Petreus and Former Generals Fight NRA Backed Bill

[rwl1955]

Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus and a cadre of retired generals have joined a nonprofit organization’s fight against “The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.”

Republican Reps. Mike Conaway of Texas and Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio in late January introduced H.R. 629, which would prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from labeling veterans “mentally defective” if they use a fiduciary to navigate the system.

The Veterans Coalition for Common Sense — a group created by former Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona — claims the bill will put veterans and civilians in danger while denying the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) vital information.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/14/david-petraeus-retired-generals-fight-nra-backed-g/

 

[kevin9]

Their whole argument is a frickin' strawman, equating using a financial advisory or representative to being mentally defective. Someone needs to ask Betrayus, Giffords and their cronies if they use a CPA, tax attorney or preparer, financial adviser, or financial representative. If so, then by the VA's rules they are mentally defective.

 

[Reptile]

Does Gabby Giffords manage her own affairs?

By her own argument - she should not be allowed to own guns.

Has she volunteered herself to be on the list of mental defectives?

SOMEBODY PUT THAT ON HER FACEBOOK / TWITTER AND LINK IT.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

 

[SigNut]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

Then due process should be followed and a court of law should suspend the person's right: not some VA bureaucrat or anti-gun doctor acting unilaterally with no opportunity for the vet to rebut.

The problem with what Obama did was that it stripped people of a constitutional right without due process.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FreeWillie]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

If they are a danger to themselves or others the VA is required by current law to notify authorities. In those cases a Psychiatrist is brought in and a diagnoses is made. The individual would likely be committed to in-patient care. Once that occurs that person is automatically prohibited from purchasing a firearm by question 11f on the 4473.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Isn't it ironic that sometimes the most vocal anti-gun critics are people who are already prohibited persons? It's like liberals team up with criminals in order to have an anti-gun kumbaya moment.

 

[Billsail]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

Yeah, it's not about that. It's about denying a constitutional right of someone who has trouble with math.

 

[JAD]

If they are a danger to themselves or others the VA is required by current law to notify authorities. In those cases a Psychiatrist is brought in and a diagnoses is made. The individual would likely be committed to in-patient care. Once that occurs that person is automatically prohibited from purchasing a firearm by question 11f on the 4473.

That's not necessarily true and would depend on the specific nature of the commital involved. (i.e. a psychiatrist can order involuntary inpatient psychiatric hospitalization without triggering the federal prohibition.)

 

[Reptile]

That's not necessarily true and would depend on the specific nature of the commital involved. (i.e. a psychiatrist can order involuntary inpatient psychiatric hospitalization without triggering the federal prohibition.)

They ask on form 4473 if you have been involuntarily committed. Not all states report, though.

 

[drgrant]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

There's this cool thing called
Due Process, apparently you haven't heard of it... the existing reg violates it, big time.

-Mike

 

[CTpatriot]

Welfare rats can't handle financial affairs, reproductive responsibilities and raising kids, I can think of a few rights they should have taken away, starting with the right to vote, owning a gun and right to privacy.

 

[rwl1955]

Welfare rats can't handle financial affairs, reproductive responsibilities and raising kids, I can think of a few rights they should have taken away, starting with the right to vote, owning a gun and right to privacy.

*******
You are correct.

 

[LittleCalm]

The hypocrisy is staggering. The same people who fought to keep mentally ill people from being involuntarily committed to mental health institutions because of due process and liberty concerns are the same people fighting to deny due process and liberty to veterans under the 2A. Because they hate what the 2A stands for. They should just be honest about it.

Btw, this seems similar to the SSA issue that Congress recently addressed.

 

[Horrible]

So, this pile of crap is called the “The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.”? Really?

It doesn't protect Vets, as it takes away their means for self-protection. It also discourage those Vets that are suffering from PTSD to seek help for fear of having their 2A rights stripped.

And it sure as **** doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment!

- - - Updated - - -

The hypocrisy is staggering. The same people who fought to keep mentally ill people from being involuntarily committed to mental health institutions because of due process and liberty concerns are the same people fighting to deny due process and liberty to veterans under the 2A. Because they hate what the 2A stands for. They should just be honest about it.

LOL. Excellent Point!!

 

[Whutmeworry]

There's this cool thing called
Due Process, apparently you haven't heard of it... the existing reg violates it, big time.

-Mike

Ditto. And also keep in mind that under the reg the "VA" - i.e. pretty much any VA employee - can submit names of veterans to the NICS system. No diagnosis required.

If I've said this once I've probably said it 1000x and I know many other NES'rs have as well. If we're worried about unqualified "folks" being able to obtain firearms, the ONLY solution is removing those "folks" from free society, PERIOD, and then only AFTER affording them due process.

I'd rather have to deal with 1000 Chad Littlefields than 1 modern-day Joseph Stalin in charge of this great country.

 

[Reptile]

So, this pile of crap is called the “The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.”? Really?

It doesn't protect Vets, as it takes away their means for self-protection. It also discourage those Vets that are suffering from PTSD to seek help for fear of having their 2A rights stripped.

And it sure as **** doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment!

- - - Updated - - -



LOL. Excellent Point!!

Typical name for a bill sponsored by liberals.

It's new speak.

Just like the Patriot Act - has very little to do with patriotism. It was passed by republicans, though.



"H.R. 629 was referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on Feb. 3. If the bill passes through the U.S. House and Senate and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, then the FBI would be forced to destroy over 174,000 records on veterans deemed mentally ill."

What about veterans who have been determined to be a danger to themselves or others and have been committed?
Will those veterans have their disqualifying records destroyed as well?

 

[LittleCalm]

I think the bill is taking away the VA's arbitrary authority. It "would prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from labeling veterans “mentally defective” if they use a fiduciary to navigate the system."

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Typical name for a bill sponsored by liberals.

It's new speak.

Our side plays this two. When pro-gun bills are introduced in the statehouse, the wise tactician uses a name like "An act to further regulate....."

 

[rwl1955]

The hypocrisy is staggering. The same people who fought to keep mentally ill people from being involuntarily committed to mental health institutions because of due process and liberty concerns are the same people fighting to deny due process and liberty to veterans under the 2A. Because they hate what the 2A stands for. They should just be honest about it.

Btw, this seems similar to the SSA issue that Congress recently addressed.

********
Key word is GUNS! Liberals suspend all civil rights when the issue is possession/ownership of firearms.

 

[rwl1955]

The VA is a runaway, rogue govt. org. that is uncontrollable. Former CO(Colonel) of mine took a job as CFO of the Manchester,NH VA a few years ago and lasted less than a year. The waste and abuse were unbelievable and when he tried to institute changes he was blocked at every step. Couldn't fire one incompetent employee and they all band together to protect their namby, pamby govt. jobs. Just look at the scandals the last few years and has anyone been fired?

 

[rwl1955]

" Veterans Affairs hospital in West Palm beach has refused to put up pictures of President Donald Trump and Secretary David Schulkin, even though they were delivered by a congressman who lost both legs on a deployment to Afghanistan.

Republican Congressman Brian Mast showed up Tuesday with fellow veterans in tow at West Palm beach’s VA hospital. The group of constituents have been seething at the facility’s decision not to hang a portrait of the 45th commander in chief in its entrance.

Despite Mr. Mast’s personal intervention, the hospital took down the photographs shortly after he left."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/15/veterans-fight-west-palm-beach-va-hospital-over-re/

 

[MichaelJames1971]

There's this cool thing called
Due Process, apparently you haven't heard of it... the existing reg violates it, big time.

-Mike

Yes, I'm aware of due-process....it comes into play after an accusation or 'finding' is made. I'm asking if the Veterans Administration has, or does NOT have, the authority or even a requirement to make any such finding at-all, and where that information goes...for all we know, it goes 'nowhere' if it can be considered doctor/patient confidential....so far, I'm hearing about what "might" happen, but no concrete evidence that any VA patient has had their firearms' purchase denied, or had their guns confiscated. You know different? You think the guys running the VA want to wade into the politics of gun-rights, when their primary-care patients are all Military? Try getting a doctor to communicate to their local DMV that a certain elderly patient, post stroke, might not be able to operate a motor vehicle.....most of the time, the doctor keeps their mouth shut.

 

[drgrant]

Yes, I'm aware of due-process....it comes into play after an accusation or 'finding' is made. I'm asking if the Veterans Administration has, or does NOT have, the authority or even a requirement to make any such finding at-all, and where that information goes...for all we know, it goes 'nowhere' if it can be considered doctor/patient confidential....so far, I'm hearing about what "might" happen, but no concrete evidence that any VA patient has had their firearms' purchase denied, or had their guns confiscated. You know different? You think the guys running the VA want to wade into the politics of gun-rights, when their primary-care patients are all Military? Try getting a doctor to communicate to their local DMV that a certain elderly patient, post stroke, might not be able to operate a motor vehicle.....most of the time, the doctor keeps their mouth shut.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether a single person has been blocked or not. The fact that the provisio even exists is disturbing enough. Even if it is not used now it WILL be Abused later. We've seen this shit over and over again. It creates a chilling effect where Veterans are going to avoid VA services just because of the possible repercussions of using them. It's bad enough that the obama administration spew about mental health and guns, have caused a bunch of ruminations in the tinfoiler email chain circles about PTSD, veterans and firearms. Now there are a shitload of people with PTSD who won't seek treatment because of the potential violation of their rights, because the previous administration did nothing to address their concerns. (although honestly it remains to be seen whether or not the VA under Trump will really do any better, but that's a whole other story.... )

As far as the pedal stomper geriactrics go- that's not really a good analogy- a bigger problem is the RMV itself; most of the pedal stompers that cause serious problems are multiple offenders, much like the 9th offender DUI types which eventually kill someone. The problems there are on the back end of the system not the front end... so that's not really even a good example. A stomper can wreck 4 storefronts in this state in 2 years, meanwhile a teenager probably gets a suspension for getting a speeding ticket. Welcome to MA. Getting doctors to rat on patients in anything other than an imminent "threat/harm to others" scenario, IMHO, is ludicrous. Those policies effectively make problems worse.

-Mike

 

[MichaelJames1971]

I would argue that the analogy is very-much there: Doctors don't want to rat-out patients for fear that patients won't return for medical care. Doctor know better than most regarding a patient's mental state, or physical reflexes, and that knowledge has ramifications that can create a wedge between doctor and patient. Therefore, there's an incentive to let 'someone else' administer the political ramifications of doctor/patient care, and doctors just continue to do their jobs. I've seen that first-hand.

 

[drgrant]

I would argue that the analogy is very-much there: Doctors don't want to rat-out patients for fear that patients won't return for medical care. Doctor know better than most regarding a patient's mental state, or physical reflexes, and that knowledge has ramifications that can create a wedge between doctor and patient. Therefore, there's an incentive to let 'someone else' administer the political ramifications of doctor/patient care, and doctors just continue to do their jobs. I've seen that first-hand.

ETA: My point was, in the specific case you mentioned (stroke causing driving impairment) the on the ground reality is that most of these kinds of
capability problems are already known by the state via previous incidents. Most of the stompers, when they kill people, have some shit on their
record to begin with (like that dude that went into the market in santa monica and mowed down like a dozen people, there was a film of him driving his car into a water fountain or some shit like that, and probably a half dozen other incidents that weren't reported in gory detail. )

That aside, I'd still rather have the potential hazard of a doctor "letting someone loose" than the metric ton of bullshit created by having the government point a gun at doctors to force them to do something they don't want to do. The former is annoying dust in the wind, the later is a form of EBOLA or AIDS like authoritarianism that infects thousands and has the chance of ruining things for a lot more people. If this is a "doctrine of competing harms" thing, for me the answer is pretty obvious.

-Mike

 

[Howland]

Yeah, it's not about that. It's about denying a constitutional right of someone who has trouble with math.

Given the state of fiscal affairs in the country and who is responsible, it might be a fair trade off.

There is only this pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment;
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

That Due Process has a number of components; the right to counsel, compulsory process to introduce evidence or witnesses favorable to your defense, burden of proof on the complaintant, an impartial jury, etc.

Perhaps they should just forfeit rights of people who have trouble reading and comprehending written English. I think all reasonable people could agree on that.

 

[firestorm]

They ask on form 4473 if you have been involuntarily committed. Not all states report, though.

Also not all "Involuntary" commitments are involuntary. In some (Many?) cases of a hospital sending someone to a psych ward/unit/hospital for an eval the person is given a chance to sign in voluntarily for the eval period when they get there thus making it a voluntary commitment and thus not a disqualifier. I saw it personally as an EMT a number of times, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. (This obviously is for people who are not batshit crazy, rather people there for suicidal thoughts, depression or a range of things that still allow them to make somewhat rational choices.)

 

[MichaelJames1971]

ETA: My point was, in the specific case you mentioned (stroke causing driving impairment) the on the ground reality is that most of these kinds of
capability problems are already known by the state via previous incidents.


-Mike

If you have a stroke, and suffer partial paralysis or vision issues as a result, the DMV will know NOTHING about it. Your license is still valid, all-day every-day, unless someone from that patient's medical staff drops a dime. Often, the only reason the DMV gets a call is because a relative of the patient demands that action be taken because impairment is quite obvious, but common-sense isn't legally mandated. There will be MANY snowbirds/golden-agers who would rather be euthanized than give up their driving privileges due to old age. Shall we have the discussion regarding firearms possession and someone diagnosed as legally blind?

 

[drgrant]

If you have a stroke, and suffer partial paralysis or vision issues as a result, the DMV will know NOTHING about it.

They'll know about it when you start hitting things. My point is by the time someone actually gets hurt, 9 out of 10 times the "state long has known about" the problem in question, yet does nothing. I am loathe to give the state more power if they can't even manage to enforce what amounts to a "free kill. "

Shall we have the discussion regarding firearms possession and someone diagnosed as legally blind?

I'm perfectly fine with that. Maybe you shit your pants over it, I don't. Apparently you don't know what "legally blind" is. (hint, it's not completely blind). There are a shitload of people who are legally blind who should not be denied their rights. Even if someone can't see a damned thing it's not my right to judge. Period end full stop. Anything else and you don't believe in the 2nd. Completely blind people owning guns or carrying them is not even a corner case worth worrying about. Go buy some powerball tickets or something, seriously.

-Mike