Posted on Apr 25, 2015
Veterans losing gun rights because of VA reporting... What exactly is the truth and what do you think?
10.6K
44
48
5
5
0
PTSD
Politics
Virginia Department of Veterans Services
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc and I have been having a discussion down in one of the threads about how exactly the VA can get someone judged incompetent and how this impacts a veterans civil right (to include the 2nd amendment).
So I did some digging and this is what I found.
I hope this sheds some light on this "process"
http://www.benefits.va.gov/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp
and
http://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=2033
The folks at TAH have done a pretty good job at reducing the legal jargon
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265
I hope this helps.
So I did some digging and this is what I found.
I hope this sheds some light on this "process"
http://www.benefits.va.gov/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp
and
http://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=2033
The folks at TAH have done a pretty good job at reducing the legal jargon
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265
I hope this helps.
beneficiary
(0)
(0)
TSgt David L.
This is a very disturbing situation. Taking away a fundamental right is not only wrong but in light of the protesting and looting violence removing a defensive weapon from anyone potentially puts lives in danger. This may seem dramatic to some but once rights are no longer being enjoyed there is a slippery slope to other liberties. IMHO of course...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Spec; The materials you have supplied deal with what to do AFTER the VA has ruled that you are "incompetent" - they do NOT deal with how the determination of "incompetency" is made in the first place and whether you actually have any say in that process.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that a veteran MIGHT have some say in the matter - IF the VA says that the veteran can, but if the VA says that the veteran can't then all the veteran can do is appeal.
I did note that the US Department of Veterans' Affairs
[a] can't spell the name of its own organization correctly, and
[b] can't spell the name of the FBI correctly.
This doesn't bode well for anyone who has to deal with them.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that a veteran MIGHT have some say in the matter - IF the VA says that the veteran can, but if the VA says that the veteran can't then all the veteran can do is appeal.
I did note that the US Department of Veterans' Affairs
[a] can't spell the name of its own organization correctly, and
[b] can't spell the name of the FBI correctly.
This doesn't bode well for anyone who has to deal with them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I use the V.A. since 2008 and I haven't been ask if I have and guns at home or not. Nor have I heard of anyone being ask that. With today climate I have no doubt that somewhere there are V.A. that are stepping on a brother( and sister) 2nd amendment right. By the way, if I'm ever ask I'll make one phone call and there would not guns or ammo at my home
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Its does not say unless V.A. deem one's unfit.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Its does not say unless V.A. deem one's unfit.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think it's un-Constitutional no due process to remove the Right to bear arms, only a simple correlation between it and a VA ruling of care. All administrative law is on shaky Constitutional ground in my eyes, there is no separation of power, they create their own laws then enforce them and then adjudicate with very limited actual judicial review.
(0)
(0)
SPC Carl K.
In Pennsylvania, if a person is involuntarily committed for any reason, the lose their gun rights permanently. There is no due process here either. Until recently, one could challenge the decision in court and get a reversal. However, this did not carry over for federal laws. Recently, an inept attorney challenged the law and lost miserably, making it even more difficult for the court challenges to happen successfully. The totally messed up part about this is that convicted felons can get a reversal and reinstatement of gun rights through legal challenges, but someone who gets committed, for ANY reason is screwed for life. How can that be legal either?
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Spc Krampitz I assume it has to do with someone with enough money and fortitude having their rights stripped & wants them back hasn't been taken advantage by system yet. I think it is wrong as well!! I live in North Lebanon PA too, I'm glad to see a neighbor of mine is of the same mind as me on Constitutional rights!!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
A friend of mine had this happen to her. She received a letter one day, saying her affairs were being shifted, et al. That's a scary letter considering all the implications. Took 6 months to get the rescinding notice, and over a year to get everything really cleared up.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I guess this needs to be hashed out again ...
These people have (rightly or wrongly) been adjudicated as incompetent.
Incompetent people have their civil rights removed by legal action.
You know what? They can't vote either.
