vets being striped of 2nd ammendment rights!
 

I appologise if this is in the wrong spot, mods move if nessary. if moved please PM me with new location.

This to me seems a huge slap in the face of the American people and those that put their life on hold and in jeopardy for this nation.

The VA just called and informed my Mother that my Father was deemed incompetent by the VA and that decision and the Brady bill prohibit him from owning any guns ???

I was not aware of this part of the law till now and maybe others here where.
It has been around a while now from what I researched and seems if I'm in the same home I to am prohibited from owning a Gun???

I need to look further in to this but I have a feeling that I will be coming up with a black ball list of various people and business that they are associated with.

Ok lets hear your argument for arming incompetent people?

its a sneak move, they (VA) can brand you at their discretion incompetent.
does it truly mean you are? not really! seems if some one was worried abought my old man they would of already gone this route huh???

many people could be perfectly capable of normal interaction and just as capable of interacting in the world but be labeled incompetent.

further more should what I found on my initial research that others in the house hold are also devoid of their 2nd amendment rights be true, well that just is not right.

the issue FM is it is a complete sidestep of DUE PROCESS!

You need to do some research on Michigan gun control laws. This site is a good place to start:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11807/Gun-Control.html

Seems like if the government wanted to control the people, vets would be some of the first ones they would disarm.

I'm sorry, but I believe that you have failed to give us the whole story. As an example of more to it----has your father ever been treated in a VA facility? Treated recently? Treated for certain ailments? During what era did he serve?

The VA simply calling up someone and saying they can no longer own a gun just doesn't make one bit of sense at all without at least having been in contact with the veteran at some point in time.

windy for one its not just my father and I am really sorry I was not up on this.

yes he has been treated at the VA, like many. for what exactly not really sure but its been two years since he has.

he was having issues with his rectal region I do know, he went for years just on that issue. the doc diagnosed it as hemorrhoids and well it was rectal cancer. it spread through his intestine to his stomach and liver, after the gross INCOMPETENCE of the VA Doctor (ask any vet about the competence of the VA) he no longer sought treatment through them and has since had complications resulting from the lack of care suffered from the VA. he is now being treated by private practice and has been since his true diagnose (rendered through private practice)

he has a lawsuit pending against the VA so I assume this is one of their ploys relating to such a action? he most likely will not see a settlement due to his failing health.

I just thought some of you may like to be aware of this, if you where not already and again the TRUE POINT IS BEING DENIED DUE PROCESS which is a continuing trend in our country.

I need to do some more digging on this as again I was not aware such a thing was possible. I feel that it only takes a decision by a incompetent administration could be used to rob not only the veteran but family members of god given rights, WRONG.

danus I'm aware of our laws here, but a big difference between a private doctor vs a government sponsored doctor, as well as a certain special designation for veterans.

you know if your arrested for a domestic violence (misdemeanor) you are prohibited from owning a gun (any gun) by state law 5 years and federal 10 years.

of course I believe that stems from the Brady bill also. and of course federal law trumps state so...

seems to me if someones bent on harming another competent or not there are lots of options besides guns. I just think they more likely to be caught with a gun.

I don't think that is true.

If I'm not mistaken, Federal law requires that decision to be made by a JUDGE.
And I don't think ANY provisions in the Brady Bill apply at all


http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Dole1.html


I'd consult a lawyer

If he already has a lawsuit pending would it be too much for the attorney to add slander and harassment charges against the VA? And I don't think telling you over the phone would have much value in any charges under the Brady Bill or state law. I would think they would have to send you something in writing.

they are sending a letter, in the mean time all our guns are going into nearby storage.
I like your thinking danus , perhaps intimidation also?

I agree that is the proper thing to some degree BFF , again digging into it its been this way for a while at least since clinton, look for "veteran disarmament act."

heres a article that sets a little foot work

http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm

With that medical history, I'd question what medication he is on. It could be that something he is on causes him to fall into the "too incompetent to have access to guns" category. I know there are many drugs out there that limit ones freedoms/right because of the way the effect the body. That's the only thing I can come up with that is plausible. Might his current Dr be sharing records with the VA?

