The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 14, 2024, 07:38 AM   #1
Miami_JBT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2009
Location: Miami-Dade County FL
Posts: 191
GOA gets VA's Veteran Gun Ban repealed

https://www.gunowners.org/na03092024/



I am so grateful for all your support and activism on behalf of Gun Owners of America's work on Capitol Hill.

GOA just forced President Biden to DEFUND the ATF by $122 million and to STOP enforcement of the veterans gun ban!!!

Yes, you read that right. This is a HUGE win for gun rights even though there is a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Backed by your barrage of emails and phone calls, GOA's team of federal lobbyists forced the House and Senate to pass language protecting veterans last year, and it was inserted into the government funding bill which just became law today.

For over 20 years, Veterans Affairs has been sending veterans' names to the NICS system, simply for having an advisor appointed to manage their finances. But the GOA-backed language prevents this from happening.

Anti-gunners are furious this ban has been defunded, and they're calling the veterans gun ban repeal a "poison pill." But they're just upset that GOA beat them in Congress.

GOA wants to thank our grassroots activists for taking action on our alerts especially at a time when the gun ban repeal language was getting watered down. Your loud voice, coupled with GOA's lobbying team on Capitol Hill, forced legislators to maintain the original repeal language that passed.

Thanks also to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) who sponsored the amendment and fought to make sure the protection for veterans remained intact. And thanks to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) who fought to keep the $122 million cut to the ATF.


Another 2A victory from GOA.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/con...-biden-backing





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JrazYA4L0
__________________
FL GOA State Director
Miami_JBT is offline  
Old March 14, 2024, 12:01 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Unfortunately, this is nowhere near the "victory" that GOA is claiming. Nothing is being repealed or "rolled back." All that's happening is that some money is being withheld from the VA to defund an illegal program they have been running for years. The program is illegal because they (the VA) are reporting people to NICS as mentally deficient even though the cases have NOT been adjudicated. Until the Congress enacts a law that specifically prohibits this, the money could be restored in the next budget and the program will resume. Plus, defunding the program now will not remove the names of veterans who have been illegally reported to NICS from the prohibited person roster.

From the Fox News link:

"The VA is acting totally unconstitutional in this veteran de-armament process. This is illegal, unconstitutional and should have never been done," Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital.[/quote]

Correct.

Quote:
"These are not adjudicated cases," Johnston added. "These are not insane veterans. These are people who have had trouble with their health or might need someone to manage their finances."
Correct.

Quote:
Although the VA has defended the program partly as having the capacity to prevent veteran suicide, Johnston said it's counterproductive because veterans will resist seeking counseling for mental health if they face any sanction.

"This contributes to veteran suicide as they will be reluctant to seek care at the VA," Johnston said. "The VA is stigmatizing mental health."
Also correct. A lot of veterans have known about this issue for years. I have long since made it a policy to not mention guns or shooting to my doctors at the VA. When I had elevated blood lead levels as a result of sweeping the floor at an indoor range, I told the VA that I was doing a lot of soldering in the basement.

The VA is (probably rightly) very concerned about veteran suicides. Unfortunately, things such as this program just (as the article mentions) result in veterans avoiding asking for help. A personal problem can be very short-term and temporary but, once you're on the NICS prohibited list, the VA isn't going to ring them up in six months after the crisis has passed and take your name OFF the list. At most of my semi-annual checkups, one of the questions they ask is "How are you feeling today? Do you have any thoughts of suicide?"

I don't care if my wife just ran away with my best friend, my dog just died, AND my pickup truck was just run over by a bulldozer, the only acceptable answer to the VA is "I'm feeling great. No problems whatsoever."
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 14, 2024, 01:42 PM   #3
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Much as I hate having to defend morons and bureaucrats (but, I repeat myself, ) this is not some evil plan to deprive veterans of our rights, it is a bureaucratic SNAFU that has that end result.

If I recall correctly it began under the Obama administration with a directive for the various Fed agencies to share information better. However, because different agencies use DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS for the same things, it created a trap, which it listing people as being prohibited, when they should not be.

Quote:
The program is illegal because they (the VA) are reporting people to NICS as mentally deficient even though the cases have NOT been adjudicated.
This is, essentially, the trap. The VA is not doing anything illegal, UNDER VA rules. And those rules are not laws, they are just agency rules. Social Security does the same thing, using their agencies rules. And, NICS is listing those people as prohibited because their rules require it.

I thought Trump stopped it, but either he didn't, or Biden turned it back on, again.

