GOA gets VA Veteran Gun Ban repealed.

[Miami_JBT]

Massive Gun Control Repealed | GOA

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...

www.gunowners.org

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.

Congress poised to roll back 'veteran gun ban,' with reluctant Biden backing

A Department of Veterans Affairs policy that Second Amendment advocates call a "veteran gun ban" likely won’t get funded in the new spending bill.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Ks5shooter]

Very nice! nicely done GOA!!!!

 

[armoredman]

Outstanding!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

GOA gets it done!!!

 

[AlexanderA]

This doesn't affect all veterans. Just the ones who are deemed to be "non compos mentis" (unable to manage their own affairs).

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

Chipping away at the rock of liberal control and lies. awesome.

 

[DustyGmt]

What does the bill defeat? Were veterans being denied gun purchases being "deemed" mentally unfit or something if they needed an advocate or were they being denied for other reasons?

 

[AlexanderA]

What does the bill defeat? Were veterans being denied gun purchases being "deemed" mentally unfit or something if they needed an advocate or were they being denied for other reasons?

The way I understand it, certain veterans that were deemed mentally unable to handle their own affairs, were provided financial "advisory" services by the VA. The names of these veterans, in turn, were being sent over to NICS by the VA. It's unclear what NICS was doing with this information. (Could it use it to deny gun purchases?) Anyway, the bill puts a stop to this practice. But rather than having a "massive" impact, it seems that the impact of the practice was minimal. More symbolic than anything else.

 

[Miami_JBT]

The way I understand it, certain veterans that were deemed mentally unable to handle their own affairs, were provided financial "advisory" services by the VA. The names of these veterans, in turn, were being sent over to NICS by the VA. It's unclear what NICS was doing with this information. (Could it use it to deny gun purchases?) Anyway, the bill puts a stop to this practice. But rather than having a "massive" impact, it seems that the impact of the practice was minimal. More symbolic than anything else.

NICS was using the information from the VA to classify veterans as "prohibited persons" and deny firearm purchases.

This is not a minimal issue. Especially for the veterans who were effected.

 

[Old Dog]

But rather than having a "massive" impact, it seems that the impact of the practice was minimal. More symbolic than anything else.

This is correct.

Way too much hyperbole and misrepresentation on either side of this issue. Is there an actual concern here? Yes, because administrative actions by the VA should not impact anyone's RKBA.

Last year, Ron Burke, Deputy Under Secretary for Oversight and Policy at VA, said that only 33 veterans last year appealed their fiduciary designation, and only 12 — fewer than half — had their status changed after review.

So there are not a large number of individuals seeking relief here. Having dealt with the VA to a great extent, for the VA to designate a benefits recipient as incapable of managing their own affairs, the vets typically for the most part, are pretty far gone. Are some of the VA staffers/investigators/providers around the country inexperienced or less than competent? Sure, just like in any bureaucracy.

The VA does not report any individuals to the federal background check system for receiving mental health treatments,

There is far too much misinformation in the larger veterans community stating that seeking help can lead to guns being seized. How do I know? Being a recipient of VA healthcare myself. And having provided counseling for transitioning service members who were coming home from the forever wars shortly after I myself returned from my last deployment and retired, I was appalled by some of the rumors being spread about how easy it was for the government to take any veteran's firearms away. The preponderance of vets that become prohibited persons is due mainly to criminal convictions, domestic violence episodes, ERPOs and drug use -- adjudicated by the laws of the states these folks reside in.

Am I concerned about this issue? Sure -- I am a stakeholder, as a disabled vet drawing disability pay in addition to my military retirement pay. But I think it would behoove every vet (or family members or friends of vets) to do their due diligence and get their facts straight. While the DVA has its warts and a somewhat sordid history in many regions of the country, it's not always the ogre it's been painted to be.

 

[silicosys4]

That makes me feel good about making another donation to the GOA instead of rejoining the NRA.