Good luck trying to figure this one out.

ETA: I hope the letter you are being sent clears the muddy water....but then again, it's coming from the government...don't hold your breath.

Maybe this will be of some help or at least point you in the right direction. Some tidbits of info in there.

VA - The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 - PDF

thank you HDI , after reading through that I came across some other info also.

it seems that they (the VA) are doing what the law requires in a verbal and written notification required by the law, though the info I found leads me to believe the reason for the determination is not to strip him of any gun rights but a financial one.

In order to help care for him it seems my mother has applied for his VA benefits , by declaring him incompetent the VA can appoint a fiduciary to manage those funds.

what effect that would have on any settlement on the court case not sure.

I'm still a bit confused about a couple issues.....
 

Did your father 'confide' to someone in the VA that he owned guns or are they just 'fishing'???
Also, are you concerned that someone from the gooberment might come in the dark of night and
confiscate your weapons; hence the reason for moving them off-site?

Downhome,

Give this attorney a call and tell him your story. He specializes in firearms denials. He will answer questions and give you some direction without charging you. I don't think you pay him anything unless you decide to engage him.


MARC S. BERRIS
Segal, Roston & Berris, PLLP
250 Second Avenue South
Suite 225
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2161
Telephone: (612) 332-3100
Facsimile: (612) 335-3578
E-Mail: marc@berrislaw.com
URL: http://www.berrislaw.com

I've personally seen the VA do some pretty bold things, like hold people against their will when they were deemed "dangerous to themselves".

What they CAN do and what they DO are not always the same thing. I don't know your father's case, I'm just saying, a lot of authority will do whatever they want, or what they think they can get away with until challenged.

ck3 if you read the link on post 13 and my post of 14 it may make more sense.
my mom offered up that info in the inquiry???

hes pretty much wheel chair bound and of no threat to anyone though should a confiscation squad show up,well they wont get my guns nor his as they pass to me!

why take chances ?

they can kiss my rosy white you know...

again it seems a ploy to control the benefits but there seems many others dealing with other issues!

thank you CF for moving the tread rather then locking or deleting!

I think many have not been made aware of such a oh I'm not sure what to call it???

perhaps some or many will be aware of these transgressions against our service people!

vote the JA's out, if they are tied to any one boycott!

its wrong,VERY WRONG!

"deemed incompetent" = mental illness = potential danger to self and/or others.

seedspreader: if one is deemed to be a danger to self (suicide) there's always an observation period (usually in a locked ward) of either 24 or 48 hours.

Here in AZ it's a state law that if you've been diagnosed as mentally ill you are not allowed to own/posess frearms. One aspect of mental illness is altered thought processes. I don't think the VA is "out to get you", and the no guns does not apply to others in the family

I think the title here is misleading & there's some "Chicken Little" going on.

Contact your county veterans services advocate.

I challenge you get off your rocking horse and look into this a little more, not my particular situation but the whole thing.

its the law in most states that a adjudicated case of incompetency prohibits you from many things not just gun ownership.

the problem I see with this is some hair brained VA doctor can make this decision and then forward your medical records to the DOJ and put you on a ban list.

Incompetent does not mean mental illness per say, and in this case its the VA's
definition and with out the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

incompetent adj. 1) referring to a person who is not able to manage his/her affairs due to mental deficiency (lack of I.Q., deterioration, illness or psychosis) or sometimes physical disability. Being incompetent can be the basis for appointment of a guardian or conservator (after a hearing in which the party who may be found to be incompetent has been interviewed by a court investigator and is present and/or represented by an attorney) to handle his/her person and/or affairs (often called "estate")

I already came to the conclusion that the VA administrative decision of incompetency in this instance is financially motivated, the phone call was because the law states they need to verbally notify you and in writing that as they found you incompetent that you are prohibited from owning guns. the real reason for the incompetent decision is because he has benefits coming and they can keep control of that money as well as delay it.

it still does not make this law right,its rife for abuse,just look into it and how the VA operates, talk to some veterans that are aware of it, well your at it ask them how competent the VA is? personally I would not trust them to give me a aspirin.

besides my Fathers years of misdiagnosis and a general lack of proper procedure, I just had a good friend go for hip surgery and almost DIE. and these guys are tasked with determining competency? PLEASE... there are lots of VA horror stories.

