Vets gun rights under attack

[GunnyGene]

The Dems are at it again!

WASHINGTON – Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

"I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us," Schumer said. "If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun."

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran's name in the Criminal Background Check System.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2DztGIKPs

[ozo]

Whittling away at the 2A.......
Maybe 'Chucky' should be stripped of some
of his own rights and freedom....

[AL MOUNT]

Shumer is a lying POS....

[aa1911]

nice, what's next, veterans can't buy guns at all?

[marlin795]

Originally Posted by aa1911

nice, what's next, veterans can't buy guns at all?

Most likely. You killed in war? Well now your just going to go around and start shooting people left and right. I never saw combat but the Army trained me to shoot first and think second. Have I shot anybody in the last year? Nope.

[aa1911]

yeah, it's nuts. I can be trusted with automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, aircraft dropping or launching ordinance... but don't let us have guns back home!

We're obviously too mentally unstable, but only in the states. Can totally be trusted on our own in a foreign country though when it's time to do the country's dirt work. Hey, welcome home you mental psychopath! no guns for you!

[jbmid1]

Originally Posted by aa1911

nice, what's next, veterans can't buy guns at all?

It's coming. They'll just declare all of us as at risk for PTSD.

[tango1niner]

I have absolutely no use for Chuck Schummer. He is, as the rest of his cronies are
" clueless ".

[fyrfghter1983]

I was told the other day when I went to see the wizard at the VA by another vet that when they ask have you ever felt like hurting yourself or others and you answer yes they report it to local authorities if you have a ccw because your unstable. Now really name one person that has driven in rush hour that hasnt felt like hurting someone.

[dbcooper]

I know a guy who recently retired from active duty
this guy worked on avionics and never saw any combat and was never even delpoyed into a region where there were combat opertations

he got out and went to the VA with a whole big list of things that were wrong with him... he did this to get a big fat check each month from the VA to pad to his retirement check.

well, in addition to his back he claimed was hurt, his knees were shot, and his hearing and oh.. he suffers from anxiety also
they put him in meds for the anxiety

I told him not to be surprised if someday they came after his guns now that all of this in in his medical records

[carver]

Homeland Security Classifies Returning US Veterans as Potential Terrorist Threat

April 14, 2009

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/0...rorist-threat/

[Marlin T]

I have had this debate with others here about the VA and the word ADJUDICATED; who can deem you incompetent and how it is used in the current law.

My hat is off to Mr Coburn for trying to get this right.

David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner


Military personnel gun rights surface in defense appropriations amendment debate



A measure backed by those claiming it will help stem military member suicides and removing guns from veterans deemed financially incompetent are both being debated in the Senate. Miltary.com reported yesterday on an amendment to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sen. John Kerry that would “ … authorize … mental health professionals and commanding officers to ask servicemembers about firearms and ammunition when they believe them at risk for suicide.” Also, The Washington Times reported yesterday on an argument by Sen. Tom Coburn over the same bill to ensure veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to handle their benefits “ … have their cases adjudicated by a judge -- rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently -- [when] veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label [mentally incompetent] and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.”
While some, like CNN founder Ted Turner, see an increase in military suicides as “good” because, as he told Piers Morgan (naturally), that will somehow pave the way for a more enlightened United Nations world policeman, people who are actually sane can debate on the effects of removing firearms from people committed to killing themselves, and the danger for abuse if government is allowed to essentially, by documenting such matters in its records, compile a list of active duty firearms owners, and in apparent contravention of funding proscriptions against such a database established by current law. That’s a discussion that needs to happen in the light, not behind closed doors.
But applicable in both current member and veteran situations is a concern articulated by Coburn that must not be ignored.
“We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights,” he asserted.
Arguing that due process already exists was Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign, who maintained “Gun possession is allowed if competency is restored.”
True. Provided anyone so “legally” disabled has the wherewithal to pursue matters, and remember what they're being singled out for, and with the understanding that until such time as he does, his rights are being denied whether he’s subjected to danger or not. And provided a “guilty until proven innocent” standard is really something people will be happy with when they find it results in their ox being gored, too, under other circumstances when those who would compel us to trade liberty for the illusion of security have succeeded in further eroding both.
That’s why some argued against such a state of affairs in the first place.