ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats Demand The Ability to Block Veterans From Owning Guns

Sharky1203

HR All-American
Silver Member
Sep 14, 2023
2,881
2,345
113
Over 140 Democrats in the House of Representatives are pushing for measures that could potentially restrict veterans’ Second Amendment rights. Their proposal targets veterans who receive disability benefits and raises concerns about the implications for those who may struggle with managing their finances due to mental or physical challenges.

Veterans who receive disability benefits have the autonomy to use those benefits as they see fit. However, if they face challenges in managing their finances, the VA may appoint a fiduciary to oversee their funds. This precautionary measure has sparked debate among veterans, many of whom view it as unnecessary oversight. What’s particularly alarming is the provision that prohibits veterans with assigned fiduciaries from owning guns.

Senator John Kennedy drafted an amendment to address this issue, successfully passing it in the Senate. However, House Democrats responded by urging the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to implement alternative measures.

These include seeking judicial orders for veterans deemed mentally incompetent, conducting studies on veterans’ mental health and gun-related incidents, and utilizing state extreme risk protection order laws.

Critics argue that such measures effectively weaponize mental health to deprive veterans of their Second Amendment rights. This approach raises questions about the fairness and effectiveness of targeting veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country. It’s a contentious issue that pits concerns about public safety against individual rights and freedoms.

The reality is that many veterans depend on their firearms for protection and recreation. They’ve risked their lives in service to their country and shouldn’t face undue restrictions on their constitutional rights. Moreover, the VA’s track record in addressing veterans’ mental health issues leaves much to be desired, further complicating the situation.

People in the comments share their thoughts: “Let’s give immigrants the right to own guns without citizenship! but keep veterans from owning guns how is this even a thing!”

Most commenters are shocked by this: “THIS right here is why veterans DO NOT go to the VA for help. We’ve abandoned our veterans!”

The commenters have a lot of questions: “So the individuals who risk their lives so we can be free, have no right to own a firearm? How was this allowed in the first place?”

One person concluded: “The mere fact that a vet might allow you to take their guns proves how civilized they are. The fact that you want to take their guns shows how evil and unprincipled you are!”

Rather than focusing on restricting veterans’ gun rights, there should be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues affecting their mental health. Investing in better mental health care for veterans is paramount. It’s time to prioritize support and rehabilitation over punitive measures that unfairly target those who have already made significant sacrifices.

What do you think? How can policymakers strike a balance between public safety concerns and veterans’ rights to gun ownership? What alternatives exist to effectively support veterans with mental health challenges without infringing on their constitutional rights?


How can we ensure that veterans receive the mental health care and support they need without stigma or discrimination? What role should the VA play in addressing veterans’ mental health issues, and how can its services be improved?

The post Democrats Demand The Ability to Block Veterans From Owning Guns appeared first on United Liberty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1f96d487444d7784e55a0b06d96df2&ei=14#image=11
 
So they want to keep mentally unstable people from having a gun? Sounds like a responsible action.

I have to laugh at the Republican, sorry, "one person" complaining that they should be working on mental health instead. As if that same mfer hasn't voted no on multiple bills to improve mental health in this country.
 
Season 5 No GIF by The Office
 
“So you say you’re from Mongolia but you crossed over from Mexico and you have no papers? You absolutely can keep that .45, Sir, and welcome to the United States of America!!”

“I don’t care if you fought for this country in Vietnam and I don’t care if you have PTSD and I don’t care that you lost a leg. The law clearly states…sir…that if we assign you a fiduciary your rights no longer apply. Next!!”

Idiots running the show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
But ILLEGALS can lock and load any time they please......
I think the bigger question about this, is what's the actual number of Vets that have been in a gun related incident? Next put those numbers up against the inner cities gun violence. Such as D.C., Baltimore, Chicago just as examples. Somehow 140 Democrats feel that the Vets are the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
So they want to keep mentally unstable people from having a gun? Sounds like a responsible action.

I have to laugh at the Republican, sorry, "one person" complaining that they should be working on mental health instead. As if that same mfer hasn't voted no on multiple bills to improve mental health in this country.
Politicians in general can't manage our country's finances, even with the help of a budget office and accounting office. Maybe they should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone filing for bankruptcy should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone who's behind on student loan payments should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone taking out a payday loan should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe every trans person should be banned from having a gun.

