VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Just heard this on a radio show. The VA has ruled that any Vet who has received a brain injury, no matter the original severity or his prognosis, will be forever denied the possession or use of any guns, period. The vet cannot live in a house where any guns are present, period. Under threat of prison, lifetime, non-revocable. No self defense, no hunting, no target shooting---

A guy convicted of multiples of armed robberies can receive a pardon but no pardons for our Vets.

Death of a thousand cuts.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can own guns
 

Your thread title is exactly the opposite of your thread content.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can own guns
 

You are right, embarrassing, thanks.

Fixed

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

What a shame, but probably the right call.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Is it? I'd trust a braindamaged vet with a gun long before I'd trust a repeat offender that's "done his time"

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Tom, I know that you heard this on the radio but would you happen to have a linky? I wonder when the VA was given the power to enact law? Bx3

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Just a matter of time before this applies to all vets—especially those with ongoing claims against the VA that have been previously denied.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Never! The government does not have the right to say who may or may not own guns or the means of self-defense; not even felons (of which there are increasing numbers due to the stupid number of "felony" crimes).

If someone cannot defend himself, he has to be dependent on others for protection, or forgo protection altogether. The latter is what normally happens.

No one has a right to forbid others the right of defense of person and property.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

How so? Perhaps you could expand on this opinion? I consider this an outrage.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

He knows this, which is why he made the post.

It's what he does... :dontknow:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I agree. Everybody has the right to defend ones own self.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I mentioned this thread today and was told that people that serve in the Marines can never have guns... Is this true or were they misinformed? The claim is due to the severe brainwashing they go through, I knew an ex Marine and wouldnt like the idea of him carrying... lol

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Me too. Repeat offender for what thou? Grand Theft -- no.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I was in Corps. Not true!

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

It does make a difference... a non-vet psychopath is one thing... someone convicted of a crime where there is no victim is another.

BTW... why does the vet get an automatic free pass from some? Is he not a trained killer, albeit with the blessing of the state?

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

LOL! Not all vets are "trained killers".

My brother was in the Air Force, spun wrenches on large airplanes. Never fired a weapon. Still a vet.

Do you know what you are talking about? Or just making a fuss, like you like to do? :biggrin:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Thanks, all I found was denial due to PTSD. Time to make a call. :beer:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I doubt that all brain injuries will disqualify a Vet from owning a gun. If the radio show was correct then a concussion could cost someone their rights.
I suspect they were talking about mental health. I remember something about Vets being denied their 2nd Amendment rights if they were treated for PTSD. I believe it was included in some poorly written gun control Bill. There was a way to address being banned from owning a gun at a later date but it was not funded. Basically there was no way to fix your record and get your rights restored. I think Congress finally fixed this problem a few years ago. I'm sure someone out there will have more info then my vague recollection of this gun law.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Maybe, but the one with brain damage likely didn't receive his injury turning wrenches, but on the battlefield, where he most likely DID fire a gun.



Just for future reference, GB... I will NEVER claim to "know what I am talking about", even when I do. Hope this helps.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

A lot of the casualties in Iraq were support personnel caught by roadside bombs and could have been truckers, supply, MPs, Corps of Engineers helping the locals, anyone on the road. Except for the occasional Fallujah, there were no front lines in Iraq.

I believe the term from the talk show was TBI, traumatic brain injury.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Point taken.

As far as the definition of TBI goes, does it require physical injury to the brain?

I can see some very pissed off vets coming back from that effed up place ready to even the score with the jackasses that sent them there. I wonder if the gubbermint will count those people as "brain-damaged" as well, and deny them 2A rights...?

Oh wait, maybe that falls under "PTSD".

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Brain damaged vets toting guns are better than brain dead bureaucrats making rules.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I know, but thanks for letting everybody else in on the secret. :emotions16:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Short memory folks- remember a few months ago one of "our" US Dept heads had to apologize for putting all returning military vets on the terrorist watch list? Do you really think they canned the program after an apology? The attacks will continue on our returning vets, "our" leadership is afraid of them (with good reason?).You decide, however, I know the attacks will continue from all angles to erode their gun ownership rights.

Check out the 500,000 man veteran Army that marched on DC.

Not a good ending, but many similarities when an administration takes a dump on our veterans.

And yes ,I do see another "1932 Bonus March" on Washington, DC, the similarities of the times are right on.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bonusarmy.htm

The Bonus Army Invades


Washington, D.C., 1932


Printer Friendly Version >>>
Six years after the end of World War I Congress enacted a bill that would reward veterans of the conflict a cash bonus for their service. However, the legislation stipulated that the veterans would not collect their bonus until 1945.


