• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Up to 4.2 million veterans may have their guns confiscated by ATF

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
"The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain why a Department of Justice gun ban list has a “mental defective” category consisting almost entirely of names belonging to military veterans and their dependents.

“It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said in a statement Wednesday. “A veteran or dependent shouldn’t lose their constitutional rights because they need help with bookkeeping.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/holders-gun-ban-list-mental-defectives-mostly-vete/
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Multiple conservative outlets on FB have reposted this article today for some reason, including the NRA.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
If any of you have been following this - which started up in 2013ish - you would know that it is being beaten back and beaten into the ground over the difference between an administrative decision and a full judicial hearing, with rights to an attorney, to confront witnesses, to have "second" opinions by your own doctors, and the like.

Further, the VA definition of incompetent to handle finances does not, except for the use of the word "incompetent", match any of the definitions in any of the l;aws that list who is a prohibited person.

It's a good idea to keep an eye on this rodeo, but the sky is really not falling.

I'm more concerned with the second Personal Identifying Information data hack which includes my stuff. The last thing I need is some Chinese military intelligence person who has stolen my identity coming to my door insisting that I take it back.:uhoh:

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
Marine Veteran Brandon Raub Sentenced To Up To 30 Days In Psych Ward Over Facebook Posts
Oldie but goodie. It is easy, the government will assign to you your mental status...that they deem appropriate.

The downfall of liberty? The "reasonable man" test.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I've been exposed to a potential case of this recently. A family member on Social Security had a stroke and was partially disabled both physically and mentally. Her husband continued to manage finances their joint she passed without getting any formal ruling of handing her finances for her. But had a need arisen, I have no doubt he could have readily obtained the necessary rulings; she was no longer competent to handle her own finances.

However, there was nothing in her post-stroke disability, IMO, that would warrant any loss of RKBA or any other right. Practically (physically), her ability to use a gun was very limited. But she did not pose a risk to herself or others simply by legally owning a gun. She was not violent, was not depressed or suicidal. She simply had lost some physical and mental capabilities. Frankly, the stairs in the home posed a higher risk of injury than a firearm she would have had trouble loading. As a married women in a joint property State, and her husband not having any bars on firearms ownership, what personal property (such as guns) were hers and what were his probably doesn't come up in most cases.

But I can easily imagine cases where an unmarried person has a guardian appointed to handle finances. What of personal property then? If the person poses no risk to himself or others, why should firearms be treated any differently than any other item? The person should retain full legal right to own these items, and under the legal authority of his financial guardian, to sell them, gift them, or retain them (perhaps as an on-going investment).

I take comfort in Skidmark's words. I'm also reminded that oft-times these kind of rights-infringing proposals get beat back simply because they come to light and there is a certain amount of uproar.

Interestingly, nobody seems to be proposing limits on the right to vote simply because someone can't manage his own finances. I'd suggest that in many cases, voting well takes a lot more cognition that does lawful and proper use of a firearm.

Charles
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Charles,

You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.

stay safe.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
Charles,

You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.

stay safe.
alleged illegal activities must run in the family as this is the same individual who brags about CC'g (by their own admission poorly!!) on private property he knows the property owner has deemed and posted as a GFZ.

but hey...

ipse
 

Da Rat Bastid

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
40
Location
Wyoming
As a disabled person who:

A) collects Social Security because of that, and

B) has a representative payee for those benefits, not even due to any mental condition, but because I hadn't yet gotten around to learning the whole "living within your means" lesson in my late teens, which was during Bush Senior's presidency, before most people even knew that the Internet was a thing,

I can't help but be scared of this being enacted. Being a Social Security recipient, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with how government bureaucracy works (and I use that last word loosely here). I've got my doubts that, if this blatantly unconstitutional procedure is enacted but later struck down, I would actually be taken off the list of Prohibited Persons.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You may want to keep quiet about your uncle committing a rash of federal felonies concerning the disbursement and distribution of SSA funds.
What felonies? The SS checks came into the joint account and were spent on joint expenses as they always had been. Lacking a ruling of incompetence, the legal assumption must be that the recipient was competent and was consenting to the spending just as she always had.