 

[AlexanderA]

The VA does not report any individuals to the federal background check system for receiving mental health treatments,

Receiving mental health treatment, or, for that matter, being deemed "incapable of managing your own affairs," are not disqualifying conditions on the Form 4473. Such information, transmitted by the VA, does not indicate an "adjudication" of mental defect or a "commitment" to a mental institution (Question 21g on the form), and therefore should not automatically disqualify a person from buying a gun.

Additionally, there are two distinct questions here -- whether a purchase of a gun is excluded, and whether possession of a gun already owned is affected. This whole "VA notification" issue would not affect the latter question.

Now, it may be that a particular veteran presents a danger to himself or others, due to a mental problem. But taking his guns would be up to the courts, not the VA.

 

[Sistema1927]

Now let's remove the VA hospital parking lots from "gun free zone" status. I don't know what it is like elsewhere, but at my hospital there are signs saying that having a firearm in the parking lot is a felony. So, if I have to go to the hospital I need to disarm before I leave my house instead of just locking up my pistol when I arrive.

 

[jstert]

NICS was using the information from the VA to classify veterans as "prohibited persons" and deny firearm purchases.

This is not a minimal issue. Especially for the veterans who were effected.

our constitution is dying the death of a thousand cuts. any restoration of what our founding fathers carefully wrote is a victory.

 

[Old Dog]

Additionally, there are two distinct questions here -- whether a purchase of a gun is excluded, and whether possession of a gun already owned is affected. This whole "VA notification" issue would not affect the latter question.

And this is exactly why I noted the toxic spread of misinformation, specifically in the veterans and RKBA communities (regrettably perpetuated by one political party and a couple RKBA groups) -- that seeking mental health treatment from the VA (which many of us who deployed desperately required) will result in (1) the VA reporting this to the NICS which will place one on the "prohibited persons" list and (2) the VA reporting this to federal agencies and law enforcement who will then come to confiscate one's firearms.

This whole spread of bogus "facts" and the notion that the VA can have any vet's guns confiscated has prevented untold numbers of vets from including PTSD on their disability claims, which is shameful. I even bought into this when I first retired, and didn't claim PTSD until I submitted for VA reevaluation fifteen years after I got off active duty. Turned out to be no big deal, and the VA providers I was referred to were competent, professional and understanding.

Now, it may be that a particular veteran presents a danger to himself or others, due to a mental problem. But taking his guns would be up to the courts, not the VA.

I noted that as well.

This new legislation is a good thing because it does provide protection to those veterans deemed incapable of managing their own affairs and who have had a fiduciary appointed to manage their accounts, yet still have the right to purchase (and possess) firearms.

But stuff such as what Fox News put out: "Congress poised to roll back 'veteran gun ban' " is just more misleading hyperbole. There never was a "veteran gun ban." And for GOA to claim "victory?" As much as I respect and support that organization's efforts, this is just another headline meant to get folks on both sides riled up and further contributes to the political polarization without aiding understanding of the real issue.

 

[12Bravo20]

Now let's remove the VA hospital parking lots from "gun free zone" status. I don't know what it is like elsewhere, but at my hospital there are signs saying that having a firearm in the parking lot is a felony. So, if I have to go to the hospital I need to disarm before I leave my house instead of just locking up my pistol when I arrive.

That would be nice if it happened. Some VA hospitals are in bad areas. But they are no different than any other federal property.

 

[d2wing]

This is a very important issue for disabled veterans like myself. If you answer a question wrong you could be reported. At least twice a year it comes up in interviews. If a disabled veteran agrees others take care of his finances or that he is dependent on others for help he could he could be banned from buying guns. This is separate from Red Flag laws. For instance my friend's wife is his caregiver so he cannot buy guns. Those of you that dismiss this don't know how they have made this a catch 22 for vets. Thankfully some people know this and are fighting it.

 

[d2wing]

And this is exactly why I noted the toxic spread of misinformation, specifically in the veterans and RKBA communities (regrettably perpetuated by one political party and a couple RKBA groups) -- that seeking mental health treatment from the VA (which many of us who deployed desperately required) will result in (1) the VA reporting this to the NICS which will place one on the "prohibited persons" list and (2) the VA reporting this to federal agencies and law enforcement who will then come to confiscate one's firearms.