When a veteran requests the VA to allow someone else to handle their finances, the VA puts them in the VA "box" labeled "mentally disabled". This is within the VA's authority to do, as their definition of mentally disabled only applies to their status in the VA bureaucratic system. It is not a valid LEGAL definition, it only applies to the VA and which benefits the veteran is eligible to receive.

The problem began when the VA was ordered to share this data with the other Fed agencies (NICS) and those agencies are taking the VA classification as being the same as the legal definition of mentally disabled, and it is not.

NICS literally has only two boxes to put people in, prohibited and non-prohibited. They just took the "disabled" classification at full face value, since it was supplied by another government agency (who being a govt agency "always follows all the rules and doesn't make mistakes" )

VA rules allow them to classify someone as mentally disabled if they request a proxy to handle their finances. And, they do.

Federal firearms LAW requires individual case adjudication to declare mental incompetence regarding ownership of firearms. This is the only definition NCIS should be using, but sadly, it is not.

The entire situation could have been resolved with some interagency cooperation and adjustment of definitions and category titles. and should not require a law to make that happen. But it has.

I don't see a needing a specific law requiring govt agencies to play by their own rules and those rules (in this case definition of mental competency to be uniform) as a victory for anyone.

Its a good thing if it stops people from being screwed over by bureaucratic pigeonholing, but I don't see it as a victory. We shouldn't have to fight and "win" anything to have our government run properly, but sadly, we often do.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 18, 2024, 11:14 AM   #4
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
i'm a veterans advocate. The VA has done this this stuff for at least 30 years. VA head Geneal Shinseki stoppd the practice.for a period of time.

Ever wonder how the VA learns of veterans who need someone to manage their funds?.
Answer : A relative informs the VA that the veteran can't manage his money. The VA appoints a relative to manage the veterans money. The veteran gets ripped off: ;
it happens time aftert time; i've seen it thappen.
.tnp
thallub is offline  
Old March 18, 2024, 12:05 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by thalub
Ever wonder how the VA learns of veterans who need someone to manage their funds?.
Answer : A relative informs the VA that the veteran can't manage his money. The VA appoints a relative to manage the veterans money. The veteran gets ripped off: ;
it happens time aftert time; i've seen it thappen.
That's it in a nutshell.

Bottom line: Don't ever tell the VA or the Social Security Administration if you turn over your finances to a son, daughter, or anyone else. The checks are now sent directly into your bank account. Just add the other person to your account as a signatory -- or just give them the password to your on-line banking site and let them pay the bills every month. The VA and the SSA don't ever need to know. What they don't know won't hurt you.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 18, 2024, 01:10 PM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
A relative informs the VA that the veteran can't manage his money.
I was under the impression that the Veteran had to request (or agree to the request) someone else being allowed to receive their money from the VA.

Certainly a slick con artist could talk a disabled vet into signing off on the request, then ripping them off. I just don't see the VA (or SSA) agreeing to the request from some "relative" without the vet agreeing to it, UNLESS the vet was already declared mentally incompetent.

And, that the trap, because while there are a number of reasons a disabled but mentally competent vet might want someone else to handle the VA checks for them, the only thing the VA seems to recognize is that if you request someone else to handle your money, you must be mentally incompetent and they list you as such.

And, when that information is sent to the NCIS, they have no choice but to put you in the prohibited person class.

There is no investigation, there is no diagnoses by qualified medical people, there is no adjudication, no adversarial process, the veteran does not get their day in court, the VA simply lists you as mentally incompetent. It is NOT a legal finding, it a bureaucratic "pidgeonhole", which should carry no legal weight outside of VA files.

The new law should fix that, and there's no doubt that the GOA was involved in convincing it to be brought to the floor to be voted on. I just don't see that it was a "victory" worth crowing about. But then, I'm not the head of the GOA....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 18, 2024, 01:36 PM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
And, that the trap, because while there are a number of reasons a disabled but mentally competent vet might want someone else to handle the VA checks for them, the only thing the VA seems to recognize is that if you request someone else to handle your money, you must be mentally incompetent and they list you as such.

And, when that information is sent to the NCIS, they have no choice but to put you in the prohibited person class.

There is no investigation, there is no diagnoses by qualified medical people, there is no adjudication, no adversarial process, the veteran does not get their day in court, the VA simply lists you as mentally incompetent. It is NOT a legal finding, it a bureaucratic "pidgeonhole", which should carry no legal weight outside of VA files.

