A few days ago I talked to a guy who was wounded in Afghanistan a little while ago. He told me that there was a new rule that to get his veterans benefits he would have to sign a form saying that he could not own guns. Have any of you heard of such a law? He said it was an executive order. He swore up and down it was true and he had no PTSD for any mental health issues.
Have you heard of a new law like this?
- Thread starter kgpcr
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Unless someone has a specific and official link for this, let's not post complaints or comments.
It is just speculation.
It is just speculation.
Has he seen the executive order and/or does he have a copy in hand? Either way he needs to request a copy and see a Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyer. He has the right to free counsel.
It seems to me the Executive Order is unlikely. If there is one, it should be coming down through the Veterans Affairs (VA) channels.
As the old linage goes: Believe nothing you hear, nothing you read, and only half of what you see.
It seems to me the Executive Order is unlikely. If there is one, it should be coming down through the Veterans Affairs (VA) channels.
As the old linage goes: Believe nothing you hear, nothing you read, and only half of what you see.
This is what I found on Google
Obama Announces Executive Order
Not sure if that's what he had in mind...
Obama Announces Executive Order
Not sure if that's what he had in mind...
The guy has no idea what he's talking about. i'm a long time disabled veteran and a veteran's advocate.
That's not true either. The linked article is an outright lie. There is no such "executive order":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
i spend lots of hours debunking "he told me", "i got this e-mail" and "world net daily said" trash about disabled veterans having their gun rights violated.
Last edited:
I am a retired veteran and have a disability rating. Nearly every vet with more than a couple years of service has some kind of disability rating. If even a small fraction of us were getting letters, just because of a disability rating, it would be well known and getting a lot of attention. I have read and heard about some vets with mental issues being subject to some kind of extra reporting in regards to gun ownership. The problem is I cannot trace what I have heard back to a reliable source or someone that can show me the letter.
Until I can see some reliable sources of information, or get a letter of my own, I am going to remain attentive but skeptical.
Until I can see some reliable sources of information, or get a letter of my own, I am going to remain attentive but skeptical.
cannonfire
New member
I was ASKED to voluntarily surrender my pistol to my mother when I went to the VA for "PTSD". (I put that in quotes because it is now being questioned by doctors as to whether it was PTSD or post-deployment issues). Either way I gave my pistol to my mother. After a couple of months I said I wanted my pistol back and they said it was OK. I didn't have to register it or even tell them anything about.
And ive bought many guns since that time without any problem.
The word "disability" might be the cause of the confusion. Someone who is legally disqualified from owing firearms is said to be subject to "firearms disabilities."
While I could see someone confusing that usage of the word, I'd expect anyone claiming to be a reporter to research the distinction. Then again, it's the internet we're talking about...
As an old vet myself...
...but having no service connected disability, I was curious about this, because it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Here's what I found at the link. The bold part is significant.
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-limit-gun-ownership-us-veterans-hardest-hit/
No doubt a reaction to recent mass shootings.
...but having no service connected disability, I was curious about this, because it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Here's what I found at the link. The bold part is significant.
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-limit-gun-ownership-us-veterans-hardest-hit/
No doubt a reaction to recent mass shootings.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No, Tom, that's not the cause of the confusion. The VA is the cause of the confusion.Tom Servo said:
There have been credible reports from various parts of the country of veterans who have been found sufficiently degraded in mental capacity that they were deemed not capable of managing their own finances, and conservators were appointed. The VA in some of these cases acted unilaterally to report these veterans as being mentally unfit to possess firearms, and those reports went to the FBI and NICS.
Now, couple that with the fact that there is a push on to treat veterans with PTSD. Any time there's emphasis on something by the government, money follows the emphasis. So, while their buildings and campuses may be crumbling and their operating rooms aren't cleaned between operations, VA hospitals ARE getting money to treat PTSD. The more cases they treat, the more money they get. Consequently, they are asking ALL veterans "loaded" questions designed to classify them as suffering from PTSD so they (the VA) can get more of this "free" money.
Naturally, as veterans catch onto the fact that being classified as having PTSD means the VA will report you to NICS and you'll become a prohibited person, the result of this initiative is the opposite of the intent -- even veterans who suffer from PTSD and who need help for it are afraid to seek treatment because the way the system operates, a one-time intervention could easily result in a lifetime firearms prohibition.
I'm a Vietnam veteran. Any PTSD I might have had when I came home in 1968 I worked through on my own at least 40 years ago. Nonetheless, every time I go to the VA hospital for a routine checkup they ask me all the same "loaded" questions. I just tell them to treat my cough and stay out of my head.
Mike Irwin
Staff
This has been a rumor on and off for quite a few years.
It's bogus.
It's bogus.
Only if they sought such a thing.
I have had a couple of VA reps pressure me (harder than my recruiter originally did) to apply for various "assistance", saying "you earned it"...... maybe I did ..... that does not mean I need it. Save it for the folks that do.
.... because "you can" =/= "you should"......
True. But it is almost a given now that people are screened before, or just after, separation or retirement for service related disabilities. Even if they are given a 0% rating for something it then provides an avenue for treatment down the road if the service related condition degenerates over time.