My non-professional observations and beliefs that she could have readily been found to need someone to handle her finances for her had a question ever come up, does not constitute material evidence of any wrongdoing regarding the receipt or use of SSA funds.

I expect the situation I described is quite common among older couples as one partner or the other loses interest in or ability to make day-to-day decisions, but is carefully, lovingly, and properly cared for by the spouse and other family members without there ever being a need for a formal hearing or ruling on competency.

And in any event, it was my second cousin, twice removed, rather than an uncle. And I don't expect he is long enough for this world himself to be too worried about anything federal. Caring for a spouse can be very taxing.

But I do appreciate your concern.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
alleged illegal activities must run in the family as this is the same individual who brags about CC'g (by their own admission poorly!!) on private property he knows the property owner has deemed and posted as a GFZ.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not much interested in engaging you in conversation. Yet you've spent the last several weeks doing your best to get a rise from me. Stop it. You are either engaging in libel, or you are too dense to understand what has been explained to you repeatedly regarding Utah State law.

CCing into a posted business in Utah is NOT a violation of any law. Period. Further, under State law, a commercial entity has a rather high threshold to clear to get a trespassing violation even if they do formally "trespass" a person.

76-10-2402, Commercial obstruction, comes into play only if, "the person enters or remains unlawfully on the premises of or in a building of any business with the intent to interfere with the employees, customers, personnel, or operations of a business through any conduct that does not constitute" a more serious offense such as theft, vandalism, etc.

76-6-206. Criminal trespass has similar restrictions. First of all, a person must be trespassing with intent "to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property" ... or intent "to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or..."is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another."

Furthermore, under 76-6-206, "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property."

Now, I realize that for someone who can't quite figure out how to use proper capitalization, and who refers to violent carjackers as "victims" when they get shot and killed trying to grab an LAC's self-defense firearm, this might actually be difficult to fully comprehend. But as much as it may upset you or your unique view of the universe, no crime is committed in Utah by a person ignoring a "No Guns" sign on a business and otherwise legally carrying his gun. And as much as it may upset you, when law abiding citizens act in self-defense and/or lawful defense of another in Utah, dead violent car jackers don't tend to result in criminal charges nor any successful civil action against the LAC. If Utah law bothers so much in these or any other regards, you are quite free to avoid ever visiting. Your presence will not be missed, I'm sure.

Beyond all that, while I believe Skid's concerns are sincere, neither he nor you articulated any criminal conduct regarding SSA benefits. I do not believe any crime can be articulated from my description without making some assumptions that I did not actually articulate; and that were not present.

So get over your hurt feelings, stop defaming me, and stop trying to get a rise out of me. I do not care to engage you in discussion, but do not intend to stand by silently if you are going to lie or even just pass along inaccurate information because you lack the mental ability to know it is inaccurate even after having it explained to you. If you persist in lies in an attempt to elicit further response from me, I'll take it to the moderators.

I've been civilly silent though petty snideness and snarkiness from you. Defamation and accusations of criminality where there is none crosses the line. Stick to issues and stay away from personality problems you seemingly have with me.

Charles
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Until such time as Congress amends the Constitution to change the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," anyone attempting to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms makes themselves a suspect and will be treated accordingly.

I EXPECT all law enforcement officers to hold themselves to high standards, most importantly their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

If they fail, it's certainly not my duty to police them. On the other hand, if their failure results in decidedly un-Constitutional behavior towards myself in someone in my charge, I no longer have any confidence that they are who they purport themselves to be, and will treat them precisely like any other impersonator who unlawfully puts on a uniform. They will be detained until 911 dispatch sends units. If at any time I feel my life is in danger, I will not hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself.

This is not belligerence. I am polite and a consummate professional. I will not, however, allow myself or those in my legal care/custody to come to harm at the hands of someone purporting to be a law enforcement officer while engaging in harmful behavior.
 
Top