Unfortunately, under the law, since your mother has applied for control of your father's VA benefits by asking the VA to declare him incompetent (I assume with documentation of such incompetence). Your father is legally barred from owning, or buying Firearms. The VA having granted the Incompetent status is in effect the "Due Process".

Also from what I have read, this is a lifetime ban, which could be appealed if such status is no longer the case. Unfortunately it appears that this in effect is impossible because no process is not funded. However, since I doubt that your mother would want to reverse his "Incompetence" since it would mean she would no longer have control over his VA Benefits.

Furthermore, it seems that under Michigan State Law, your mother as appointed as your father's primary care could possibly be bared from possessing, owning, or purchasing a firearm. That part is less clear to me, as the bill is more convoluted.

It is not clear that if you are living with your parents that you would be barred per-se, but if that was the case, it would only apply while you were at that residence.

In the end, the VA itself can not come and take the weapons, nor initiate any legal process to remove them. If the VA became aware that firearms that were in violation of the law were present, they "Could" in theory inform an agency that has such jurisdiction.

I doubt that they would unless they perceived an imminent danger. Even then, as you have pointed out, I doubt they have their stuff together enough to do that. And certainly the ATF has better things to do than to get a warrant to search your house for firearms that are in violation.

In my opinion, as long as you fly under the radar by not bringing the subject up in respect to firearms, you can safely store your firearms elsewhere, and keep what few you need for home protection on-site, and no one bother you about it.

I am a Gulf War veteran, and while my experiences with the VA after the Gulf War were horrible, they have been much improved in the last few years.

In your Father's case, he was only determined Incompetent because your Mother specifically requested that he be done so.

I personally am rated at 100% disability from the VA for PTSD and Individual Unemployability. I have NOT been determined incompetent, nor have I received a letter indicating that I am not able to own a firearm. I haven't tried to purchase a firearm recently, so I have no idea if am flagged in the NCIS database.

Then again, I wouldn't comply with the law even if I am on there.

It is stories like this that make me glad all my guns were lost at the bottom of the lake during a bad storm several years back. It is sure easier to tell the guy at the door that I don't have any of those bad guns around.

I know they disarm people they think have PTSD. I would think this would take more than one or two doctors to reach any conclusion, though, and why all of a sudden out of nowhere?

Our VA Hospital is pathetic here as well. Seems our heroes deserve better, in a lot of ways.

But you wanted to make it about the second ammendment!
pretty sneaky of you. Almost as sneaky as those government folks.
Why the miss direction?

Honestly can you imagine the uproar if the VA didnt notifiy the fanilies of incompetent people about the gun situation? Can you see the headlines ....
" VA HELPS VETS SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE!

By Definition vets ARE more dangerous than non vets. They have been trained in the use of weapons and have been thru a process of brainwashing to encourage them to kill.
Many have then gone on to actually kill.
Its how wars are won.
UNFORTUNATLY its not a switch you just turn on and off. Its there in the mind rattling around forever.

So the VA needs to be pretty careful. Good lord just a few old vets in the last stages of demtia killing a few random folks could throw this media driven country into a tizy. I DONT want ALL our vets locked up "for The Childrens Safety" Do you? I can understand the VAs carefull rules being in place.
It would seem that your dad may have been caught up in them for other reasons but would you really want to change them?

fantasymaker

it is related to second amendment.
its not so sneaky on my part as that of the machine.
its not the VA rules its a law in acted known as the veteran disarmament act.
why its wrong is it is a administrative decision of incompetency not a judicial one.
again no due process. it also violates the medical record privacy laws also.

