• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms

Veterans as a group are not receiving these letters. It's sent to enrollees whose provider has determined the patient is incompetent to handle his finances - drug/alcohol addicts, schizo, bipolar, dementia patients. The VA can not prohibit a Veteran's ownership of firearms by sending a letter.

I'd be surprised if the language on this letter is any different now than it was 20 years ago when the Brady Act was passed. But I bet the Gateway Pundit will get a lot of page clicks for the sexy headline.
 
I this all veterans, veterans that have filed to receive benefits due to suffering from PTSD, veterans that the VA has simply decided have PTSD,.....

This one should have been easy to see coming really. Vets are expected by most to be against any assault on the Constitution for obvious reasons so .gov needs to limit that risk to their agenda. Everyone and their uncle has hitched onto the "mental illness" bandwagon and PTSD is a mental condition. Perfect scenario for the ol .gov I'd say
 
Not sure where this comes from. The wife and I are both disabled vets and have regular appointments with the VA and neither of us have received such a letter.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk
 
I see this creating problems whereby disabled vets won't seek treatment for whatever's bothering them, because they fear they'll lose their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

Not good.
 
The way I read that is you have to be deemed "incompetent," i.e. so mentally disabled that you are unable to handle basic things such as your personal finances, which is what the letter is about when you wait 5 hours for that piece of shit web server to load and give you the forms its actually talking about.

So in other words, the person is so screwed up they cant manage their life, at all, and the VA wants to give the benefit money to a party who can manage it for the veteran.

This would not exactly be a common letter. This is more of something for people with dementia, I would suspect.

I've never seen it.
 
It is not a notice prohibiting ownership. It is a due process notice indicating they believe the person may be incapable of managing their own affairs, and if the determination is actually made upon a review of the records, they may lose the right to possess firearms. I agree with the concept, and commend the VA for providing a right to appeal any determination. If youre not capable of managing your own affairs, youre not capable of managing a firearm.

States, including MA, should follow the VA protocol.
 
TayNinh_66 said:
It is not a notice prohibiting ownership. It is a due process notice indicating they believe the person may be incapable of managing their own affairs, and if the determination is actually made upon a review of the records, they may lose the right to possess firearms. I agree with the concept, and commend the VA for providing a right to appeal any determination. If youre not capable of managing your own affairs, youre not capable of managing a firearm.

States, including MA, should follow the VA protocol.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Oh you are poor. Therefore we are taking away your rights.

Hey you cannot manage your affairs well that means you are not allowed to have the freedom of speech. After all...if you can't manage your affairs you certainly can't manage your speech.
 
TayNinh_66 said:
I agree with the concept, and commend the VA for providing a right to appeal any determination. If youre not capable of managing your own affairs, youre not capable of managing a firearm.

States, including MA, should follow the VA protocol.
Click to expand...

shut. the. ****. up.

k? thanks.
 
The government doesn't think any of us can manage our own affairs. The government wants to manage all our affairs and money for us. Big brother knows best of course. [rolleyes]
 
TayNinh_66 said:
It is not a notice prohibiting ownership. It is a due process notice indicating they believe the person may be incapable of managing their own affairs, and if the determination is actually made upon a review of the records, they may lose the right to possess firearms. I agree with the concept, and commend the VA for providing a right to appeal any determination. If youre not capable of managing your own affairs, youre not capable of managing a firearm.

States, including MA, should follow the VA protocol.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What a tool.

- - - Updated - - -

StevieP said:
I see this creating problems whereby disabled vets won't seek treatment for whatever's bothering them, because they fear they'll lose their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

Not good.
Click to expand...

This is a HUGE problem that we already have. This country has a history of treating our warriors like shit when they get out. It makes me sick.
 
This is not a change in the law. If you are deemed mentally deficient or incompetent, you are not able to purchase a firearm. In my experience(I've done it) declaring someone incompetent is really difficult. Is this happening in large numbers for vets at the moment?

Edit: I would also point out that declaring someone incompetent to manage their financial affairs is discreet from declaring them incompetent with respect to their personal welfare and medical needs. Hence you could make the case that such a person is able to defend themselves, they just don't pay their bills. Nonetheless, such a finding, under current law, would likely result in someone being denied a firearm.

I would hope that anyone treated for mental illness(PTSD, etc) for military service would not be automatically prohibited, and under current law I don't think that they would be. However, once you are adjudicated incompetent, that is a different issue.

