Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

[Billybob]

[Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

"I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us," Schumer said. "If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun."

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran's name in the Criminal Background Check System....]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sticking-point-in-defense-bill/#ixzz2E0Sd7ugv

 

[Glocktogo]

Why should financial management have a damned thing to do with self defense? Are criminals going to perform an audit before robbing someone?

 

[cmhbob]

What's happening is that the VA is flagging certain veterans in NICS, if the vet asks for or needs help with financial management. Note that it's the VA, not a judge, so even though the vet can honestly answer "No" to the adjudication question, NICS will flag them.

All kinds of wrong here.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Why should financial management have a damned thing to do with self defense? Are criminals going to perform an audit before robbing someone?

The only thing I could see that it would affect is if they could afford to buy a gun on a military disability pension.

 

[Lurker66]

I say they should be prevented from owning guns due to the diagnosis, not because they cant manage their finances.

If a soldier is so bad with finances they have to seek help from the VA and the VA has to appoint a family member due to being incompetant, theres prolly something bigger going on than just being unable to manage a checkbook.

If its diagnosed as a mental issue, then flag them. If they just suck with adding, subtracting and paying bills on time, dont bug the VA and get caught up in the red tape.

 

[cmhbob]

If its diagnosed as a mental issue, then flag them.

Except the 4473 and federal law say adjudicated, not diagnosed.

 

[Lurker66]

I dont really see a problem flagging them if diagnosed. Its a flag not a denial of purchase.

But then i can see it as getting abused and using it as a tool to deny an otherwise competent person a right to purchase and own firearms.

 

[cmhbob]

But they're "flagging" them as a prohibited purchaser in NICS.

 

[Glocktogo]

I say they should be prevented from owning guns due to the diagnosis, not because they cant manage their finances.

If a soldier is so bad with finances they have to seek help from the VA and the VA has to appoint a family member due to being incompetant, theres prolly something bigger going on than just being unable to manage a checkbook.

If its diagnosed as a mental issue, then flag them. If they just suck with adding, subtracting and paying bills on time, dont bug the VA and get caught up in the red tape.

Thanks for supporting our vets rights there Lurker!

 

[Billybob]

Except the 4473 and federal law say adjudicated, not diagnosed.

Pretty big door being opened there, everyone on "meds" has been "diagnosed", should they all be treated as "adjudicated"?