Tanks and cavalry prepare to
evacuate the Bonus Army
July 28, 1932
This delayed gratification was acceptable to the World War I veterans during the prosperous '20s but the onslaught of the Great Depression changed their attitude. Out of work, destitute, and with families to feed, the veterans organized a march on Washington in May of 1932 to force Congress to immediately pay their bonus. An estimated 15,000 made their way to the nation's capital and dubbed themselves the "Bonus Expeditionary Force."

Using scrap wood, iron and any other loose materials they could find, the veterans set up ramshackle camps throughout the city. The largest housed an estimated 10,000 people. They waited in vain for Congress to act. On June 17 the Senate voted against the House-passed bill that would have given the Bonus Marchers immediate payment of their benefit.
Having no other place to go, the majority of the Bonus Army remained encamped in the city, despite the fact that Congress had adjourned for the summer. Finally, President Hoover ordered the Army to forcibly remove the veterans. On July 28 a force of tanks and cavalry under the command of General Douglas MacArthur stormed the camps and drove the veterans out. Their makeshift houses were then set ablaze.

"I was horrified to see plain evidence of hunger in their faces."
------------------------------------

Other estimates state up to 500,000 vets.Many atrocities, Patton a main figure, as well as MacArthur.I believe our current administration has no knowledge of the 1932 Bonus Army issues and the mayhem dislocated US vets will cause.
Or do they?
------------------------------------

The other side of the coin-the official FBI record.Communists and revolution?

http://foia.fbi.gov/bonmarch/bonmarch1a.pdf

......

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Well, I guess it's a good thing that the VA isn't empowered to make laws then, huh?

It's getting closer and closer to the day where we will just have to live our lives AS IF the government honored the Consitution.

And deal with the occasional perturbations accordingly...

;-0

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

It really doesn,t matter whether or not I am allowed to own a gun or not. My priority doesn't lie with decisions made by people who really have no idea who I am or what I stand for, my priority is to protect my family and myself for as long as I breath air. Yes I am a combat soldier who served my country for 22 years and during this time have had two concussions. I also have weapons that will remain in my custody. No Ifs ands butts about it

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I agree 110%. Your rights as a person transend "laws". People here get so worked up about "laws" it's downright ludicrious. For example, it's as if DumbleBump can't cross a street without looking out for, or worrying about a LEO watching behind a lamp post.

Do what you gots to do, and F'the rest. :ok:

You sound like a Marine. Semper Fi.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

My understanding is TBI refers exclusively to a physical trauma to the brain and is more extensive and permanent in its implications than a concussion.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Goldbuy, no I am army Retired in 1981. Still recovering from wounds recieved but not bitchin abit, Life is good.
:s1:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

No physician here but I'm pretty sure that the word "trauma" implies a physical wound.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I just did 4. Yep, life is good, it's all attitude and not sweating the small sheit.

:wavey:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

TBI studies are still in their infancy but can and are caused also by concussions. I have seen it first hand on more than one occasion and the affects are disturbing and sad. Their is currently studies being done that have shown evidence of a vice versa affect of TBI and PTSD. The current thought is circulating that they are inherently linked.

I have a friend who is taking part in one of the studies.

If this rule s true I am sure that they mean that it is a term of the contract when accepting compensation.

I could see that. Don't agree with it. The government breaks you and then takes away your rights as a result of their actions is just insult to injury the same as putting a vet on the terr' watch list.

The gov is seriously stirring a shit pot in America because they are afraid that too many vets are coming back with serious combat experience in a guerrilla war and are seeing the true intentions of our government and the politicians and elite seek to nip it in the bud before we get a chance to take back our country and CONSTITUTION.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

That won't keep the legislators from changing or making up their own definition - which will probably be not only ridiculously broad, but also ridiculously over-interpreted.

R.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Welcome home AND Thank you for your service.

A fellow Hard-timer!
CC

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

IF true, and I don't mean to doubt TomD but I would like to read the law that will take effect or is in effect. If nothing is written then nothing of the sort is in effect.

Also on the brain injury part; I wonder if the "brain injury" the VA would would rule have to be physical damage or could that include "psychological injury" or something of that nature in regards to what was seen or experienced? If so, then pretty much any vet that has seen combat could be barred of arms.....possibly?

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

veterans are mostly good people caught up in a bad system

the constitution was setup as a militia style defense (porcupine)

in switzerland, every male between 18 & 42 who was not a convicted felon, was issued a weapon, and was part of the militia

This is the model we need in the U.S.

keeps all citizens armed.

the veterans of today are obviously not in a militia style defense at all, we more resemble a shark today, then a porcupine.

but most veterans are good folks.


the problem is not the veterans, its the system

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

GB123 the Corps wants you back. They are missing a bullet bitch.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

The Swiss are well armed ............and enjoy GREAT FREEDOM


"Among Other Evils Which Being Unarmed Brings You, It Causes You To Be Despised"

The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli


T

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

So you think LEO will destroy my private shooting range. Take my fire power away. Ban my right to own weapons that is used for defensive purposes. OK... THEN THE BATTLE WILL BE ON. Do not take my weapons away as I will not give them up and they will never find my stash. Also I do not think the VA has the power to enact laws. They do have the power to lock you up in a ward with doctors surrounded by wire if it is decided you may harm yourself or others at which time they can go befor a Judge to suspend your right to own a weapon for cause.

