House votes to let mentally ill buy guns

Exactly this. Many elderly are targeted by scammers and con artists. Having someone oversee their finances does not mean they are mentally ill or dangerous. In fact, knowing when they need help and seeking it, indicates to me that the person is responsible.
Any gun owner, particularly one in MA, who would seek psychiatric help needs to have his head examined.
 
That the Social Security Administration, a Government Agency, could deny Constitutional Rights extra-judicially is the reason this should have been over-turned. No politics, the crazy aspect is irrelevant. The issue is a 5th Amendment due process issue, and Justice was done today. If it hadn't been, the Supreme Court should have eventually ruled that way.
 
Can someone clarify this ruling? I'm trying to find a source other than NPR or huffingtonpost....

I had a liberal friend (who wants to get a gun because Trump is president and thinks the world is going to end) who just posted this on Facebook:


Here's the most thorough explanation I've heard, it's from Cam Edwards daily podcast, share it with the libs on FB:

https://www.nratv.com/series/cam-and-company/episode/cam-and-company-season-13-episode-23

Start at the 5:00 mark.
He also slams the dishonest leftist media for getting the story so wrong.
 
I'd post more details but it would only confuse rather than help. The extra money was intended to compensate the assigned representative (in this case, my mother) for time spent managing my father's finances. Regardless of how it was intended to work, the VA simply held it out as a bit more pension money for merely signing a piece of paper. The surprise ugly part came later. [thinking]


Im interested in how the "surprise ugly part " that came later was initiated, can you at least elaborate on what the "surprise ugly part" was?
 
I'm interested in how the "surprise ugly part " that came later was initiated, can you at least elaborate on what the "surprise ugly part" was?
Sorry, I thought that was clear. You get a letter from the VA explaining that you can no longer legally buy or own any guns.
 
Sorry, I thought that was clear. You get a letter from the VA explaining that you can no longer legally buy or own any guns.


I guess Im unclear on how that letter is generated, is it a VA form I can look up or is it something the doctor did on his/her own?
 
I guess I'm unclear on how that letter is generated, is it a VA form I can look up or is it something the doctor did on his/her own?
It was a standard form letter from the VA. I don't recall an identifying form number on it but I'm sure you could find a redacted copy of the letter somewhere on the Internet as it went out to many thousands of disabled veterans... i.e., any veteran who accepted the help with their finances and the stipend that went along with it.
 
Any gun owner, particularly one in MA, who would seek psychiatric help needs to have his head examined.


And the fact that this is even the case should be shameful to everyone. The fact that a guy who is seeking some help dealing with a divorce, or a couple seeking to fix their marriage by going to couples counseling for that matter, would be treated the same as someone who is adjudicated criminally, Hannibal Lecter-esq, Buffalo Bill-skin-wearing insane.... That is simply a travesty. People should never have rights restricted for simply seeking help. It's like revoking a person's first amendment right to free speech just because they broke their leg. It makes no sense and it just discourages people from getting help dealing with their problems.
 
Does anyone have any info about individuals banned under the VA edict being convicted for "prohibited person in possession" absent any other disqualifiers?

This smells like the AG's EBR edict - declare a new law, enforce it at the acquisition point, but don't do anything that would have it tested in a criminal trial with all the constitutional protections in place.
 
I would reword the title of this thread as:

"house votes to not allow government bureaucrats to decide if you deserve to have gun rights or not"
 
Back
Top Bottom