Skip to comments.Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire (Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA)
Posted on 12/04/2012 4:16:24 PM PST by plain talk
A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent to have their cases adjudicated by a judge rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.
Were not asking for anything big, Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. Were just saying that if youre going to take away the Second Amendment rights
they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone whos unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There’s a definite hidden agenda behind this. Does the status of ‘veteran’ stay with you forever so that their 2nd amendment rights are revocable by a pencil pusher at the DVA?
Recommended reading “Life and Death in Shanghai” by Nien Chung.
I think the agenda is to push an American ‘cultural revolution’ where dissidents and opposition are frequently declared “mentally ill”.
Big Sis says some vets might be terrorists.
Britain’s gun control push in the last century began with disarming veterans.
Along with many other bad things, this bodes ill for vets who think they may have treatable mental health problems seeking treatment. Nobody wants to be branded this way. Hence, lots of men and women with serious problems will do their level best to avoid treatment with its accompanying stigma and loss of constitutional rights.
Makes being a veteran a moral hazard now. In the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare, the court ruled the first amendment didn’t apply to those who work for profit. Now making a profit or serving your country could be moral hazards. Ain’t this swell?
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.