everyone is subject to the human condition and that means we are by others definitions
at any given point going to be off balance and or unstable at any given point in time.

if some one is truly a threat I think those closest to them will see that they are not in a position to harm themselves or others by taking proper steps. more then likely making a better and faster decision then some VA quack that a vet may see once a year or maybe not at all, perhaps a record review.

there are a number of things that could get a person branded administratively incompetent. many at state level or in most legal process would not cause a vet or civilian the loss of their second amendment rights.

those in power work in baby steps, they lay a ground work slowly and once they have that infrastructure they put other actions into play. sometimes they just pervert already existing laws though a faulty interpretation. its along the lines of terrorist and freedom fighter, ones a demon the other a hero. to some that terrorist is a freedom fighter and vice versa. the law in question is set up that way with redefined words to suit the purpose.

I can not be sure on the numbers but there are close to 25 million vet and serving military, with almost a 100,000 new recruits per year. thats a huge potential of people
that could be relived of there rights because they choose to serve their country.

I will agree with you to a point on vets being more dangerous. they are but not to the average citizen, after all the history of this country should be proof of that.
Other wise we would have been in a blood bath for years. there have been rare occasions such as the texas bell tower.

yes they are trained, if anything I would say that makes them qualified to purchase and own weapons. besides being trained to be proficient and kill they are also instilled with discipline,procedure,professionalism and many others as part of their training.

Can the law be ignored,yes. will doing so put a vet found in that position at risk, yes. just having this law puts them at risk.

I still stand by my original statement that this is WRONG.

While your father may be "incompetent",that has nothing to do with your mothers right to possess firearms.I know a convicted felon whose wife has 2 gun safes and owns many firearms-including NFA firearms,she has sole possession of key to safes-they went to court over this matter and judge ruled she has every right to possess BUT cannot allow her husband access.Also G.GordanLiddy's wife owns many firearms-he is a convicted felon.

Downhome what you dont seem to get is there IS NO DUE PROCESS IN HEALTH CARE.
If your doctor says you have the mumps you dont appeal it .
Sure if you have reasons to think its something else you might go somewhere else . But you dont appeal it.
Same here.
Sorta like orders in the Army huh?

Don't buy guns that have paper!!!

you don't get that there is a requirement for due process to relive someone of their rights.

quote from "http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/incompetency"

"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."

the above would be adjudication (by the proper definition) of the matter or due process of law. I take nor have any issue with such.

If a Doctor thought you a danger due to medical conditions they would be bound by law to report you and supply sufficient evidence to the proper authority, at which point the proper authority is bound to take further action and investigate and if deemed fit start proceedings that being (1) a motion for a competency hearing,.

if you a judged to be incompetent then other laws come into play, such as a gun prohibition. but the initial outcome of such does not rely upon the determination of one doctor or even a body of doctors from one governmental Agency but a judge following proper legal procedure as established.

the way this particular law is written,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640
the use of the term Adjudication is redefined and used improperly, side stepping the route of DUE PROCESS quoted above.

The other problem is that Veterans are singled out.

that is what I take issue with and you seem to not understand or keep Ignoring.

Why shouldnt they be? They are singled out for lots of reasons. Both good and bad.

done with your baiting FM.

Baiting? You mean you have thrown enough bait out to satisfy you? LOL I'm not the one that started a thread and then changed what I said it was about as the tides changed.
You seem to think that veterans are being singled out to lose their second amendment rights.
Well when you join the service you give up lots of rights nothing new in that.
BUT you also gain other rights , again nothing new there either and it seems fair .
Honestly from what you said I think your case is a matter of being swept up in the gun situation as a result of other matters.
What you seem to be missing is the difficult position the VA has been put in.
Can you imagine the yew and cry they would be swept up in if just a few of the vets they classed as incompetent went nuts with a gun? It would make their surgical incompetence look minor.
AND THEN YOU WOULD see a attempt by the entire nation to disarm vets.
It looks to me as if the VA is protecting the rights of MOST VETS by being careful.