Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms
RedFlagNews.com ^ | Feb 21, 2013 | Michael Connelly, J.D.

Posted on 02/21/2013 8:00:07 PM PST by wesagain

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs?

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, .............

(Excerpt) Read more at redflagnews.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; firearms; guncontrol; homoelectus2; military; ptsd; secondamendment; va; veterans; vets; vetsadministration; vetsguncontrol; vetsguns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: wesagain

save for later


51 posted on 02/21/2013 10:36:41 PM PST by Wasichu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

What if the sheriff tells ‘em to go piss up a rope?;)


52 posted on 02/21/2013 10:37:31 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut; 4mer Liberal; T Minus Four; MHGinTN

Hell to the NO, ping


53 posted on 02/21/2013 10:41:39 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

Typical commie bastards will disenfranchise anyone they fear. I just hope the entire military establishment is paying attention. The current regime is the enemy domestic, trying to abort the We The People Constitutional Republic. Of course they’re just following orders meant to end America of sovereign people. G. Edward Griffin was spot on!


54 posted on 02/21/2013 11:05:50 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: wesagain; Travis McGee; Jack Black

Travis - just like I said. Use mental health of veterans to disarm.

Jack - this is either a CWII ping or a veterans ping, or maybe both.

Kit


55 posted on 02/21/2013 11:08:20 PM PST by KitJ (Shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

How would I feel? Stupid question.

SHOW ME DA LETTER and WHO IS GETTING IT !!!


56 posted on 02/21/2013 11:26:07 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

How would I feel? Stupid question.

SHOW ME DA LETTER and WHO IS GETTING IT !!!


57 posted on 02/21/2013 11:26:16 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
is, if true, extremely disturbing.

Our first Muslim President is relying on you to remain ignorant and be a complete fool. No adding 2 + 2 or you may figure out his goal is to finish off destroying the US.

Or is it true you haven't a remote clue what Hussein is doing?

58 posted on 02/21/2013 11:36:24 PM PST by politicianslie (Most Americans can't even recognize massive election fraud. Our first Muslim President laughs at you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

I also thank you for your service.


59 posted on 02/21/2013 11:49:43 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodfearingTexan
One of the things that pisses me off about this is that the army has made a BIG point about convincing suicidal soldiers that there is no stigma for seeking mental health treatment. And now this?

The government not only lies, it abuses the "weak" in particular, knowing that those who need treatment will be the ones most susceptible to the deception.

60 posted on 02/21/2013 11:52:06 PM PST by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

One of the letters is posted at the link, right below the article. Personal info has been redacted.

The article was written by former Army officer/ retired attorney Michael Connelly, You might try searching for info about him, to decide how much faith to put in his claims.


61 posted on 02/21/2013 11:54:34 PM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: blam

I would like to clarify a couple of things about this. People are correct to be suspicious about the lack of judicial involvement in these decisions, however I don’t think it’s as sinister as it appears (YET).

I am in the VA system for PTSD, so I think I can chime in from a knowledgeable position.

There is a difference between being rated for PTSD and being found incompetent to handle one’s financial affairs. The VA proposes the incompetence hearing when it believes you are incapable of using the money they are sending you to care for yourself. There are veterans who receive thousands each month and are homeless because they do not have the mental capacity to find or maintain housing, to buy groceries or to otherwise care for themselves due to serious service-connected disabilities.

The incompetence hearing is a mechanism by which VA can designate someone else to receive your benefits as a Payee, and then that person becomes responsible for paying your rent, buying your groceries and other life sustaining bills. The Payee is always your spouse, brother, sister, adult child, or other immediate family member if such person exists and you authorize them to be Payee. If not, VA appoints a trustee.

The logic at VA goes on to conclude that if you are incapable of sustaining your own life with the money they are giving you, then you probably are not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

Now, there are plenty of arguments to be made that this blanket policy is unfair (and likely unconstitutional) because it doesn’t involve judicial determination of competency to possess firearms, and I agree with most of those arguments.

