TexasCHLforum.com

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System has a mentally defective category that is almost completely filled with veterans – 99.3% to be exact. The names are supplied by the VA from a list of veterans who required bookkeeping services.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/tens ... ning-guns/

The veterans addressed in the article only needed assistance with their finances.

Those who trust the government to determine mental fitness should take note. You are only a pencil whip of a federal regulation away from being felon if you own firearms.

Saw this the other day and have been thinking about it.

I think they are creating a catch 22 as far as vets suffering from and needing assistance with PTSD. I think this kind of adverse treatmemt will penalize many that seek help and will discourage future vets from getting the help they need.

Many of the mental illnesses do warrant people losing their gun rights. It comes down to the specific person's illness and to the degree of their illness. Unfortunately, bureaucrats male broad sweeping decisions that effect many unnecessarily.

I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

Link to the text of the letter

Http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/new ... ate-share-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;‘mental-defective’-category

I think the big issue is the V.A. is adding names to the list with no "due process" there needs to be more then the V.A. rules to add someone to the list. Like how about a court hearing where evidence is presented and a judge etc....

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

Doubt all you want. I don't believe the bill to stop this would have been put forth and received the support it did without there being some validity to the article and issue that's being discussed.

EEllis wrote:Link to the text of the letter

Http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/new ... ate-share-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;‘mental-defective’-category

Because of the way the Grassley PR release is titled, a direct link isn't working. To find the press release with the letter to the DOJ go to: http://www.grassley.senate.gov and then

NEWS CENTER > PRESS RELEASES and look about 3/4 way down on April 15 to find a copy of the letter.

My gist of the info is that if the VA has determined, through their administrative process, that a vet, or a dependant receiving veteran's benefits, is incompetent to the point of having someone appointed as a power of attorney, that is what gets them on the list. It's true that we're not talking about someone that needs help balancing a checkbook, but rather someone who has trouble remembering what a checkbook is for, and how to write a check to pay for their bills (not literally, but you get the idea). It isn't someone who is necessarily a danger to themselves or others, but it could be that they are.

It's clear, though, that the VA is the major one reporting such people to the DOJ -the states are not required to report people who have been determined by a court (usually a probate court) thst have been judged to be in need of guardianship, which is basically what the VA is reporting.

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

When the State gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't we will all soon lose them. Anyone that can read and shoot is a threat to someday start enforcing the Constitution. The endgame is always the same. Disarmed Societies are much easier to Plunder long term.

We know the mentality of our rulers...


""Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued a nine-page document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Rightwing extremism, the report said in a footnote, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks. The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities""

rb, can you post a link to your quote? It would be good for all interested to see it in context.

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

Where did I say That? I just pointed out that what was being claimed was not accurately portraying what was going on. Your statement also isn't accurate as to the situation situation. This is not a veteran having someone else handle things, it's someone who the VA has determined can't handle their own finances. Those are two different things. As to whether or not I have issues with that, I don't have enough info but most likely there are people incorrectly identified as mentally defective and it's most likely overly difficult to challenge such a determination.

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

Where did I say That? I just pointed out that what was being claimed was not accurately portraying what was going on. Your statement also isn't accurate as to the situation situation. This is not a veteran having someone else handle things, it's someone who the VA has determined can't handle their own finances. Those are two different things. As to whether or not I have issues with that, I don't have enough info but most likely there are people incorrectly identified as mentally defective and it's most likely overly difficult to challenge such a determination.

From the article:

That means veterans “are particularly singled out,” Grassley wrote, “those they deem incompetent to manage fiduciary benefits might be placed in the ‘mental defective’ category but the VA doesn’t actually consider “whether a veteran is a danger to himself, herself, or others,” which is the federal standard for denying someone a gun.'”

Because the veterans can't manage fiduciary benefits and have not determined them to be a danger the VA determines them to be mentally defective. There is a large number of people on the government teat who cannot manage their finances but are not deemed mentally deficient. The veteran's constitutional rights are being violated without due process.

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

So because a vet has someone else responsible for their finances they are put on the NICS gun ban list and you seem to have no issues with this.

Where did I say That? I just pointed out that what was being claimed was not accurately portraying what was going on. Your statement also isn't accurate as to the situation situation. This is not a veteran having someone else handle things, it's someone who the VA has determined can't handle their own finances. Those are two different things. As to whether or not I have issues with that, I don't have enough info but most likely there are people incorrectly identified as mentally defective and it's most likely overly difficult to challenge such a determination.

From the article:

That means veterans “are particularly singled out,” Grassley wrote, “those they deem incompetent to manage fiduciary benefits might be placed in the ‘mental defective’ category but the VA doesn’t actually consider “whether a veteran is a danger to himself, herself, or others,” which is the federal standard for denying someone a gun.'”

Because the veterans can't manage fiduciary benefits and have not determined them to be a danger the VA determines them to be mentally defective. There is a large number of people on the government teat who cannot manage their finances but are not deemed mentally deficient. The veteran's constitutional rights are being violated without due process.

Well you ignored the "may" and the whole list of questions the Senator was asking to try and confirm it but Okay, and?

Also you still persist in trying to inaccurately describe the situation. If you are so sure of your case then stop doing that. This is not about people who fail to manage their money but those that have been determined by the VA to be inable to do so. Big difference.

I will go with Grassley on this. I will side with the veterans.

“It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them,” Grassley wrote.

Veterans are targeted immediately upon contact with VA personnel.

mojo84 wrote:rb, can you post a link to your quote? It would be good for all interested to see it in context.

That paragraph was at the bottom of anygunanywhere's original link and it was from the original DHS analysis on "right wing extremists". Full DHS assessment linked below...


http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/up ... -04-07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;