In the end, there are people who are actually a danger to themselves or others. That's where the focus should be. Painting disabled vets with a broad brush and taking away their rights will discourage them from seeking help. It's really just a poorly disguised attempt at taking guns away from a large number of people so the next group can be identified.
 
Depends on why a fiduciary is appointed,.. As written, this is far too broad and likely unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharky1203
should we do better for our veterans, especially those suffering the worst from impacts of their service? absolutely

should being a veteran negate any concerns over mental health issues and posessing firearms? no

but of course the discussion of this has to immediately turn to "WHY DO YOU HATE VETERANS"
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sharky1203
should we do better for our veterans, especially those suffering the worst from impacts of their service? absolutely

should being a veteran negate any concerns over mental health issues and posessing firearms? no

but of course the discussion of this has to immediately turn to "WHY DO YOU HAVE VETERANS"
Amen @jneffer, we don't always agree on stuff, but you hit this one out of the park.
 
Politicians in general can't manage our country's finances, even with the help of a budget office and accounting office. Maybe they should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone filing for bankruptcy should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone who's behind on student loan payments should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe everyone taking out a payday loan should be banned from having a gun.

Maybe every trans person should be banned from having a gun.

In the end, there are people who are actually a danger to themselves or others. That's where the focus should be. Painting disabled vets with a broad brush and taking away their rights will discourage them from seeking help. It's really just a poorly disguised attempt at taking guns away from a large number of people so the next group can be identified.
Wait, are you seriously trying to compare someone who can't manage a budget to someone with PTSD or schizophrenia? What's wrong with you?

I'm not saying that the law isn't poorly written and doesn't need some work, but to immediately dismiss the idea that some veterans shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm because of their mental health situation is dangerous.
 
Sigh....no one does actual research on this board. For decades (since 1993), the law was veterans that had a guardian/curator appointed were submitted to the DOJ for background check without judge approval. The March spending bill changed the rule and now the veterans are not submitted for background check without a court order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
Wait, are you seriously trying to compare someone who can't manage a budget to someone with PTSD or schizophrenia? What's wrong with you?

I'm not saying that the law isn't poorly written and doesn't need some work, but to immediately dismiss the idea that some veterans shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm because of their mental health situation is dangerous.
I didn't make that comparison - it's part of the bill. What's wrong with you?

As an aside, everyone having those conditions isn't a danger to others. The bill, if you would actually read it, includes people who ask for help managing their finances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharky1203
I didn't make that comparison - it's part of the bill. What's wrong with you?

As an aside, everyone having those conditions isn't a danger to others. The bill, if you would actually read it, includes people who ask for help managing their finances.
Fine, so the bill does something like that. I said that parts of the bill might need to be reworded or rewritten. But that's not what's being argued here. Well, maybe you are but others aren't. It's the very idea that there might be limitations for some veterans who are mentally unstable shouldn't be owning guns. The specifics need to be worked out, but there are people who shouldn't have access. They are a danger to others and to themselves.
 
I didn't make that comparison - it's part of the bill. What's wrong with you?

As an aside, everyone having those conditions isn't a danger to others. The bill, if you would actually read it, includes people who ask for help managing their finances.
What bill are you referencing?
 
So they want to keep mentally unstable people from having a gun? Sounds like a responsible action.

I have to laugh at the Republican, sorry, "one person" complaining that they should be working on mental health instead. As if that same mfer hasn't voted no on multiple bills to improve mental health in this country.
For those who may struggle with managing their finances due to mental or physical challenges. This is a poorly written, slippery slope.
Depends on why a fiduciary is appointed,.. As written, this is far too broad and likely unconstitutional.
I'm a disabled veteran, primarily rated for physical issues (muscular skeletal, exposure to burn pits, etc.), but I do have a rating for anxiety. I also have a 6-figure income job and how I manage my income, pension, and disability compensation is quite frankly no one's business.

I would like to see a more refined approach to this than what is written. We don't want veterans to cease seeking the care they require out of fear of reprisal (reprisal in this case being firearm confiscations).
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sharky1203
For those who may struggle with managing their finances due to mental or physical challenges. This is a poorly written, slippery slope.

I'm a disabled veteran, primarily rated for physical issues (muscular skeletal, exposure to burn pits, etc.), but I do have a rating for anxiety. I also have a 6-figure income job and how I manage my income, pension, and disability compensation is quite frankly no one's business.