That's the whole story folks.
It's not a 2nd Amendment issue because these people no longer have the right(s).
If anything it is a 4th Amendment issue as a "due process" issue.
Now that's something that is discussable.
These people have (rightly or wrongly) been adjudicated as incompetent.
Incompetent people have their civil rights removed by legal action.
You know what? They can't vote either.
That's the whole story folks.
It's not a 2nd Amendment issue because these people no longer have the right(s).
If anything it is a 4th Amendment issue as a "due process" issue.
Now that's something that is discussable.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
COL Ted Mc By "no distinction" I was meaning the weight of the finding. Guilty is guilty. You not take an incompetence hearing to a criminal court. The Administrative court has the jurisdiction and so the appropriate levels of proof apply.
This is bringing a point not yet discussed. If these people are being judged incompetent, there is their defense voice? I hear nothing about the families of these people. All hearings / trials have two sides of the table, so where are the social workers or who ever is on the patient advocate side?
This is bringing a point not yet discussed. If these people are being judged incompetent, there is their defense voice? I hear nothing about the families of these people. All hearings / trials have two sides of the table, so where are the social workers or who ever is on the patient advocate side?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Spec; there is no "patient advocate side". Where there has been a conviction for "domestic abuse" (or even, in some jurisdictions, just a complaint that a domestic partner "fears" possible "domestic abuse" then there is a "presumption of guilt" which applies automatically and - after "judgment" has been imposed it is up to the "guilty" party to show why they shouldn't have been "found guilty" in the first place. Depending on the wording of the statute, that can be an impossibility since the facts which lead to the "finding of guilt" are incontrovertible - even if they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual situation.
(0)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
COL Ted Mc
Domestic Abuse is not the question on the table.
If you state that there are jurisdictions in which the mere filing is good enough to have civil rights extinguished then I feel you need to cite a reference.
Default in court has always been equal to a guilty plea.
The question is: Can the VA can judge someone incompetent without having a competent defense. Can an individual actually mount a defense given that they are "incompetent".
Domestic Abuse is not the question on the table.
If you state that there are jurisdictions in which the mere filing is good enough to have civil rights extinguished then I feel you need to cite a reference.
Default in court has always been equal to a guilty plea.
The question is: Can the VA can judge someone incompetent without having a competent defense. Can an individual actually mount a defense given that they are "incompetent".
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Spec; Indeed "domestic abuse" is not the question on the table. The question on the table involves "due process" and "constitutional rights" - specifically what sort of a "hearing" has to take place before a "constitutional right" is revoked.
The fact of the matter is that no "hearing" need take place at all. The revocation of a person's Second Amendment rights arising from a conviction for an offence is both automatic, un-appealable, and NOT a "penalty".
There is no "default" since the person whose Second Amendment "rights" have been expunged was never required to do anything at all.
As to your last questions [1] "Can the VA can judge someone incompetent without having a competent defense." and [2] "Can an individual actually mount a defense given that they are "incompetent". the answers are [1] "Of course it can. It happens all the time." and [2] "Certainly. They aren't 'incompetent' until AFTER the hearing and that means that they MUST be 'competent' BEFORE the hearing is concluded.".
If you are asking for laws that "make sense" you are going to have to wait for a really long time.
The fact of the matter is that no "hearing" need take place at all. The revocation of a person's Second Amendment rights arising from a conviction for an offence is both automatic, un-appealable, and NOT a "penalty".
There is no "default" since the person whose Second Amendment "rights" have been expunged was never required to do anything at all.
As to your last questions [1] "Can the VA can judge someone incompetent without having a competent defense." and [2] "Can an individual actually mount a defense given that they are "incompetent". the answers are [1] "Of course it can. It happens all the time." and [2] "Certainly. They aren't 'incompetent' until AFTER the hearing and that means that they MUST be 'competent' BEFORE the hearing is concluded.".
If you are asking for laws that "make sense" you are going to have to wait for a really long time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google