I need to have my hearing checked again. I likely need hearing aids. If I go through my insurance it will cost me thousands of dollars I do not have. If I go to the VA it would likely be affordable. Now the question is, do I want to subject myself to the possibility of being completely reevaluated? Sounds like it might be an unacceptable risk, at this point.
That sounds like a reasonable short term request while things were figured out. If it had turned into a lifetime prohibition because some one wrote PTSD one time or because you had refused the voluntary request it is no longer reasonable, unless due process was followed with your day in court.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The VA doesn't recognize due process, and the VA makes up their own rules as they go.
Example:
The grounds of all VA hospitals are now posted with signs at every entrance to the campus (not to the buildings) that say no weapons allowed on the grounds. The signs specifically cite 18 USC 930 as the statutory reference.
For those who aren't familiar with it, 18 USC is the section of the U.S. Code that prohibits the carry of firearms and dangerous weapons "in" federal facilities. And ... the law itself specifically defines "federal facility" as follows:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
Example:
The grounds of all VA hospitals are now posted with signs at every entrance to the campus (not to the buildings) that say no weapons allowed on the grounds. The signs specifically cite 18 USC 930 as the statutory reference.
For those who aren't familiar with it, 18 USC is the section of the U.S. Code that prohibits the carry of firearms and dangerous weapons "in" federal facilities. And ... the law itself specifically defines "federal facility" as follows:
So there is clearly nothing in the law cited on the signs that offers any authority to prohibit the possession of firearms or dangerous weapons on the grounds. But they do it. And when I attempted to discuss with one of the supervising officers the fact that the law didn't give them the authority, he basically played the "So go ahead and try us" card.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
Background:
This all started when the Clinton administration dumped the names of about 90,000 veterans into NICS.
Yes. The VA does not use a proper adjudication process. The VA uses a medieval administrative process. Alone among the federal agencies, only the VA is exempt.
See paragraph 5, page 9-B-16.
The VA system will not allow the link to open. Type: Section B. Processing Awards to Incompetent Beneficiaries: into your browser.
The US congress steadfastly refuses to fix the VA system.
This all started when the Clinton administration dumped the names of about 90,000 veterans into NICS.
Yes. The VA does not use a proper adjudication process. The VA uses a medieval administrative process. Alone among the federal agencies, only the VA is exempt.
See paragraph 5, page 9-B-16.
The VA system will not allow the link to open. Type: Section B. Processing Awards to Incompetent Beneficiaries: into your browser.
The US congress steadfastly refuses to fix the VA system.
Last edited:
While I cannot point to any LAW, I believe that it has been VA policy for quite some time. Again, I can't point to any regulation, I've never researched it, but I do have a bit of personal experience, sort of second hand.
In 2002, a co-worker approached me, because I was known to be a firearms enthusiast. Her husband was seeking VA assistance, for both medical and mental issues. (technically this if hearsay, but I fully believe it) She told me that the VA told them, that they had to get rid of any guns, swords, bows* arrows, or anything like that, or they would be denied assistance.
He had an old Mauser 8mm and a Mossberg shotgun, and she came to me asking for help in selling them. I bought the 8mm, a nice VZ 24, and gave him 25% over current market value for it, to help them out a little. Also helped find a new home for the shotgun, as I personally didn't want it.
Now, what I believe is that it was VA policy for those seeking help with mental problems (and this was years before the current PTSD push) to have them remove "dangerous" weapons and items from their home. I believe they were "asked" to do so (the carrot), but if they didn't comply, they would be denied aid (the stick).
I find it extremely likely (particularly with the aid of anti-gun individuals inside the system) that this policy has grown over the years, and is now being applied in a more or less blanket fashion, as often as they can get away with it.
With recent administrations indicating that (at least some of the people in the administrations) feel that ALL veterans are at risk of PTSD, (the current buzzword) or even being closet terrorists, support from on high for the VA policy ensures it is not going to be changed, other than to expand it, at any and every opportunity.
In 2002, a co-worker approached me, because I was known to be a firearms enthusiast. Her husband was seeking VA assistance, for both medical and mental issues. (technically this if hearsay, but I fully believe it) She told me that the VA told them, that they had to get rid of any guns, swords, bows* arrows, or anything like that, or they would be denied assistance.
He had an old Mauser 8mm and a Mossberg shotgun, and she came to me asking for help in selling them. I bought the 8mm, a nice VZ 24, and gave him 25% over current market value for it, to help them out a little. Also helped find a new home for the shotgun, as I personally didn't want it.
Now, what I believe is that it was VA policy for those seeking help with mental problems (and this was years before the current PTSD push) to have them remove "dangerous" weapons and items from their home. I believe they were "asked" to do so (the carrot), but if they didn't comply, they would be denied aid (the stick).
I find it extremely likely (particularly with the aid of anti-gun individuals inside the system) that this policy has grown over the years, and is now being applied in a more or less blanket fashion, as often as they can get away with it.
With recent administrations indicating that (at least some of the people in the administrations) feel that ALL veterans are at risk of PTSD, (the current buzzword) or even being closet terrorists, support from on high for the VA policy ensures it is not going to be changed, other than to expand it, at any and every opportunity.