Currently, a veteran can challenge the VA’s competency findings in court. There was a proposal recently that would have stripped the veteran of this judicial review and made the VA’s findings final. In other words, a VA employee could forever ban a veteran from possessing firearms under that recent proposal. As it stands now, it can still be challenged.

I believe this is a terribly dangerous power for a bureaucrat to wield, and I agree that any incompetency assertion should be challenged by a veteran unless they agree that it is accurate.

However, I believe that there are, in fact, veterans who are incapable of managing their own affairs due to their service-connected disabilities, and that it probably is a good idea for any veteran determined to be so mentally incapable that they cannot buy their own food to be reviewed for suitability to possess firearms.

In summary, the INTENT of the incompetency hearings are probably reasonable in almost all cases, they just need to be conducted by a court rather than VA. That’s my opinion.


62 posted on 02/21/2013 11:55:04 PM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet
However, I believe that there are, in fact, veterans who are incapable of managing their own affairs due to their service-connected disabilities, and that it probably is a good idea for any veteran determined to be so mentally incapable that they cannot buy their own food to be reviewed for suitability to possess firearms.

A veteran's inability to handle finances does not mean he/she is a danger to himself or others. The life of a disabled vet is difficult enough without suspending their God given rights. If you don't have a reason to bar them from possessing firearms, then you have no business forcing them to defend themselves against baseless accusations.

63 posted on 02/22/2013 12:27:19 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
"A veteran's inability to handle finances does not mean he/she is a danger to himself or others. The life of a disabled vet is difficult enough without suspending their God given rights. If you don't have a reason to bar them from possessing firearms, then you have no business forcing them to defend themselves against baseless accusations. "

This is why any such assertion should be made in a court, where 1. frivolous assertions would be less likely as judges don't have time for them, 2. the veteran is entitled to counsel, and 3. the determination is made under the law and not under VA policy. (By the way, this is the system in place for every other American).

I never said I want to bar veterans from owning firearms based on baseless accusations, I said I support any such accusation going through a court so that it must be proven NOT to be baseless.

64 posted on 02/22/2013 12:56:05 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

No, you just said that every veteran who is incapable of handling his/her own finances should be investigated for the opportunity to deprive them of their right to own firearms.


65 posted on 02/22/2013 1:01:08 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

The number of US Disabled Veterans, who are incompetent to handle their daliy affairs is quite small. Moreover, those of that group, who are buying weapons and then, attacking anyone, anywhere at anytime. This is an advancing of Clinton’s Veteran Gun Rights debacle. Illegal, immoral and unfounded in precedent of rationality. This a blanket policy designed abjure those best qualified, to resist and defend Our Country, from domestic treason.


66 posted on 02/22/2013 1:05:04 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

The number of US Disabled Veterans, who are incompetent to handle their daliy affairs is quite small. Moreover, those of that group, who are buying weapons and then, attacking anyone, anywhere at anytime. This is an advancing of Clinton’s Veteran Gun Rights debacle. Illegal, immoral and unfounded in precedent of rationality. This a blanket policy designed to abjure those best qualified, to resist and defend Our Country, from domestic treason.


67 posted on 02/22/2013 1:05:21 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

.
.

A very high % of those on FR are now stealth radicals that are working for da one/won - homo electus #2

Reread the comments on this thread
Insane comments revealing they themselves have judged and they want your property

Ignore the word “conservative” or and self-elevating word or title in their FR screenname(s)

“Sell your robe and buy a sword” did not include “and give it to me or else” -

.
.


68 posted on 02/22/2013 1:10:43 AM PST by devolve ( -------- -- --It is not where Obama was born that is the problem - it is where he*s living now--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
Any person, veteran or not, who is taken to court by someone alleging they are incompetent to handle their own affairs, and is subsequently adjudicated by that court to be incompetent to handle their own affairs, is not allowed to possess firearms.