The new law should fix that, and there's no doubt that the GOA was involved in convincing it to be brought to the floor to be voted on. I just don't see that it was a "victory" worth crowing about. But then, I'm not the head of the GOA.
But the new law WON'T (and can't) "fix" it, because the new law doesn't change the law. This is nothing but a funding bill that -- for THIS funding cycle -- purports to defund whatever miniscule portion of the VA's budget goes to reporting financially-challenged veterans to NICS.

The underlying problem -- that being the VA proclaiming that their process is "adjudication" when, in fact, it's not even close -- is not in any way addressed by this bill.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 18, 2024, 03:55 PM   #8
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
point taken.

So, the fix should be an administrative one, internal VA rule change or possibly executive action ordering the VA to correct the issue.

Don't expect that from the current administration.

Defunding that specific section is about all congress can do at this time??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 18, 2024, 04:39 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
No, Congress could enact new laws that clarify what "adjudication" means and to clarify that seeking help managing finances doesn't equate to an "adjudicated" classification as "mentally deficient." And Congress could enact such legislation even today, if some enterprising Republicans were to attach it as a poison pill amendment to a bill the Democrats urgently want to pass.

Do I expect this to happen? Hell, no. The Republicans don't want this fixed any more than the Democrats do.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 18, 2024, 10:58 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
From the democrats, I get a feeling of active malice. From republicans more of a matter of indifference. After all, where else are we going to go with our votes?? Just my opinion
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 18, 2024, 11:07 PM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
^^^ I don't disagree.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 19, 2024, 12:16 AM   #12
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,402
I finally got GOA propaganda out of my email inbox, only to find it here.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old March 19, 2024, 10:32 AM   #13
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
No, Congress could enact new laws that clarify what "adjudication" means and to clarify that seeking help managing finances doesn't equate to an "adjudicated" classification as "mentally deficient." And Congress could enact such legislation even today, if some enterprising Republicans were to attach it as a poison pill amendment to a bill the Democrats urgently want to pass.

Do I expect this to happen? Hell, no. The Republicans don't want this fixed any more than the Democrats do.
I don't believe this problem is especially susceptible to a discreet legislative fix. If congress were to pass a law, what keeps the VA from continuing to report its "adjudications" and the ATF from considering fraudulent VA communications as good information?

The VA is part of the executive. The executive doesn't properly adjudicate issues - it executes laws. (Yes, some exec agencies adjudicate matters administratively where those matters are subject to their authority.) It's baked into the structure of our system that the ATF should not be doing this.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 19, 2024, 11:52 AM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
The VA is part of the executive. The executive doesn't properly adjudicate issues - it executes laws.
I understand this. But when this was challenged a number of years ago, the VA self-righteously proclaimed that their determination process was "adjudication" in their opinion (even though no court and no judge was ever involved), so they have continued reporting veterans to NICS even after having been made aware that they should not be doing so.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 19, 2024, 12:48 PM   #15
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I understand this. But when this was challenged a number of years ago, the VA self-righteously proclaimed that their determination process was "adjudication" in their opinion (even though no court and no judge was ever involved), so they have continued reporting veterans to NICS even after having been made aware that they should not be doing so.
"I'm not bound by your ideas about adjudication and separation of powers" seem like a tough thing to fix with more laws. Cutting funding is nice, but I'm sure we expect re-funding to get into some other legislation soon enough.

Aside from my notions about how process should be afforded, it bugs me that a fellow might not feel free to speak with his own VA doc candidly because he doesn't want any adverse action taken.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 19, 2024, 12:55 PM   #16
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
If I remember correctly, it was an executive order that set this in motion, so an executive order should be able to stop it.

Though it seems to be necessary to effect the desired change, Congress really should not be involved, and by getting involved is open to a valid charge of "micromanaging".

Like nearly all of them, this particular road to hell was laid down with good intentions, but is overlain with a thick layer of arrogance and petty jealousy from administrators protecting the borders of their bureaucratic kingdoms.

Personally, considering who issued the order that created the "unintended consequences" of preventing lawful gun ownership, I doubt it was entirely unintentional.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 19, 2024, 05:12 PM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Aside from my notions about how process should be afforded, it bugs me that a fellow might not feel free to speak with his own VA doc candidly because he doesn't want any adverse action taken.
That's a major issue, for certain. It's especially ironic when you consider that the VA is (at least superficially) actively working to reduce veteran suicides.