From a vet rated 100% disabled. Been in the system a long time...On earth God will not save you... That's you must do for yourself.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

QWAK,GOD makes LAWS :yes::shine: and they can NOT be BROKEN :36_1_30::452: --- Men make RUELS :yes: and break and change them when ever they decide they want to!:yes::shine:

Men may call there RULES "LAWS" but that is just to IMPRESS other IGNORENT PEOPLE and get them to OBEY and not QUESTION or IGNOR the FOOLS who make RUELS and call them LAWS!:yes::shine::4_1_72:

the DUCK :15_1_70v:

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

I don't think anyone should be restricted from owning a gun.

If a guy walks into a place shooting everybody else just kills him, that's the penalty.

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

This really seems outside of the scope/authority of the VA...

Re: VA rules injured Vets can not own guns-ever
 

http://gunowners.org/ne0713.htm

The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law
The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law
Those who want to claim that there is no "Veterans Disarmament Act" ignore, first of all, that up to 140,000 veterans have ALREADY BEEN DISARMED by using twisted interpretations of the federal code. That figure was released on August 1 by Congress' own research team -- the Congressional Research Service.

Furthermore, the so-called "school safety" bill that Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer are pushing would LEGITIMIZE the very practice that began with President Clinton, when his administration began adding military vets onto the NICS roles. (The bill is numbered H.R. 2640 in the House and S. 2084 in the Senate.)

The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps illegal regulations -- that have been issued by the BATFE -- which go far beyond current statutes. The net result is that Section 203(2) of S. 2084 ends up outlawing guns for millions of people (including veterans) who are not "currently prohibited" from owning guns.

BATFE's illegal regs can be found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person."

While this standard is INCONSISTENT with the existing federal code (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)), it would become the statutory law of the land if H.R. 2640 or S. 2084 is passed. This is because both bills hold that whatever BATFE regulations are pending at the time the legislation is passed into law would automatically have the force of statutory law.

Section 203(2) in the Senate bill -- and Section 3(2) in the House bill -- codifies rogue BATFE interpretations and makes them the statutory law of the land. Both sections state, "The terms 'adjudicated as a mental defective,' 'committed to a mental institution,' and related terms HAVE THE MEANINGS GIVEN THOSE TERMS IN [BATFE] REGULATIONS implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act." [Emphasis added.]

The history of this debate goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act, which makes an individual a "prohibited person" if he is "adjudicated as a mental defective." That law did not make a person a prohibited person because he or she was merely diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and so forth by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. However, that would all change with the Veterans Disarmament Act, as it will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued.

One should also understand that two legal terms have been radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans' gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was so incapacitated that he was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.1

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- in other words, only after constitutional "due process." Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser. Now, adjudication in the Veterans Disarmament Act would include a "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" (namely, government-sanctioned psychiatrists).2

Some supporters of the bill have argued that, under the rules of "ejusdem generis," the phrase "lawful authority" could not include individual psychologists, etc. There are two answers to this:

* The first is that a significant portion of the nearly 140,000 veterans have had their names placed in NICS without a finding by any court or magistrate. And the problem is still going on today with other honorable veterans. We don't need for people to tell us that it couldn't happen, because it is happening -- tens of thousands of times.

* The second is that, if "lawful authority" cannot be interpreted to mean individual psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., we presume then that Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy will have no problem with a GOA amendment providing that an "adjudication" can be made only by a court, magistrate, or other judicial branch authority offering due process.

GOA believes that the Clinton and Bush administration's actions in illegitimately turning over the names of roughly 140,000 veterans (suffering from PTSD, etc.) was an illegal act, which should be condemned, reversed, and prosecuted. It should not be rubber-stamped by legislation which would take this illegality and statutorily validate it and future similar illegal acts.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 As stated above, the Veterans Disarmament Act stretches the definition of "mental defective" by codifying the BATFE regs which state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. The BATFE letter of May 9, 2007 makes this additionally clear, as they state that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person."
2 Again, because the Veterans Disarmament Act codifies BATFE's regulations (at 27 C.F.R. 478.11), statutory law would now allow a person to be deemed as a "mental defective" from the "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" -- in other words, no longer just by a court adjudication.