I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else. That the assertion came from the VA is immaterial. There is a difference between being "inacapable" and "incompetent". It is an important distinction, as there are plenty of people incapable of being responsible with money. Being incapable due to incompetence is a different animal, and if a court rules that someone literally is mentally incompetent to house, feed and cloth themselves, then I support the temporary restriction of their right to possess arms.

I personally know two veterans who have been disarmed in this way, who after treatment proved they were then competent and got their firearms back. Both veterans agree it was in their best interest to have been disarmed at the time they were found to be incompetent.

If you think I am supporting some baseless "willy nilly" disarming of veterans who don't pay their bills on time, I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

69 posted on 02/22/2013 1:11:39 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

There will be no such court. The supposed existence of such, is a fairy tale- best told to children.


70 posted on 02/22/2013 1:13:37 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

Cloward-Piven states you overwhelm until the system collapses. Also create so many laws, everyone is a criminal and to create fear is to control.
VA will be overwhelmed even more than now with claims and don’t expect to ever get your rights back, once you are in the system. The frog is cooked, too late to jump.


71 posted on 02/22/2013 1:14:25 AM PST by pacpam (action=consequence and applies in all cases - friend of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler
"The number of US Disabled Veterans, who are incompetent to handle their daliy affairs is quite small."

This is why I believe the power should be taken from VA to determine incompetence through an administrative "hearing", and be done in a court instead, like it is for all other Americans.

72 posted on 02/22/2013 1:16:47 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

What the hell does an inability to handle finances have to do with being a danger to self or others? There is no connection, and no justification for assuming there is. There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.


73 posted on 02/22/2013 1:26:03 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

What the hell does an inability to handle finances have to do with being a danger to self or others? There is no connection, and no justification for assuming there is. There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.


74 posted on 02/22/2013 1:27:24 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: wesagain
Seems to me that once you are discharged, the VA has nothing to say about anything in your life, unless you are receiving some benefit. Even then, it would seem taking that benefit away is the extent of their jurisdiction. Personally, I think there would be few who would even dare to show up and try to remove a weapon. I know many civilian authorities have already said that if the Feds want them, they can jolly well try to collect them without local help.

Nam Vet

75 posted on 02/22/2013 1:27:42 AM PST by Nam Vet (The Commander-in-ept will solve all problems ... just wait 'til after vacation !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

Do you realize that our court system is somewhat corrupted? What federal court would decline the promotion of the blanket policy in current status? It certainly was NOT denied, by such judiciary, since Clinton’s bartered bargain.


76 posted on 02/22/2013 1:27:58 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
What the hell does an inability to handle finances have to do with being a danger to self or others? There is no connection, and no justification for assuming there is.

I think I was very clear that there is a distinction between "incapable" and "incompetent". "Incompetent" means you do not possess the basic mental faculties to care for yourself. Do you support the right of a person, who does not possess the basic mental faculties to care for themselves, to possess firearms?

There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.

You are disregarding every single distinction I've made. I actually just said in a previous post that if you think I advocate disarming veterans because they don't pay their bills on time, then you misunderstand my position.

If one of my fellow veterans is literally incapable of feeding himself, I support a court making a determination whether, for his own safety, he should be allowed to possess a firearm. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I myself am a disabled veteran with PTSD.

77 posted on 02/22/2013 1:36:06 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nam Vet
Not sure about that.

The former Marine who was grabbed by the police a few months ago for non-threatening Facebook posts was taken to a VA hospital and held without any due process until a judge ordered him to be set free.

Link.

78 posted on 02/22/2013 1:37:45 AM PST by SIDENET (I've drawn my line in the sand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
rights can not be taken away without due process.

No, but they can be removed by force, and complacency of others to your plight.

79 posted on 02/22/2013 1:59:57 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesn’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KitJ; wesagain; Travis McGee; Jack Black

Quote of the day;

“Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that criminals have too many guns is like getting yourself a vasectomy because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.”