Want to know how it's even worse? Every major VA hospital facility has chaplains. (Not the community-based outpatient clinics.) I discovered by accident that when a veteran sits down to discuss anything with a chaplain, the first thing the chaplain does after the discussion is to enter it into the patient's medical record. The MEDICAL record -- the one that's open to every staff member of the VA above the janitorial level.

I recently had a conversation about this with the head chaplain at the VA hospital where I go. He was very defensive, and basically blew me off by saying that chaplains get special training.

Special training for WHAT? I wouldn't go to a chaplain for medical help, and I wouldn't go to a chaplain for psychological/psychiatric help. I would go to a chaplain for spiritual advice. However, now I know better than to go to a VA chaplain -- unlike in any church in the country, your conversations with a VA chaplain are NOT confidential.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 19, 2024, 07:47 PM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Just out of curiosity, what gets put into the medical record by the chaplain?

Is it the specific details of what you discussed with him??? Or is it just the fact that you visited and discussed "personal matters"???

I ask, because I know of something vaguely similar done by another Govt agency. Similar, not identical, but also with serious repercussions.

Worked for a DOE subcontractor. The Company had a free (to the employee) "counseling service". Actual licensed professionals, that if you were having problems, you could visit on the company dime, and it was "entirely confidential".

Except, it wasn't. What was discussed was entirely confidential, but the fact that you went to a councilor was required by law to be reported to the DOE by the company. (the reporting to DOE was not widely known)

I knew a fellow, who was having some marital issues, and "Took advantage" of the free counseling. Per their obligation, the company reported that to DOE. DOE then pulled his security clearance "for review".

Without a clearance, he couldn't go to work. Since he didn't go to work, the company didn't pay him. BUT he wasn't fired, he was still employed, so he could not draw any unemployment or other benefits.

And, unless you filed a certain form, DOE could take as much time as they felt like to make a determination. Once the form was filed it started a clock where they had a set number of days (I think 90 but no longer remember exactly) to either re-instate or revoke the clearance.

However, in a near perfect Catch-22 the only place to get the form was from an office in the part of the Federal building that required a security clearance to access. The fellow spent about six months in "limbo" before DOE finally reinstated his clearance and allowed him to go back to work.

VA doctors and other govt administrators are not cops or officers of the court and are under no legal requirement to inform you that anything you say may be used against you. And, they absolutely will use it against you, if they feel its "in your best interest" as THEY define it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 19, 2024, 08:59 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Just out of curiosity, what gets put into the medical record by the chaplain?

Is it the specific details of what you discussed with him??? Or is it just the fact that you visited and discussed "personal matters"???
The specific details. And the question was not in any way medically-related. It had to do with my adopted daughter and her behavior after the death of my wife.

I found it when I pulled a report of my medical history for a period that happened to include the date on which I stopped in to see the chaplain. As it happens, it wasn't about anything earth-shattering so there's nothing even potentially damaging or compromising in the entry but, if I had known that a conversation with a VA chaplain isn't confidential, I would not have stopped by the chaplain's office. I would have gone to a pastor friend in a church.

I won't make the mistake twice.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 20, 2024, 06:40 AM   #20
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I discovered by accident that when a veteran sits down to discuss anything with a chaplain, the first thing the chaplain does after the discussion is to enter it into the patient's medical record.
I don't think of myself as especially naive, but I did not see that coming.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 20, 2024, 09:18 AM   #21
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
I don't think of myself as especially naive, but I did not see that coming.
I didn't see it coming, either. I have friends who are ordained clergy and my understanding has always been that, except for certain mandatory reporting situations, anything said to a minister, priest, rabbi, whatever, is confidential. There was no prior indication that a chaplain in a VA hospital would treat a session any differently. I could understand perhaps if the chaplains' office had their own database, in which they keep track of who has been in to see them. (I don't think even that should contain details of what's discussed, however.) To find all the details of my discussion in my medical record was quite a shock.

I also found the head chaplain's defensive reaction when I spoke with him about it to be more than a little off-putting.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old March 20, 2024, 01:03 PM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
I also found the head chaplain's defensive reaction when I spoke with him about it to be more than a little off-putting.
I can understand that, but it seemed to be a typical bureaucrat's response.

After all, from their point of view who are you to come into their office and tell them how to run their business??

Not right, but a very common thing these days, perhaps, always was....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 20, 2024, 06:34 PM   #23
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I can understand that, but it seemed to be a typical bureaucrat's response.

After all, from their point of view who are you to come into their office and tell them how to run their business??

Not right, but a very common thing these days, perhaps, always was....
"Ve haf RULEZ, Colonel Hogan!"
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08259 seconds with 10 queries