This whole spread of bogus "facts" and the notion that the VA can have any vet's guns confiscated has prevented untold numbers of vets from including PTSD on their disability claims, which is shameful. I even bought into this when I first retired, and didn't claim PTSD until I submitted for VA reevaluation fifteen years after I got off active duty. Turned out to be no big deal, and the VA providers I was referred to were competent, professional and understanding.


I noted that as well.

This new legislation is a good thing because it does provide protection to those veterans deemed incapable of managing their own affairs and who have had a fiduciary appointed to manage their accounts, yet still have the right to purchase (and possess) firearms.

But stuff such as what Fox News put out: "Congress poised to roll back 'veteran gun ban' " is just more misleading hyperbole. There never was a "veteran gun ban." And for GOA to claim "victory?" As much as I respect and support that organization's efforts, this is just another headline meant to get folks on both sides riled up and further contributes to the political polarization without aiding understanding of the real issue.

You are not correct. If you answer a question indicating that you are not capable of managing your affairs you can and some have been unable to buy guns. That is a different than a Red Flag law where they take guns away. They also want to know if you have guns and how you store them for "safety". Having PTSD is not a disqualifier by itself but incompetency is.

 

[d2wing]

Receiving mental health treatment, or, for that matter, being deemed "incapable of managing your own affairs," are not disqualifying conditions on the Form 4473. Such information, transmitted by the VA, does not indicate an "adjudication" of mental defect or a "commitment" to a mental institution (Question 21g on the form), and therefore should not automatically disqualify a person from buying a gun.

Additionally, there are two distinct questions here -- whether a purchase of a gun is excluded, and whether possession of a gun already owned is affected. This whole "VA notification" issue would not affect the latter question.

Now, it may be that a particular veteran presents a danger to himself or others, due to a mental problem. But taking his guns would be up to the courts, not the VA.

The VA questionnaire that I am given at least twice a year contains questions on competency and oral questions about guns. It only takes an ill-advised answer to require the VA to inform whoever or that you have a VA paid caregiver that some couples apply for to put you in the incompetent category and unable to buy guns. This does not require a civil determination,

 

[Old Dog]

If you answer a question wrong you could be reported.

You are not correct. If you answer a question indicating that you are not capable of managing your affairs you can and some have been unable to buy guns.

Yeah, no. That's not how it works (or rather, worked in the past).

From the Congressional Research Service analysis paper when the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" was introduced in Congress:

Determinations of Incompetency

Under the VA’s regulations, the VA has the authority to determine if a beneficiary in a VA program is mentally competent or mentally incompetent.1

8 The VA’s regulations provide the following definition of mental incompetency: A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.

19 The VA’s regulations require that no determination as to a beneficiary’s competency be made unless the “medical evidence is clear, convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person’s incompetency” or there has been “a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities.”

20 A determination of incompetency must be based on all evidence of record and be consistent with the percentage of disability and facts related to any hospitalization or commitment of the person. In a case in which there is a reasonable doubt as to the beneficiary’s competency to contract or manage his or her affairs, the regulations require the doubt to be resolved in favor of a determination of competency.

If you followed the entire thread, you'd have noted Pres. Biden will sign the bill and the VA will not report vets to NICS any longer due solely to the fact they were assigned a fiduciary.

 

[d2wing]

Massive Gun Control Repealed | GOA

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...

www.gunowners.org

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.

Congress poised to roll back 'veteran gun ban,' with reluctant Biden backing

A Department of Veterans Affairs policy that Second Amendment advocates call a "veteran gun ban" likely won’t get funded in the new spending bill.

www.foxnews.com

Well done. This has been a trap for many veterans.

 

[d2wing]

Yeah, no. That's not how it works (or rather, worked in the past).

From the Congressional Research Service analysis paper when the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" was introduced in Congress:

Determinations of Incompetency

Under the VA’s regulations, the VA has the authority to determine if a beneficiary in a VA program is mentally competent or mentally incompetent.1

8 The VA’s regulations provide the following definition of mental incompetency: A mentally incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.