If national background checks with mental health checks ever get instituted, I would expect a lot of soldiers to be prohibited due to treatment of PTSD, and I would not agree with that.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the Federal government cannot manage their own finances. Show me a vet that is 16,558,295,500 as of me posting this post. I would like to consider this my letter to our commander in chief and our congress that I feel their rights to bear arms and rights to pass legislation is hearby in question. If they wish to continue to posess these "Rights" they should reply to me in writing in no more then 90 days their reasoning as to why they feel they should retain their rights to run this country. I will post up this reply and WE THE PEOPLE will decide!

Sincerely

Tater
 
Tater said:
In my opinion the Federal government cannot manage their own finances. Show me a vet that is 16,558,295,500 as of me posting this post. I would like to consider this my letter to our commander in chief and our congress that I feel their rights to bear arms and rights to pass legislation is hearby in question. If they wish to continue to posess these "Rights" they should reply to me in writing in no more then 90 days their reasoning as to why they feel they should retain their rights to run this country. I will post up this reply and WE THE PEOPLE will decide!

Sincerely

Tater
Click to expand...

I agree completely. As a responsible citizen, I stand ready to take possession of the country's nuclear arsenal and will safeguard it until such time as a court of law finds the government competent to manage its affairs. MA is backed up about 2 years right now, so we have some time on this.
 
In my opinion the Federal government cannot manage their own finances. Show me a vet that is 16,558,295,500 as of me posting this post. I would like to consider this my letter to our commander in chief and our congress that I feel their rights to bear arms and rights to pass legislation is hearby in question. If they wish to continue to posess these "Rights" they should reply to me in writing in no more then 90 days their reasoning as to why they feel they should retain their rights to run this country. I will post up this reply and WE THE PEOPLE will decide!

Sincerely

Tater
 
Interesting to see all the "mouths" spouting off about this subject.

A) The Gateway Pundit. Do you think that maybe they only published page 2 of this letter because page 1 makes it a lot clearer what those conditions would be that result in a person being judged "incompetent"?
B) Everyone here rants and raves about the Lame Stream Media. There is the exact opposite version of them, in which everything is slanted and taken out of context.
C) I am veteran. Was diagnosed with PTSD many years ago. As part of the paperwork, I received a similar notice. Understand, the VA does not go into "full automatic" mode and just declare a vet incompetent. BEFORE that happens, the vet receives this notice. At that point, the vet can decline further testing. It will NOT result in his/her being denied further care medical care, but it may impact treatment relative to PTSD. In other words, it is not an "all or nothing" situation for the vet.

If another vet has had a different experience, all of us vets would like to hear it.
 
Tater said:
In my opinion the Federal government cannot manage their own finances. Show me a vet that is 16,558,295,500 as of me posting this post. I would like to consider this my letter to our commander in chief and our congress that I feel their rights to bear arms and rights to pass legislation is hearby in question. If they wish to continue to posess these "Rights" they should reply to me in writing in no more then 90 days their reasoning as to why they feel they should retain their rights to run this country. I will post up this reply and WE THE PEOPLE will decide!

Sincerely

Tater
Click to expand...

Agreed. To put in perspective. The fed makes 2.4t spends 3.5t. This is equivalent to a vet who makes 50k spending ~73k a year. Not including years of backed up interest.
 
Tater said:
In my opinion the Federal government cannot manage their own finances. Show me a vet that is 16,558,295,500 as of me posting this post. I would like to consider this my letter to our commander in chief and our congress that I feel their rights to bear arms and rights to pass legislation is hearby in question. If they wish to continue to posess these "Rights" they should reply to me in writing in no more then 90 days their reasoning as to why they feel they should retain their rights to run this country. I will post up this reply and WE THE PEOPLE will decide!

Sincerely

Tater
Click to expand...

And just what does this reply have to do with vets receiving that letter? Other than you making some ridiculous post that no one in the .gov will ever read, or much less care about?
 
RockIt said:
Interesting to see all the "mouths" spouting off about this subject.

A) The Gateway Pundit. Do you think that maybe they only published page 2 of this letter because page 1 makes it a lot clearer what those conditions would be that result in a person being judged "incompetent"?
B) Everyone here rants and raves about the Lame Stream Media. There is the exact opposite version of them, in which everything is slanted and taken out of context.
C) I am veteran. Was diagnosed with PTSD many years ago. As part of the paperwork, I received a similar notice. Understand, the VA does not go into "full automatic" mode and just declare a vet incompetent. BEFORE that happens, the vet receives this notice. At that point, the vet can decline further testing. It will NOT result in his/her being denied further care medical care, but it may impact treatment relative to PTSD. In other words, it is not an "all or nothing" situation for the vet.

