Veterans’ Gun Rights

[MLeake]

TomServo, the quality of VA care may not be on topic, but the integrity of the VA system should have some direct bearing.

From personal experience:

I am still a 0% disability veteran, despite back injuries requiring surgery, hearing loss, a torn achilles, and various other injuries incurred during active duty. The 0% is good, in a way - it means I am in the system, and can get my status changed later - and I have not missed the deadline (5 years) for getting into the system.

The reason I am still only a 0%, though (and this cost me $8000 in closing costs on a VA home mortgage that I should not have had to pay, were my disability rating reflective of my actual injuries) is that the VA hospital that was supposed to conduct my interview and review kept scheduling me for appointments during periods when I had told them I would be overseas. This happened three times. They also notified me by snail mail, though I told them I would be overseas and that email would be far more efficient.

Worse case than that, though - my dad's cousin was exposed to Agent Orange, because as it turns out the Army stowed it in barrels outside her barracks in the 60's when she was training as an Army medic. She has had Agent Orange related ailments for decades, now, but the VA only finally started treating her a couple years ago, and they still drag their heels.

On a similar note, the US government just recently admitted that Agent Orange was used in KOREA, and are only now starting to authorize medical procedures related to Agent Orange treatment for Korean War vets...

Last, look at the VA's record the past few years with regard to denying PTSD claims - to save money - which has earned the ire of Senator Patty Murray and the attention of the Senate, the House, and the media.

These are not people I'd want making determinations about me, for forwarding to the FBI.

 

[egor20]

Tom Servo

The quality of care the VA provides is not the topic at hand. The issue under discussion is how its actions (and the legislation dictating them) may affect veterans' gun rights.

OK Tom, some of the guys bring there own weapons, 9mm mostly, some borrow mine, long guns.

What Irks me, is the VA people asking about them



Damn near sent the barn cats on them

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Above is last line of article, I quoted it because that is exactly what has been stated by others on this forum (and GOA) and been poo-pooed by the so called "experts" here. Who's correct?

Keep in mind that the latter part of the article is quoting the mouthpiece for the Brady Bunch. The whole point of Sen. Coburn's bill was that nobody should be labelled mentally incompetent and deprived of a fundamental constitutional right without a hearing before a competent judicial authority.

Think about it: What does the question on the Form 4473 ask? "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you been committed to a mental institution?" The VA submits names to the FBI, to be placed on the list of prohibited persons, without either an adjudication or a commitment. That's beyond what the law calls for ... and that's the problem.

 

[Rifleman1776]

The VA submits names to the FBI, to be placed on the list of prohibited persons, without either an adjudication or a commitment. That's beyond what the law calls for ... and that's the problem.

Do we know that is true? Personally, I doubt it.
As for VA care, I receive my health care from the VA and could not hope to find more personalized care anywhere. The caregivers up and down the line are focused on doing the best possible for the veteran/patient. I have private insurance but choose the VA care because it is far superior to anything I could find privately. The only downside is listening to other veterans complaining about everything under the sun.

 

[thesecond]

'Adjudicated' .... versus 'declared' or 'labeled' is an important distinction, and one among many issues that had been developing long before Heller, in the relationship between patients (whether veteran or civilian) and healthcare professionals, and the firearms rights of the former.

Vets are the canaries .... or, perhaps, guinea pigs.

(Btw .... The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments are implicated. I didn't include the 8th because it's a stretch and a last resort, as far as possibilities, imo. I'll also add that a number of State legislatures already are hip to what's going on, here.)

 

[Woody55]

"Not being able to handle your own affairs" and being "a danger to yourself and others" are two completely different things. The former should have nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment rights.

In extreme cases, I don't have any problem with the VA having the power to temporarily restrict the right to possess a firearm. However, the veteran should have the right to a rapid review of the decision, and ultimately it should be decided by the courts - not an administrative agency.

For questionable cases, the VA should have to apply for a restriction from the courts. Or at least from an administrative court with a well defined appeal process to a real court.

 

[Ludwig Von Mises]

Specifically they are referring to a 5150 hold, involuntary commitment, "pink slip", what have you, which can run the gamut from drug overdoses to suicidal actions or intentions to good old fashioned hysteria.

I do agree that the law should be clarified, because I've met some guys that turned absolutely psychotic in the sandbox, but I do not believe that this represents anywhere near the majority of "PTSD" cases, and I do not believe that the VA should have anything to do with the process.

 

[thallub]

Coburn backed off at the request of senator McCain and others. McCain was reluctant to rock the boat.

So much for "taking care of our veterans".

 

[BGutzman]

The court should have to decide each case on a one by one basis, the VA should not have unilateral power... Congress as a whole seems to think it has few if any constitutional bounds...

I leave it at that...