19 The VA’s regulations require that no determination as to a beneficiary’s competency be made unless the “medical evidence is clear, convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person’s incompetency” or there has been “a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities.”

20 A determination of incompetency must be based on all evidence of record and be consistent with the percentage of disability and facts related to any hospitalization or commitment of the person. In a case in which there is a reasonable doubt as to the beneficiary’s competency to contract or manage his or her affairs, the regulations require the doubt to be resolved in favor of a determination of competency.

If you followed the entire thread, you'd have noted Pres. Biden will sign the bill and the VA will not report vets to NICS any longer due solely to the fact they were assigned a fiduciary.

That is exactly how it has worked for several years. This information has been provided to NICS and has been used to deny gun buying. Clear medical evidence can be a simple answers on a questionnaire combined with a disability. With "any limitation" on personal affairs. The Doctor or Medical assistant checks a box. It does happen to Veterans.
Yes, this bill stops that practice. I don't know what part you don't understand. Maybe you need to reread everything.

 

[12Bravo20]

I'll back up what @d2wing said. I have seen it happen to fellow veterans for answering simple questions wrong when seeing any doctor at the VA. And you get asked those question every time you see a doctor. If it isn't a nurse that asks while taking your vitals, then it is the doctor asking.

 

[JTHunter]

I'll back up what @d2wing said. I have seen it happen to fellow veterans for answering simple questions wrong when seeing any doctor at the VA. And you get asked those question every time you see a doctor. If it isn't a nurse that asks while taking your vitals, then it is the doctor asking.

And, they may be doing it that way as this can be confusing for some seniors due to too much going on at the same time.

 

[Old Dog]

Boy, I sure didn't intend to get down in the weeds about how the VA's system worked (and certainly don't want anyone to think I'm here defending the department). My initial objections in this thread were really only about how Fox News and the GOA (and other RKBA organizations) have engaged in fear-mongering among vets and their familiies, misrepresenting one aspect of the department's policy. As a result of this type of misinformation, untold numbers of veterans, particularly many of those who deployed in our two recent major conflicts, elected to not seek counseling, treatment or utilize VA resources (and also resources in the military treatment facilities).

Clear medical evidence can be a simple answers on a questionnaire combined with a disability. With "any limitation" on personal affairs. The Doctor or Medical assistant checks a box. It does happen to Veterans.

No, once again: the reporting to NICS was only on the veterans for whom the VA appointed a fiduciary to manage the veterans' VA benefits.

I don't know what part you don't understand. Maybe you need to reread everything.

Eh, I understand the VA has provided names of veterans to NICS that it deemed incompetent to manage their own affairs by reason of appointing them a fiduciary. Nothing I need to reread, except you may want to reread my posts and tell me where I said there was any part of anything I didn't understand. As a veteran (and gun owner) with an 80% disability rating, I do have skin in this game, so no need for the insult.

You seem to be attempting to make the case that one check in a box on a questionnaire gets vets reported to NICS as mentally incompetent. I have never seen this happen, and have only heard second or third hand accounts that frankly aren't credible. My point was that's not how the system worked.

Now, I actually have a bit of experience with the VA firsthand (having utilized our big medical center up here for care that the military hospitals don't provide retirees) but also have an immediate family member who worked for years as a provider in a VA medical center and was part of the process (ARNP, geriatrics and psych).

Was the VA's process right? No. Did it deprive some veterans of the right to purchase firearms? Yes. Did it lead to any veterans having firearms confiscated? No. Was this new legislation needed? Yes. It certainly can help prevent future injustice. But was there a "Veteran Gun Ban?" Nope.

I have in the past taken offense at some of the questions that VA providers have asked ("Do you have firearms in your house?" "Are your firearms secured in locked containers?"), but if it didn't pertain to the reason for my visit, I don't answer these questions. However, given the horrifying numbers of vets that are committing suicide (most using firearms), 17 - 22 a day nationwide depending on which stats you subscribed to, it is understandable that the (mostly liberal) medical establishment will address firearms with its patients (commonplace even in civilian medical practices now).