If another vet has had a different experience, all of us vets would like to hear it.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much. This is an extremely slanted bit of reporting, and it's taking advantage people's sympathy for disabled vets in a pretty blatant way. Now personally I'm against any restrictions on firearms ownership, to include felons, illegal aliens, and the mentally unstable. But I take just as dim a view to BS reporting from "my" side as I do from the opposition.
 
Last edited:
No one's rights should be taken away for "mental health" issues unless it is adjudicated in a court of law. There is far too much power here for doctors to say, "Yep, crazy. No soup for you." I also take a dim view of psychiatry which has long been the tool of the state. What, you don't love the soviet state, comrade? You must be crazy!

Agree with ochmude, though. If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you should be behind bars. And "dangerous" here means convicted of a violent crime as judged by a jury of your peers, nothing less. If they're out on the streets, there's nothing that can be done to prevent them from obtaining a gun if they want it badly enough.
 
I just get annoyed with this sort of thing. I have been seeing the VA for over 30 years. I also see a regular doc. The VA is not the best medical care available, but it isn't all bad either. Private medical care is not all it is cracked up to be. The VA has fixed things for me that the private sector could not figure out.

What I have noticed is that they really try hard not to violate patients privacy or rights. That is a tough thing for them to do considering they are part of the government. Other agencies in the .gov view them as the perfect place to pry into lives where they have no business. Doctors usually are very much into protecting patients privacy. They fight a constant battle with the bureaucrats.

Some half-assed internet rag prints half of a letter and a bunch of clowns start running with it as if it is the gospel. Give me a break.
 
This. I've read posts at Gateway Pundit and they are usually better than this. This one is as accurate as the article in USA Today yesterday that said that most Americans support Obama on gun control. Funny, no other poll shows that, just the USA Today one. Back on subject. Media bias is not just a problem of the left and this is a good example.

There is a lot left out of the blog post and you've done a good job filling us in.

BTW, do all you big strong internet warriors feel hard between the legs after shitting on TayNinh66? Unless he picked that name out of a hat I'm guessing that he's a Vietnam veteran who saw some heavy action. Yet, I guess that doesn't give him the right to disagree with some of the biggest nitwits ever to grace the pages of NES. Only they are wise enough to have opinions.

RockIt said:
Interesting to see all the "mouths" spouting off about this subject.

A) The Gateway Pundit. Do you think that maybe they only published page 2 of this letter because page 1 makes it a lot clearer what those conditions would be that result in a person being judged "incompetent"?
B) Everyone here rants and raves about the Lame Stream Media. There is the exact opposite version of them, in which everything is slanted and taken out of context.
C) I am veteran. Was diagnosed with PTSD many years ago. As part of the paperwork, I received a similar notice. Understand, the VA does not go into "full automatic" mode and just declare a vet incompetent. BEFORE that happens, the vet receives this notice. At that point, the vet can decline further testing. It will NOT result in his/her being denied further care medical care, but it may impact treatment relative to PTSD. In other words, it is not an "all or nothing" situation for the vet.

If another vet has had a different experience, all of us vets would like to hear it.
Click to expand...
 
My opinion is that more people are in danger of a doc saying "yep you are crazy, no soup for you" in the private sector than ones visiting the VA. Here is why:

Docs in the VA are dealing with people that have handled and used guns, they know that. They don't start preaching the "all guns are evil" BS. They may believe it, but they know they are in the wrong organization to push it, or even attempt to discuss it. They also learn that all these guys who have used weapons are not wanton killers. Just people.

Private docs? Rarely ask if a patient is a veteran. Have zip experience with them. Might believe all the BS they have seen in movies about vets being potential psycho killers. The result? They will be quicker to think that a vet is a danger to themselves and society.
 
We all hate to see yet another way the government can control a persons rights. But has everyone experienced a person with a severe mental illness? Because it's real easy to spout off about this but until your staring down the barrel of your own gun you really don't have a pot to piss in.

There are people in this world who can walk into a LGS and walk out the same day who should NEVER own a gun, let alone have any sort of access to one. It's a big friggen mess that they just keep throwing pills at and that in itself is most certainly magnifying the problem. I have been around enough mentally medicated individuals that I can sniff them out with a high degree of accuracy. I have dated them. I have been housemates with them. I have worked with them. I have counseled them professionally. I have a mother who is one. There are far more out there than you could ever imagine. It's a serious problem with no end in sight. And they will take our guns well before addressing it...
 

Similar threads

Letters of recommendation?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
42!
42!
Over 140 House Democrats Demand Ability to Block Veterans from Purchasing Guns
Replies
1
Views
509
bigbravehog
bigbravehog
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
362
clampett
clampett
Went to purchase first firearm and got delayed from NICS
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
upcountry
upcountry
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
168
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom