Posted on 04/17/2015 5:43:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing deep concerns over Veterans Affairs evaluations classifying veterans as "mentally defective" and banning them in the federal background check system from purchasing or owning a firearm.
According to Grassley's office, the VA "reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits," keeping them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. (Bolding is mine)
"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies. And that percentage remained virtually unchanged as of April 2013. Given the numbers, it is essential to ensure that the process by which the VA reports names to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for placement on the NICS list recognizes and protects the fundamental nature of veterans’ rights under the Second Amendment," Grassley wrote in the letter. "Specifically, once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun ban list, consequently denying his or her right to possess and own firearms. In the past, the VA has attempted to justify its actions by relying on a single federal regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.353, which by its plain language grants limited authority to determine incompetence, but only in the context of financial matters: 'Ratings agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for purposes of: insurance and…disbursement of benefits.'"
The VA is placing veterans on the gun ban list without proper legal backing and is certainly engaged in over reach through this practice.
On top of serious concerns about the infringement of Second Amendment rights, Grassley is raising questions about the lack of due process for veterans classified as "mentally defective," and therefore unfit to purchase a firearm, who simply need help managing VA benefits.
"The VA’s regulation appears to omit important findings and never reaches the question of whether a veteran is a danger to himself, herself, or others. Thus, a VA determination that a veteran is “incompetent” to manage finances is insufficient to conclude that the veteran is “mentally defective” under the ATF’s standard that is codified in federal law," Grassley continued. "Furthermore, when a veteran receives a letter stating that the VA believes he is unable to manage his finances, that veteran now has the burden of proving that he is in fact competent to manage his benefit payments and does not need a fiduciary. However, underlying the hearing is a real possibility that the right to firearms will be infringed. Therefore, in light of the liberty and property interests involved, placing the burden of proof on the veteran is highly suspect. Under similar circumstances, the burden is generally on the government. Further, the hearing that takes place is inside the VA administrative system and composed of VA employees rather than a neutral decision maker. Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights—a consequence which is wholly unrelated to and unsupported by the record developed in the VA process. Accordingly, Congress needs to understand what justifies taking such action without more due process protections for the veteran."
Grassley has asked Holder to respond to the following questions by April 30, 2015:
1. Is the primary purpose of the NICS list to preclude firearm ownership and possession by individuals who are a danger to themselves and/or others? If not, what is the primary purpose of the NICS list?
2. Is the primary purpose of the VA’s reporting system to report the names of individuals who are appointed a fiduciary?
3. Out of all names on the NICS list, what percentage of them have been referred by the VA?
4. Do you believe that a veteran adjudicated as incompetent to manage finances and appointed a fiduciary is likewise mentally defective under the ATF standard? If so, what is the basis for that conclusion?
5. Does the standard employed by the VA to report names to the DOJ for subsequent placement on the NICS list comply with the protections of the Second Amendment? If so, please explain how, in light of due process concerns described above.
6. Given that the VA adjudication process can result in a complete infringement of a person’s fundamental Second Amendment right, do you believe that the use of the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard is proper? If so, why?
7. Is the DOJ satisfied that all names reported from the VA for placement on the NICS are, in fact and in law, persons who should not own or possess a firearm because they are dangers to themselves and/or others? If so, what evidence supports that conclusion?
8. Given that 99.3% of all names in the NICS “mental defective” category are reported from the VA, has the DOJ reviewed the VA’s reporting standards and procedure? If so, please provide a copy of the review that took place. If no review took place, please explain why not.
9. What review process does DOJ have in place to ensure that names are properly on the NICS list
10. How many individuals have appealed their placement on the NICS list? How many individuals were successful in their appeal?
11. In light of the fact that the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right, has the DOJ changed any processes and procedures relating to the NICS system which were in existence prior to that holding?
12. Besides the VA, what other federal agencies have reported names to the NICS list since 2005? And how many names were reported by each agency since 2005?
While the VA & DOJ spend resources to disarm political opponents, both agencies continue to kill veterans by delaying/denying medical service to them.
Va...killing American Veterans that no one else will.
Actually it is being done based on a doctors statement. However, most times it is a statement by a general practitioner or even a nurse practitioner and not a license psychiatrist. Even when it is a psychiatrist they rarely give a good reason for saying that the veteran cannot manage their finances and usually support their finding merely by stating the spouse handles the family finances, which alone is certainly not an adequate reason. I would advise every veteran who gets a proposal to find them incompetent, which is what actually being done, immediately request a personal hearing. I applaud the Senator for asking the question to Holder but the question should also be directed at the Secretary of the VA since it is the finding of incompetency to manage their VA benefits, which for some reason considered adequate under the Brady Bill to strip a veteran of a constitutional right. I will say that I know guy who works at the VA who does everything possible to keep from doing a finding of incompetency and if they have to do so it is very rare an unquestionably necessary, while at the same time there are others, probably most, who do it at the drop of a hat without any consideration of whether it is actually needed or how it affects a proud veteran to be told that they are incompetent and cannot even have a firearm, after having carrying one into battle. Again, it is sometimes necessary but I believe that it is rarely supportable and should not be done unless the veteran is clearly unable to manage their money; possibly are at risk of being taken advantage of; and they do not have a spouse or other trusted family member to help with their finances. I also do not think the Brady Bill should kick in. I am sure their are many who are not capable of managing their most but are experts in safely handling a firearm. No doubt there are many in the current administration who are happy to use this as an avenue to gun confiscation.
Tyranny, pure tyranny.
I would say “tar, feathers”, but the government has given itself to declare the expression of outrage on the part of citizens to be a “terrorist act”, which is a felony, and by which a person can then be denied their rights under the Second Amendment.
Yet more tyranny.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
They tell you that you receive extra pay if you qualify for PTSD. They don’t mention that you then do not mentally qualify to possess a gun. THANKS to FR, I found out about this scam.
There are too many fairies and other man-haters in the medical rackets.
I have some knowledge of this.
Most of the vets who I have seen declared mentally incompetent was because of dementia, not PTSD. The families/spouses requested help managing finances and because grandpa vet didn’t have any idea who he was or who they are the firearms were usually taken out of the home for safekeeping. Most often this was by a family member or trusted friend. The car keys were taken away too.
That being said I’m sure there are plenty of abuses in states that aren’t as gun-friendly as the one I live in (Idaho).
After the Virginia Tech. murders, quite a few Freepers were calling for legislation against firearms possession for people with diagnoses of mental problems.
in this instance i am glad i am not a veteran. Theyve been using tis to screw gun rights away from people a long time. You answer a few questions the wrong way and there ya go. Shrinks are for the large part useless toolbags.
I’ll be happy to share when the time comes...
Of course, the individuals who were asking those questions were medical technicians who were just doing their jobs. But the word had come down from on high to report veterans who might do harm to themselves or others with a gun. The Marxist leftists in the administration and their disdain for guns and our rights to own then, has trickled on down to the patient level of the VA. They will never give up their attempt to disarm the citizens of this country by any means necessary.
BTT. Forlater...
This should be as big a scandal as the IRS harrassing Tea Party activists, perhaps bigger.
There should be a massive class action lawsuit for denial of rights under color of law.
I wonder if they are afraid of old vets who have nothing left to lose.
:-)
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.