Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators

  1. #11
    Very good points! In addition, veterans beware of the following received from a Navy Seal battle buddy of mine:
    Do you have a gun in the house?
    GOOD TO KNOW!

    When a friend had his gallbladder taken out and spent 4 days in the hospital for what should have been an overnight stay. He had home nurse visits for two weeks after and was asked if he had guns in the house. He responded that if he did he would not tell them. So the below has some merit.

    FYI, I am passing this along... There are comments from two other people I have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask.

    Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn't. My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered yes to both questions Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack.

    The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.

    Just passing this along for your information: I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation.. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!!

    So it is out there! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!!

    Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners... Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctor's appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

    The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

    Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists.Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED !

    If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. Central Indiana
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by bp27 View Post
    Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners... Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctor's appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

    The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

    Looks like they are going after the vets first.
    If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.
    Respectfully, sir... not true..... both from experience as a VA employee, and ...

    Veterans can lose their weapons permit if they answer yes to three questions in a medical exam-Fiction!
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    Respectfully, sir... not true..... both from experience as a VA employee, and ...

    Veterans can lose their weapons permit if they answer yes to three questions in a medical exam-Fiction!
    The myth about the questions on the exam has already been exposed here. This is another issue entirely. This issue is about veterans who surrender their rights to manage their own financial affairs as they relate to their VA care. The VA interprets that to mean an admission that they are mentally unable to dictate their own lives, and thus mentally impaired to the point that they would be a danger if they possess firearms. Accordingly, the VA reports these individuals to the FBI where they get included in the NICS instant background check system and they can no longer purchase a firearm. Some jurisdictions also use that as justification to seize any firearms they may already own. This is something that came to light about a year or so ago. It doesn't affect that many veterans in the grand scheme of things, but even one would be too many. That's why Coburn and many other elected officials are dedicated to getting it changed.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. Central Indiana
    Posts
    512
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't HR2640 should provide relief, absent adjudication resulting in a finding of being a mental defective?

    HR-2640 Section 3. (c)(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't HR2640 should provide relief, absent adjudication resulting in a finding of being a mental defective?
    Not when the supposed surrender of rights is voluntary and is a non-medical decision. The VA is playing fast and loose with semantics on this issue. They aren't using mental health decisions by physicians to base their reporting on. This all stems from financial paperwork. All veterans within the VA medical system have to wade through a massive amount of bureaucratic paperwork, much of it financial. The VA offers them the option of signing the responsibility for all of that financial paperwork burden over to someone at VA, or to a third party, typically a family member. What the VA is doing is they are treating these decisions as an admission by the veteran that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, and the VA attempts to extend that logic to assume the veterans are also not competent to handle a firearm. Since this was not a medical or legal decision, and was supposedly done voluntarily, the VA views it as a form of self commitment, and as such it is not covered by the restrictions governing legal adjudication or commitment by medical authority. This is the way I understand the situation to be as it is today, and why Congressional action is needed to close the underhanded loophole the VA is unfairly exploiting.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. Central Indiana
    Posts
    512
    I read 2640 as saying that absent adjudication, there can be no finding of mental disability....

    No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    I read 2640 as saying that absent adjudication, there can be no finding of mental disability....
    The quote you provide says no federal agency may provide any record of an adjudication related to mental health that is based solely on a medical finding, but what they're doing isn't a medical finding, as I pointed out. They're treating it as the veteran voluntarily relinquishing his rights due to a supposed admission that he is not competent, basically tantamount to a self committal, and it's all based on financial forms, not medical forms. That's the way I've seen it detailed. It was actually in another thread here on the same topic. You can dig for it if you want. I don't remember what additional info was in there, if any.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by yarlan View Post
    who is to decide who is mentally incompetent?
    the gov sure isn't qualified
    Are you sure? I thought it was a prerequisite for several positions in government!
    Jim Page

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum

  10. #19
    I have been a VA patient with a 50% disability since 1980. On Medicare since 2001. I have never been asked, and I see VA and Medicare doctors more than four times a year.
    Jim Page

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum

  11. Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators
    By: Dean Garrison
    A few days ago, several media sources started to report that our veterans are receiving letters which deprive them of their second amendment rights.
    Here’s your warning shot:
    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.
    Read More;
    Letters to Vets About Taking Their Gun Rights? Endorsed by 98 U.S. Senators |
    This has been codified at Veterans Disarmament Act signed into Law Jan 8, 2008.

    The illegal back door is at BATFE's illegal regs found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person." The Veterans Disarmament Act codifies BATFE's regulations (at 27 C.F.R. 478.11), statutory law would now allow a person to be deemed as a "mental defective" from the "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" -- in other words, no longer just by a court adjudication. Emphasis added.

    While this standard is INCONSISTENT with the existing federal code (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)), it would become the statutory law of the land if H.R. 2640 passes. At: The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law - Gun Owners of America Feb. 2009 (last visited July 15, 2013). So much for adjudication (face to face with accusers in a court room).

    Now for us VA users, the Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007 and it's reaffirmation in 2012 and the NDAA 2012 can be problematic. These acts have been used to circumvent certain HIPAA Protections by various entities 'for cause.' FYI, there are certain HIPAA records that you cannot access even though you are the subject matter. For more [dis]cussin see http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...-question.html and Obama Taking Action on Gun Background Check System. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2013, from Web site: Obama Taking Action on Gun Background Check System for EOs that bypass certain HIPAA aspects and due process.

    The VA is playing loose in its medical coding- if you attend a Vet group meeting on VA property, or see any medical or social services persons for your annual physical, look at the estimated benefits medical code. The codes used are usually for an intervention or support group, a psych code.

    Let's look at another step that violates the 4th &5th Amendments: Gov’t sanctioned/ordered home inspections pretext.
    The stories are at:Obamacare Provision: ?Forced? Home Inspections (last visited Aug. 15, 2013).

    Funding Cycle View Expand Affordable Care Act - Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Details of the changes posted in this announcement Funding Cycle View | HRSA EHBs, https://grants3.hrsa.gov/2010/Web2Ex...e&pageNumber=1 (last visited Aug. 15, 2013).

    The common thread through this all- no due process, the person or persons do not and generally are not identified. Even a FOIA request would go unanswered, since you are dealing with Gov't entities rather than a person. We've all seen and read about what happens to a homeowner when they ask to read or see a search warrant, it usually doesn't end well.

    At: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/polit...tml#post437916

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast