veterans' benefits today are paid by electronic deposit to the recipient's bank account, and have been for a good number of years. I I hand my checkbook to my daughter and tell her to pay my bills and balance the checkbook every month -- there's simply no way for the VA to know.

That said, the law addressing prohibition for mental deficiency clearly states "adjudicated." The VA Health Care system doesn't have courts and doesn't have judges, so their "determinations" boil down to nothing more than opinions -- not adjudications.
 
The disconnect is two major places, with a third one being the "kicker" of the VA director's testimony.

The first mistake is the VA and SS reporting individuals as "mentally disabled" without the due process specified in law. Its not holy writ, their classification doesn't even meet the standards to be "church dogma".

The second mistake is the NICS accepting VA (or SS) classification of mentally disabled as if it were holy writ. And, acting in accordance with that, placing people who are not legally adjudicated mentally incompetent into the prohibited persons category.

And then there is the kicker from the head of the VA stating, essentially, that since the Justice Dept told them they don't have to, they will not follow either the existing or the proposed law (when passed).

I guess that stating they won't follow the law keep him clear of charges for lying under oath, but I don't see the equivalent of telling Congress to go pound sand to be a career enhancing moment for an appointed head of a Federal agency.

Time will tell, I'm sure....:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top