80 posted on 02/22/2013 2:03:50 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesn’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet
however I don’t think it’s as sinister as it appears (YET).

Who are you really? It is maybe a little less sinister than satin himself, wake up.

81 posted on 02/22/2013 2:07:37 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesn’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

You stated; “I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else.” Correct? The whole of PTSD Vets under Clinton, were absolutely not treated the same, as everyone else. The current expansive renewal of that policy, flies in the face, of your qualifying statement.


82 posted on 02/22/2013 2:09:46 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I think you yourself misunderstand where you are coming from. Wake up.

83 posted on 02/22/2013 2:09:46 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesn’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet
I said that I myself am a disabled veteran with PTSD.

Well then you have turned in your weapons already, right?

84 posted on 02/22/2013 2:12:00 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesn’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Who are you really?

As I explained in all my subsequent posts, I am a disabled veteran with PTSD who recognizes that there should be a mechanism to ensure the safety of veterans who are found incompetent to care for themselves.

I believe that mechanism should be the courts, not the VA. I believe the current system is just waiting to be abused. I believe it probably is abused. I just don't think there is a widespread attempt by VA to disarm veterans (yet). I believe this power should be taken from VA so that they cannot attempt the widespread disarming of veterans.

Who are you, really?

85 posted on 02/22/2013 2:12:23 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
"Well then you have turned in your weapons already, right?"

Why are you doing this? Did I, in any of my posts, advocate the disarming of veterans with PTSD? No, I didn't. You are being misleading.

86 posted on 02/22/2013 2:14:19 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

Maybe I failed to mention that my husband is a disabled veteran. He is incapable of handling his own finances. He is incompetent. I am his caregiver.

Based on that limited information, you have advocated putting him under investigation for the purpose of depriving him of his 2nd Amendment rights. Not because there is any probable cause, or likelihood that he cannot or should not handle a firearm, but because he’s a military veteran who cannot manage a household.

He cannot balance a checkbook. He cannot cook meals or do much housework. But he can handle his firearms, and do his own reloading. He knows better than to go on a shooting spree. He knows better than to violate others’ rights, even when he can. But there is no reason he should have to prove any of that, in court or a bureaucrat’s office, because he has done nothing to raise any reasonable suspicion. There is no reason to suspect that just because a veteran is disabled they are any more likely than anyone else to abuse their 2nd Amendment rights. In this country, we do not open fishing expedition type investigations against people for the purpose of taking punitive action against them if there is not a reason.

We do not investigate every civilian who checks NO to the question “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective...?” Even if they can’t sign their name on the form for whatever reason, we don’t open an investigation. They could be blind, illiterate, or just deliberately difficult, and we do not open an investigation into their mental/emotional/medical state with the goal of revoking their right to purchase the firearm. And there’s no reason we should, unless they display some evidence worthy of an investigation. The 4th Amendment prohibits such abuse.


87 posted on 02/22/2013 2:20:44 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet
Do you support the right of a person, who does not possess the basic mental faculties to care for themselves, to possess firearms?

If no court has judged them to be a danger to themselves or others, then yes, I support their right to possess firearms.

If there is no reasonable suspicion that an investigation would result in such a ruling, there should be no such investigation.

88 posted on 02/22/2013 2:30:33 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: wesagain
we are one small step from the world described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago, bureaucratic assignment of incompetence and banishment to an internal exile. How low we have fallen in such a short time. it sickens me to death. meanwhile we just bitch and moan on FR. When is it time to form a public grand jury and start issuing indictments?????
89 posted on 02/22/2013 2:33:21 AM PST by Movemout ( all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to look away and do nothing-FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
Maybe I failed to mention that my husband is a disabled veteran. He is incapable of handling his own finances. He is incompetent. I am his caregiver.

As a fellow veteran, I salute your husband and thank him for his service, sincerely.

Based on that limited information, you have advocated putting him under investigation for the purpose of depriving him of his 2nd Amendment rights.

This is the miscommunication between us. I advocate no such thing. I have explained the current VA rationale for what it does, and stated that I do not believe that currently they are waging a campaign to disarm veterans.

I believe that there are some veterans (and non-veterans) who are too mentally incompetent to possess firearms, namely those people who are devoid of rational thought and literally too incompetent to care for themselves. This does not include your husband as you have described. I believe that the current system, where VA proposes, then determines (based on its own proposal) to restrict firearm rights encourages VA to propose restrictions on people like your husband who should not be restricted. What has VA got to lose? They simply propose to take his guns, then have a "hearing", then take them.

By moving the determination to the courts, VA must assemble its evidence FIRST, rather than having a hearing requiring your husband to prove his evidence to the contrary.

I am not in any way actively endorsing any power to the VA, or against veterans. Maybe I have failed to explain this properly based on some of the responses I've gotten. I simply mean to say that there are, in our society, people who are so mentally impaired that they must be disarmed for their own safety, and that that determination should always be made by a court, not a bureaucrat.

My comments about what VA does now are simply explanatory.

90 posted on 02/22/2013 2:42:10 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I like that!


91 posted on 02/22/2013 4:49:24 AM PST by wesagain (The God #Elohim# of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler
You stated; “I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else.” Correct? The whole of PTSD Vets under Clinton, were absolutely not treated the same, as everyone else. The current expansive renewal of that policy, flies in the face, of your qualifying statement.

I support the expansion of the policy. I agree they were not treated the same under Clinton. I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else. What the hell are you talking about?

92 posted on 02/22/2013 5:09:32 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; blam

Blam is right. Most people with PTSD tend to isolate. They just want to be left alone. PTSD is an extreme anxiety disorder - I think the people who go on these rampages are psychotic, and definitely not dealing with PTSD.


93 posted on 02/22/2013 6:02:21 AM PST by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

I meant to agree with you in my post 93.


94 posted on 02/22/2013 6:24:14 AM PST by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I know that. But that does not seem to be the way the VA is taking your information. You obviously were not consulted on this decision. Perhaps next time.
95 posted on 02/22/2013 7:11:01 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

I had a VA Dr. basically tell me that this was going to happen 2 years ago if the bastard was reelected. I was told not to say too much and that certain things could prevent me from obtaining or owning a weapon in the future. Why can’t the libtards understand that the reason the US hasn’t been invaded is because we have a 100 million-plus member armed militia and that if they push too hard, nothing they can do will prevent their overthrow? Wolverines, time to lock and load! FUBO


96 posted on 02/22/2013 10:46:34 AM PST by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

Any the phony support the troops speeches and stories from Obummer are a smokescreen.

This administration has declared war on our military and our veterans. This is further proof.


97 posted on 02/22/2013 11:05:10 AM PST by 444Flyer (Obama killed the Twinkie, but not the Terrorists in Benghazi. What's wrong with this picture?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 101stAirborneVet

I second you post but add; It’s not the PTSD in most cases ... it’s Celexa; Lexapro; Luvox; Paxil; Prozac; Zoloft; et al … Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors the infamous SSRIs’
I would add that women who have PTSD due to rape are they to be dis-armed also?
They way to beat their contention is to blame Big Pharma
and then see how fast the issue drops.


98 posted on 02/22/2013 12:00:48 PM PST by alphadog (2nd Bn. 3rd Marines, Vietnam, class of 68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Due process isn’t lost. The VA is an administrative agency, meaning Congress has authorized them to do a variety of things, including make rules and hold hearings. The letter explains how to object. And if you still don’t like what the agency decides, you can go to court.

My guess is that the VA is acting legally under the laws Congress wrote.


99 posted on 02/22/2013 12:08:00 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2; napscoordinator

What privilege are you talking about?


A driver’s license is a “privilege.”

Gun ownership is a God given right set forth in the Bill of Rights.


100 posted on 02/22/2013 4:25:21 PM PST by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson