Vets told they can 'buy back' 2nd Amendment rights

[mikelets456]

A legal team investigating the Obama administration’s order that certain American military veterans deemed “incompetent” give up their weapons says the problem is worse than expected.
People who live with veterans now are being ordered not to possess a gun, and some veterans are told they can “buy back” their Second Amendment rights by giving up their veterans’ benefits.

“This is simply unbelievable, On the one hand the [Veterans Administration] and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearms rights back,” wrote Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation in a report.

“This is illegal and is called extortion.”

The organization has been looking into claims by a number of veterans and their family members.

The veterans were sent a letter telling them they were being classified as incompetent and the government was assigning someone to help them handle their benefits and payments.

The story of Vietnam, from Gen. Patrick Brady, one of the nation’s Medal of Honor recipients, in “Dead Men Flying.”

Consequently, they were told, they could no longer own weapons, under penalty of fines and jail time.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/vets-told...kkxMqQu3wSm.99

[alpacaheat]

This is sickening. This story needs to get more attention.

[GunLawyer001]

I'm not sure how to sell the pro-rights position on this one. The argument from the government seems to be, "If your mind was so damaged by your service that you are unable to hold a job, because you can't control yourself, and we're paying you money every month because you claim to be 100% mentally disabled, then you probably shouldn't have access to machines to kill people efficiently."

I understand that these people sacrificed for us. I understand that they have a right to self-defense. I understand that Obama hates us and he sucks. What's your argument for a man who was blinded by the Taliban, who wants to drive his car like he used to? Doesn't he retain the right to travel? Why should we punish him just because he's more likely to kill innocent people if we let him drive?

Choices have consequences. If you prove that you're mentally incapacitated, you can get money, but you also have to accept the consequences of being deemed mentally incapacitated. If you stop the payments by proving that you're NOT mentally incapacitated, then that prohibition of firearms will naturally go away. It's not "buying back rights". It's being consistent with your story.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone who's troubled by the memories of what he or she did in service of our country should have rights stripped away. That's giving too much power to the govt. What I'm saying is that there are consequences to proving that you're too damaged to function. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just pandering.

[Gunsnwater]

"a leagal team" needs to become famous. Only the light of day can oxidize these shit stains away.

[Gunsnwater]

I'm not sure how to sell the pro-rights position on this one. The argument from the government seems to be, "If your mind was so damaged by your service that you are unable to hold a job, because you can't control yourself, and we're paying you money every month because you claim to be 100% mentally disabled, then you probably shouldn't have access to machines to kill people efficiently."

I understand that these people sacrificed for us. I understand that they have a right to self-defense. I understand that Obama hates us and he sucks. What's your argument for a man who was blinded by the Taliban, who wants to drive his car like he used to? Doesn't he retain the right to travel? Why should we punish him just because he's more likely to kill innocent people if we let him drive?

Choices have consequences. If you prove that you're mentally incapacitated, you can get money, but you also have to accept the consequences of being deemed mentally incapacitated. If you stop the payments by proving that you're NOT mentally incapacitated, then that prohibition of firearms will naturally go away. It's not "buying back rights". It's being consistent with your story.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone who's troubled by the memories of what he or she did in service of our country should have rights stripped away. That's giving too much power to the govt. What I'm saying is that there are consequences to proving that you're too damaged to function. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just pandering.

Why then not have a price list for all the prohibited conditions? Freedom for sale. Put it in boxes with bows and ribbons. Why must someone asking for help be determined 100% incompetent? Also why is incompetent equall to a danger to society? I know lots of incompetent people who never harm anyone. If there is no cure then what is the treatment for? Seems unethical to charge for a treatment that doesn't work. The buy back is the proof it's all a spoof, a con.

[Gunowner99]

What a disgrace to our vets!

[GunLawyer001]

Why then not have a price list for all the prohibited conditions? Freedom for sale. Put it in boxes with bows and ribbons. Why must someone asking for help be determined 100% incompetent? Also why is incompetent equall to a danger to society? I know lots of incompetent people who never harm anyone. If there is no cure then what is the treatment for? Seems unethical to charge for a treatment that doesn't work. The buy back is the proof it's all a spoof, a con.

Not sure where to start, that's a lot of questions and erroneous points. Did you read what I wrote? Do you have a solid handle on the facts here? Nothing's for sale; you just can't get money for being mentally disabled, without there being consequences that accompany being mentally disabled.

Who said there's no cure? Sounds like the govt is saying, as soon as you prove that you're not disabled anymore, then we treat you as not being disabled. That's very different than how people with 302's are treated, where the same Feds pretend that being committed once is conclusive proof of lifetime mental illness.

True, plenty of mentally incompetent people never hurt anyone. On the other hand, all of the spree shootings were done by loonies, even the Columbine kids. So the implicit argument that we should let everyone with a mental illness possess guns until they individually kill someone, is not going to find much support in the adult community. Me, I believe that mental competence is a very important thing, not to be dismissed lightly. When a crazy person commits a crime, we allow for them to be acquitted (or in some cases, found "guilty but mentally ill".) We "treat" them instead of punishing them, because they couldn't help themselves, they were not in control of their own actions. Letting them have a gun is like letting a toddler, or a monkey, have a gun. If you're shot by a monkey, do you blame the monkey, or do you blame the moron who gave a loaded gun to the monkey?

[USMC3531]

I agree with gunlawyer here, you dont get 100% VA dissability by just asking for help. It is sometimes a years long process, you may start at 10% later reevaluated to 30% etc etc YOU had to fight to get 100% disability. IMO almost nobody should be 100% disabled (100%= 2 steps from vegetable to me)

[Bang]

I never clicked on the link, just read through the thread. I went from disbelief leaning toward anger reading the OP to relief that the government is being reasonable...thanks to GunLawyer's well-reasoned explanation. Point being....it is upsetting to contemplate how easy it is to fall for a wrong view. Guess that explains a lot about politics and voting stats.

[dkf]

There is nothing reasonable about having the person living with the "disabled" vet or whom the vet is living with, not possess firearms. The article states the government/VA is black balling them by default with no notice or hearing and some cannot even find out why.