I would like to see a more refined approach to this than what is written. We don't want veterans to cease seeking the care they require out of fear of reprisal (reprisal in this case being firearm confiscations).
What bill is restricting a veterans' right to own a gun?
 
So they want to keep mentally unstable people from having a gun? Sounds like a responsible action.

I have to laugh at the Republican, sorry, "one person" complaining that they should be working on mental health instead. As if that same mfer hasn't voted no on multiple bills to improve mental health in this country.
So people who think they’re a different gender than they were born as too, correct?
 
WHat do think the first thing they take from alzheimers patients is? There's always a reason to restrict something.
 
So people who think they’re a different gender than they were born as too, correct?
No. People with PTSD, thoughts of hurting themselves or others, severe depression and anxiety. This may include some transgender people...
 
Currently? None. Link to where I mentioned a bill?

I said that whatever was written in the OP was poorly written, too broad.
Ok. So everyone is on the same playground. The bill (March spending bill) eliminated the requirement to notify the DOJ to conduct a background check on veterans whom have had a guardian/curator appointed.
 
No. People with PTSD, thoughts of hurting themselves or others, severe depression and anxiety. This may include some transgender people...
...and demonstrated acts of hurting themselves and others. As I've chronicled on this site numerous times, my father is a 100% disabled veteran, diagnosed bipolar with schizophrenic tendencies. In 2016 the FL Lake County Sheriffs Dept had to get him disarmed and out of his home in a domestic issue (during a manic episode). This included me talking him down from TX via a cell phone through a megaphone. He has no business having access to guns. Heading down this path, though, is slippery because people like me could get swept up in it if we're not careful.
 
This would only apply to a small percentage of veterans with service connected disabilities.

Considering I had a vet client get into a skirmish at a Ft. Dodge bar, left, and came back with a sawed off shotgun.....There are some vets that should not be possessing firearms.
 
When I first started getting into the system there was a lot of mention of "don't worry we won't they won't take your guns." If I had to use some pattern recognition, a portion of the veteran community will say that the VA will take your guns because of the Democrats and Biden passing legislation against disabled veterans which will make a portion of vets avoid the VA and prevent them from getting the care they need. Whether or not that is the intent of anything.

Book it.
 
When I first started getting into the system there was a lot of mention of "don't worry we won't they won't take your guns." If I had to use some pattern recognition, a portion of the veteran community will say that the VA will take your guns because of the Democrats and Biden passing legislation against disabled veterans which will make a portion of vets avoid the VA and prevent them from getting the care they need. Whether or not that is the intent of anything.

Book it.

The only questions I have gotten at the the VA are have you had thoughts of harming yourself or someone else? If so, do you have firearms at your home. Obviously, my answers to all 3 are no.

But for them not to ask those questions based upon the suicide rate of Veterans, would be negligent on their part. They are not asking those questions to take away firearms. They are asking to properly care for the Veteran.

I'll never handle a firearm again in my life, so I don't care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
The only questions I have gotten at the the VA are have you had thoughts of harming yourself or someone else? If so, do you have firearms at your home. Obviously, my answers to all 3 are no.

But for them not to ask those questions based upon the suicide rate of Veterans, would be negligent on their part. They are not asking those questions to take away firearms. They are asking to properly care for the Veteran.

I'll never handle a firearm again in my life, so I don't care.
My answers are no, no, yes. :cool:
 
Fine, so the bill does something like that. I said that parts of the bill might need to be reworded or rewritten. But that's not what's being argued here. Well, maybe you are but others aren't. It's the very idea that there might be limitations for some veterans who are mentally unstable shouldn't be owning guns. The specifics need to be worked out, but there are people who shouldn't have access. They are a danger to others and to themselves.
Gosh, I thought there was just a bill passed by the House in the last year or two that covered mental health issues. Targeting veterans isn't the answer. Targeting individuals who are a danger is the answer.
 
Gosh, I thought there was just a bill passed by the House in the last year or two that covered mental health issues. Targeting veterans isn't the answer. Targeting individuals who are a danger is the answer.

I don't feel they are "targeting" veterans. Folks on VA disability that don't have the ability to care for themselves or pay their own bills should not be purchasing/owning firearms
 
Gosh, I thought there was just a bill passed by the House in the last year or two that covered mental health issues. Targeting veterans isn't the answer. Targeting individuals who are a danger is the answer.
Fair enough. But that never happens either.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT