Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273

    Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

    Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops.

    "We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak
    Good and not good. Continuing to research this issue.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    It is possible to have a conservator or a guardian appointed to protect a person's money without having that person declared mentally incompetent. IMHO doing so imposes less responsibility on the person so appointed than if the individual were declared imcompetent.

    Initial research into this issue indicates two things:
    - the use of conservator/guardian has not been considered outside of declaring a person mentally incompetent
    - the current process used by the VA does not appeear to involve an adversarial judicial hearing but is done "administratively"

    On both counts I am more than upset, I am apalled at the way veterans who have sacrificed to ensure our rights are having their rights trampled.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Adjudicated," to me, means "found by judicial authority," not "determined by medical authority." The law on mental defects requires adjudication. How is it that veterans could be "adjudicated" by a doctor??? Was there another law or court ruling of which I am not aware besides the federal gun control law that removes the right to own a gun from a person who has been adjudicated as mentally ill that applies only to veterans.

    If there is this double-standard, whereby veterans can be adjudicated by the medical system, while non-veterans have to be adjudicated by a court, then that system is not applying equal protection of the law and should be unconstitutional anyway.

    No one should be deprived of the RKBA without due process of law, and that means a court must apply a constitutional law after the subject of the potential loss or rights has had the opportunity to rebut any case against him. Period.

    This provision to require adjudication by a court rather than a doctor is a good one. I am just flabbergasted that it is needed. Is it really?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    - the current process used by the VA does not appeear to involve an adversarial judicial hearing but is done "administratively"

    On both counts I am more than upset, I am apalled at the way veterans who have sacrificed to ensure our rights are having their rights trampled.

    stay safe.
    All admin hearings are quasi-judicial in nature .. its likely the courts would rule that this is OK.

    It will pave the way for all to be adjudicated in the same manner -- the feds will just start a new agency to "weed out" people applying for a gun permit. (at a cost of 1K per gun owner to be paid by the gun owner or wanna be).

    Its the start of a national gun permitting scheme where people have to see a gov't mental health expert before being able to utilize their gun rights? Would not surprise me.

    Oh, this wouldn't happen .... yeah, right. For the vets they'll just say "McVeigh!" although he did not use any guns in his activities...

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Anyone find the language in the amendment? I'm having little luck. My concern, who is classified as a veteran in the amendment. Does it apply to me? To my Vietnam War veteran dad? My Korean War vet granddad? Any vet?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The Department of Veterans Affairs forwards the names of those labeled mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion in a national federal database, barring them from purchasing or carrying firearms.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2EBrRRBCz
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


    Seems like it is already being done .... The new legislation is designed to require a judge to review the case. How many are designated as having mental issues so that their gun rights are revoked?

    Hey, maybe the gays will rally for this bill now that they can serve?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If that is being done, the law is already being violated.

    Federal laws requires that persons "adjudicated," not persons "reported by the VA as," mentally ill are not allowed to purchase firearms.

    I suspect that this has only not ended up in court is that the VA is pretty much getting it right and that bringing it to court will result in such an adjudication, entailing other consequences. That the practice has not been challenged does not mean it is legal. It smacks of bureaucrats legislating.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Anyone find the language in the amendment? I'm having little luck. My concern, who is classified as a veteran in the amendment. Does it apply to me? To my Vietnam War veteran dad? My Korean War vet granddad? Any vet?
    The amendment is to the Defense Appropriations Act. It does not define who is or is not a veteran - the VA (for purposes of providing medical care, compensation and pensions) does that administratively. Your best bet for finding the offered amendment is to contact Sen. Coburn's office and ask them to send a copy to you. Wading through the bill and all its activity is daunting even for hard-core researchers.

    But generally speaking, if you served in excess of 180 consecutive days of active service, or were discharged after being wounded in combat with less than 180 consecutive days service, or medically disabled before the 180 days were satisfied, you are a veteran. It gets complicated because even those with less than honorable discharges are veterans - just usually not eligible/entitled to services from the VA.

    Clear as mud and eaasy as rocket surgery with boxing gloves on.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If that is being done, the law is already being violated.

    Federal laws requires that persons "adjudicated," not persons "reported by the VA as," mentally ill are not allowed to purchase firearms.

    I suspect that this has only not ended up in court is that the VA is pretty much getting it right and that bringing it to court will result in such an adjudication, entailing other consequences. That the practice has not been challenged does not mean it is legal. It smacks of bureaucrats legislating.
    Not to mention the ADA and HIPAA. ADA since they are possibly being deprived of a Constitutional right because of a medical condition without the due process. HIPAA comes into the picture when any medical or mental records is disclosed by the VA without the consent of the patient and there is no exigent (right word?) circumstances such as suicidal, homicidal, depression, and the like.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't give a crap about "rights" in HIPPA or ADA. They are stupid rights-encroaching anti-Constitutional legislation. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    The United States National Defense Spending Authorization Act of 2013 was Offered an Amendment by Senator Tom Corburn, of Oklahoma, to Include a Provision which is Curently Stalled in The House Veterans' Committee under House Resolution 1898, that would Expand The Protections Sought to be Added under The Resolution to The Act.

    Specifically, The Act would Protect Veterans' Rights to Keep and Bear Arms if, regardless of any Findings made by, or Entered by, The Department of Veterans Affairs regarding The Mental Compentancy of any Veteran, unless; a Judge of Competant Jursidiction Substanciates The Findings with a Court Ordered Adjudication of Mental Incompentantcy as agaisnt that Veteran.

    I Agree with Corburns' Analysis that Veterans should NOT be Stripped of Their Second Amdnement Rights based Solely on an Administrative Finding of Incompentancy. Administrative Findings are most often Times Subjunctive. Whereas..., Court Findings of Adjudication of Mental Incompetancy are made when a Fact Finder can Establish that there is Convincing Evidence to Support that Claim.

    aadvark

    *** There are 2 other Firearms Protections in This Bill: 1. The Term 'Toxic Substance' is Amended to Exclude Firearms, Ammunitions, and Fishing Tackle, AND 2. Military Officials, Military Officers, and Enlisted Military Officials would be Exempt from The Districts' Firearm Ordinances. ***

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That the practice has not been challenged does not mean it is legal.
    That's true .. no objection = objection waived

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Had to call Dr*. Coburn's office as I got eyestrain wading through the amendments. It's Amendment #3109 and you can read it here http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/...2-638489073DE3 .

    It may not sound like much, but it is a humongously big deal.

    stay safe.

    * - I am impressed that he prefers to be referred to as Dr. Coburn than as Senator Coburn. He (according to the two staffers I talked with tracing this down) is rather adamant about this.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    rural religious usa
    Posts
    670
    IAW 38 USC 101 definitions:
    (2)The term ‘‘veteran’’ means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable.

    According to federal definition there is no time frame criteria for a service member to service. My limited research showed several states do however delineate time criteria!!

    wabbit

    ps: suppose he is proud of his medical degree...as it is mentioned quite extensively in his BIO http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=Biography
    (course the comment of what do you call the student who graduates at the bottom of his class comes to mind)(in this case apparently Dr Coburn was quite the academic)
    Last edited by ncwabbit; 12-10-2012 at 09:50 PM.
    But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most...
    A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race...
    All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. (twain)

  15. #15
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    As a constituent of Dr. Coburn, I have heard him speak on several occassions, and each time, this comes up. He has stated that first and foremost, he is a Physician and will still be one when he leaves public service

    As for his congressional service, he does have veteran's protections firmly in his "tool box" and we have had to make use of his clout when dealing with the VA here in Oklahoma (still ongoing, they are stonewalling again.)

    As for the "judicial adjudication" that process has much more stringent checks and balances (here in Oklahoma) during mental hearings ... most Oklahoma judges do require an independant evaluation to remove any question about other's agendas.

    However, from what I understand, there are other states/communities that do not robustly defend a veteran's rights. Whether you personally are a veteran or not, it is up to each of us to make sure our elected officials keep a vigilant eye on our veteran's rights.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  16. #16
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    I have found where the amendment S.AMDT.3109 to the NDAA 2013 S.3254, by Sen Coburn, Tom was submitted, but has not yet been proposed on the floor.

    S.AMDT.3109 = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...dekDV::|/bss/|

    S. 3254 = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN03254:

    Hope the links work. Sometimes they will not after being posted.

    I have also found where similar bills have been officially introduced just to be sent to committee where they sit on a table and never see daylight again.

    Here is one that was introduced in the House (introduced 5/13/2011) that basically died as described.
    H.R.1898 = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...2:HR01898:@@@P also http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:H.R.1898: Hope one will work
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; 12-14-2012 at 08:27 PM.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  17. #17
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    The action by the VA to "administratively" violate the rights of this special class of US Citizen's, those of Veteran status is OLD news and has been going on for several years. In fact Congress has acted, sort of, to rectify the situation providing for the veteran to seek a hearing to appeal for a return of his rights lost by administrative actions. Unfortunately, congress also failed to appropriate ANY funds for use in these "appeals" so the VA says they don't have to process the appeals as no funds have been appropriated to do so.

    Basically, congress took the weasel way out so they could tell their constituents that they have taken care of this issue, but in reality, have done nothing to change the status quo thereby appealing to the Brady MOB!

    The HONORABLE and appropriate thing for congress to have done would have been to specify that ALL veterans would have an automatic restoration of these rights, until such time that the Court Adjudications had been completed providing the Veteran's the proper DUE PROCESS of law! But we ALL know how much honor is found in many member's of Congress!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Posting Permissions

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