Posted on Nov 11, 2014
Vets being told they cannot have weapons by President Obama
7.46K
24
8
4
4
0
In an apparent threat to Second Amendment rights, some American military veterans have received a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their competency to handle their own affairs is under review, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be “incompetent,” they would be barred from possessing weapons.
The issue is being raised by the United States Justice Foundation, which defends civil and religious rights.
In a statement on the organization’s website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Veterans Affairs to “force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
“Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors,” he wrote.
He said he’s been approached by a significant number of veterans who have received letters from the VA.
An image of a letter dated Dec. 20, 2012, has been posted online at Red Flag News.
The letter states that the Department of Veterans Affairs has “received” information about the veteran that “because of your disabilities you may need help in handling your Department of Affairs (VA) benefits.”
However, it provides no details other that the information was “a report from Portland VA Medical Center.”
“The evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition,” the letter warns. “We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
Completion of the incompetency determination means that a “fiduciary” would be appointed to manage the veteran’s payments.
The VA also warns: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”
The letter then offers the veteran an opportunity to “request a personal hearing within 30 days from the date at the top of this letter to present evidence or argument on any important point in your claim.”
But it says the VA will not pay some of the expenses of the hearing.
“If we don’t hear from you within the next 60 days, we will assume you have no additional evidence and do not want a hearing. After those 60 days we will make our decision using the evidence we already have and tell you our decision.”
The letter is signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs.
The letter, Connelly wrote, sounds “like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world.”
“Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me,” he said. ‘It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’
“Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability,” Connelly wrote.
Officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs did not respond to a WND request for comment.
Connelly argued there “are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent.”
“It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening,” Connelly said.
He said the issue raises another huge question.
“We have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration,” he wrote.
WND previously reported on the issue of PTSD and veterans. It was after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the Department of Veterans Affairs for its “unchecked incompetence” in dealing with a flood of PTSD, depression and similar conditions, taking an average of four years to provide veterans their mental health benefits, and often taking weeks to get a suicidal vet his first appointment.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/#4KebYxbtZPOxsYIU.99
The issue is being raised by the United States Justice Foundation, which defends civil and religious rights.
In a statement on the organization’s website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Veterans Affairs to “force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
“Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors,” he wrote.
He said he’s been approached by a significant number of veterans who have received letters from the VA.
An image of a letter dated Dec. 20, 2012, has been posted online at Red Flag News.
The letter states that the Department of Veterans Affairs has “received” information about the veteran that “because of your disabilities you may need help in handling your Department of Affairs (VA) benefits.”
However, it provides no details other that the information was “a report from Portland VA Medical Center.”
“The evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition,” the letter warns. “We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
Completion of the incompetency determination means that a “fiduciary” would be appointed to manage the veteran’s payments.
The VA also warns: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”
The letter then offers the veteran an opportunity to “request a personal hearing within 30 days from the date at the top of this letter to present evidence or argument on any important point in your claim.”
But it says the VA will not pay some of the expenses of the hearing.
“If we don’t hear from you within the next 60 days, we will assume you have no additional evidence and do not want a hearing. After those 60 days we will make our decision using the evidence we already have and tell you our decision.”
The letter is signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs.
The letter, Connelly wrote, sounds “like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world.”
“Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me,” he said. ‘It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’
“Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability,” Connelly wrote.
Officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs did not respond to a WND request for comment.
Connelly argued there “are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent.”
“It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening,” Connelly said.
He said the issue raises another huge question.
“We have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration,” he wrote.
WND previously reported on the issue of PTSD and veterans. It was after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the Department of Veterans Affairs for its “unchecked incompetence” in dealing with a flood of PTSD, depression and similar conditions, taking an average of four years to provide veterans their mental health benefits, and often taking weeks to get a suicidal vet his first appointment.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/#4KebYxbtZPOxsYIU.99
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
This is scary stuff, and made even more so by the lack of specific information and truth about the matter. What is the truth in this matter? When it all settles let us know the truth.
(1)
(0)
NO Vets have been told they can't have weapons by President Obama
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/25/veterans-gun-seizure-hoax-debunked-somewhat/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/25/veterans-gun-seizure-hoax-debunked-somewhat/
Veterans Gun Seizure Hoax Debunked...Somewhat (updated)
Stories about "new letters" or a "new law" are total bunk. The law that authorizes gun seizures for those "adjudicated mentally ill" was passed in 1997 but nothing was said about it for over 15 years.
(1)
(0)
I could have sworn I saw this topic last week, or something similar to it -- they had a picture of the letter. I can't remember what was discussed but someone had insinuated that the VA wasn't outright telling people they couldn't have a firearm, just that it had the authority to do so or something. Again, I saw the comment in passing so don't quote me on that.
(1)
(0)
SGT Michael Glenn
this is another attempt from obama to decrease the number of Americans who have guns. I hope this doesnt fly.
(1)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
I respect your opinion and also your right to your opinion but this strikes me as nothing more than partisan-based fear-mongering. This has been a buzzword since 2008, and yet I'm still frequently at the range, having been to ranges in GA, SC, VA, MD, CT, and NY with lots of people who own lots of weapons. I keep hearing about supposed gun-grabbers but every time I go to purchase a firearm, get a license, or talk to my many friends who do the same, neither I nor a single one of them have ever been denied.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Glenn
I too have not had issues with the purchase of firearms, I merely posted this to see where all my brothers and sisters stand on this issue. I do not think it will ever happen as I dont think any of us will ever let it get that far.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The only instance I have seen of this was a servicemember who was receiving 90% disability for PTSD. I don't agree with restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of all with PTSD but someone who is receiving almost full disability for PTSD has basically told the VA that he cannot handle his own affairs and is incapable of finding employment based on his mental state. That statement means he should not have a firearm. If that is not the case, and he is able to function in day-to-day life, then his disability should be far lower. This measure does not target veterans alone but any citizens who are ruled by a competent medical authority as being unable to function due to their mental state.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next