American Legion supports Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act

| March 17, 2017 | 43 Comments

Newsweek reports that The American Legion opposes the Veterans’ Affairs policy which requires their employees to report veterans who have difficulty managing their financial affairs to the FBI so that the veterans are placed on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which negates the veteran’s ability to purchase a firearm.

The American Legion opposes this policy and seeks to rectify this injustice through passage of the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act which would prohibit VA officials from stripping veterans of their rights to own firearms while preserving the authority of magistrates and other judicial officials to protect the public.

Under the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, if a judge fairly rules that a particular veteran represents a danger to society based on exhibited mental or criminal behavior, they are free to rule to restrict that veteran from owning firearms. It is clear that this decision should be made by the courts, not VA employees.

In another article in Newsweek, titled Guns in America: Bill Seeks to Allow Gun Sales to Mentally Ill Vets, they quote some of the opposition to the bill;

Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) said the bill was rushed to consideration on the House floor, and argued it would make it easier for veterans in crisis to purchase guns.

[…]

Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said he was “disgusted” by the legislation. He added: “I support veterans’ rights to defend themselves. But I don’t support crazy people having guns, whether they’re veterans or not. And it’s just that simple.”

Funny that an impeached judge would think he has a valid opinion about “crazy…veterans”, isn’t it? I wonder how Democrats would react if some government functionary could relieve them of their first amendment protections if they demonstrated crazy tendencies.

But, yeah, both the American Legion and the VFW are lobbying on our behalf in this instance, that’s why we need to support these organizations – even if you don’t like the local posts, the national organizations fight for us. We can’t depend on our former commanders to help us;

Earlier this week, 14 retired admirals and generals from all branches of the military sent a letter to congressional leaders urging them to oppose the bill. Veterans, they argued, are at a higher risk of suicide compared to the U.S. civilian population: According to the Department of Defense’s 2014 Suicide Event Report, which was published last year, an average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by using a firearm. Among the retired officers signing the letter were General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, Admiral Thad Allen and Generals Michael Hayden and Stanley McChrystal.

The same people who sent troops into a war zone without weapons or ammo to be murdered by their allies are begging the government to take our guns away from us.

Thanks to TSO for the link.

Category: Guns

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Denise Williams says:

    Infuriating.

    Each time I see a glimmer of hope that the crazy veteran narrative is starting to, maybe, change…

  2. The Other Whitey says:

    I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where mismanagement of money makes you crazy. In that case, 90% of the population, if not more, between the ages of 14 and 35 need to be locked up immediately!

    And what exactly constitutes financial irresponsibility, anyway? That’s pretty subjective. Say a guy (or girl who’s into girls) blows his overtime check on supporting the college educations of ladies of the pole (at least that’s what I hear the money goes to)? Or buys a truck or muscle car instead of a hybrid? Or buys a new video game system, surround sound, and 65-inch TV? God forbid someone spend their money as they see fit! I’m not saying any of that would be good or bad, and I get that, hypothetically speaking, this is supposed to be about people who blow their paycheck without paying their bills. But the point is that that’s far too vague a criterion for restricting someone’s rights, and it gets abused regularly.

    • Retired Grunt says:

      Quick,

      Take ALL guns away from our government and it’s employees!! Have you seen our deficit? I call that crazy mismanagement of funds, period.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      The problem of course is the VA deciding this as they can’t even manage their own fiscal affairs or take responsibility and accountability for the employees with the seriousness due.

      However if we are discussing older veterans one of the first signs of trouble is a formerly capable individual now seemingly unable to manage their own money and their own household.

      Every time there is a mass shooting we see a lot of posters on this site proclaim we need to do more to identify problem members of society. Where this bill fails is it identifies only veterans, not all of those who are mentally incapable of managing their affairs.

      I must admit I’m not a huge fan of my neighbor who is getting very senile these days having a firearm just in case he shoots himself or his wife or their kids who he struggles to recognize and mistakes for an intruder…it’s sad to see him drop into this state, should he have firearms? I don’t know, on the days he’s still here it doesn’t concern me at all, on the days he has no idea who I am or my wife whom he’s know for 40 years….well those days I’m thinking I’d feel better if he didn’t have any.

  3. CDR_D says:

    Where can a list of all fourteen of these retired flags be seen?

    I had heard awhile back that Thad Allen was being considered for heading up VA. I alerted NRA to his association with the Kelly/Giffords bunch. Talk about fox in the hen house.

  4. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The bill passed the House overwhelmingly and now is up for Senate vote.The letter (link above) thanks the critters for their service to the country. That gave me a chuckle. Remember, being a perfumed price or princess is just like being a Marine, soldier, sailor, or airman. I recall Hondo taking exception to the lack of due process in automatically listing Veterans on the no-gun rolls. This bill requires a judicial finding that the Veteran is a risk of doing harm to himself BEFORE the Vet’s name goes on any damn list. And I am personally sick and tired of certain critters, former generals, and various others claiming to save us Veterans from ourselves. As I others have said, gun or no gun, if you want dead, you’ll get dead.

  5. Jonn Lilyea says:

    From 2/17 Air Cav’s .pdf;

    [T]he VA has submitted over 174,000 names of servicemen and women who
    require a fiduciary to manage their benefits and have been determined through clear
    and convincing evidence to meet the federal standard for gun prohibition. Of these
    174,000, 19,000 are individuals that suffer from schizophrenia and another 15,000 have
    severe PTSD.

    That’s fine, but what about the other 140,000 veterans?

    • Hack Stone says:

      “Well, if it saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

      That is their go to response. For some reason, though, it is not applicable to keep out any potential terrorists posing as refugees.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Hack Stine’s Interweb winning observation. Congrats.

        I am getting as sick of that line as I am of “but it’s for the children.” I dare say most Veterans just want to be left the hell alone and to be able to exercise their constitutional rights that we swore to uphold and were prepared to lose life and limb to safeguards.

  6. Deplorable B Woodman says:

    Try this…..report to the FiBbIes all the names of the 14 Pentagon Perfumed Princes, plus the names of VA bureaucrats, as being fiscally irresponsible and unable to manage their own (and other peoples) finances, to be put on the NICS list.

    Sauce, goose, gander.

  7. Commissar says:

    Generally, you cannot be denied your constitutional rights without due process. This will not hold up to constitutional challenge.

    The ACLU will take this case for the first veteran that has the time and energy to challenge it.

    I say “generally” because the war on terror has caused some pretty sketchy laws to pass (such as the patriot act) and precedents to occur with respect to circumventing civil rights in the interest of fighting terrorism despite the relatively low threat terrorism is statistically.

    However, since this law is not being tied to terrorism it is unlikely to hold up to constitutional challenge.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      The bill remedies the very issue you have identified. Names are going on lists now w/o DP. This requires DP. Must be that Berkeley education of yours. As for the ACLU’s involvement, I’m guessing the org took no action or a ct would have reversed the unconstitutional practice. That’s 0-2. Go for three.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        No, I’m not going soft. I just forgot. Here you go: Lars Taylor.

        • Commissar says:

          You are such a fucking shitbag coward troll.

          • Gary Parks says:

            Yo! Comiasar. Or should I say Tovarich (that’s buddy in Russian when it was still communist. If anyone here is “A fucking shitbag coward troll.” It’s you! Just because you don’t agree with someones opinion doesn’t give you the right to slander them. I am a VET and served proudly for ten years in Korea and elsewhere. I got blown up while was in Korea during the Pueblo Incident and would do it all again. I’m proud to be an American and as it was said earlier in the comments. I just want to be left alone with my family and to be able to own a firearm like any other law abiding American and not have the VA sending my records to NICS without DP. You don’t like ehat is being said by all the VET’s then get the hell out of Dodge!!

      • David says:

        ACLU is on record as opposing this. This and the equivalent Social Security action were both enacted by Executive Order late last year – there probably has not been time for a high-profile case to wend its way through the system and to ACLU’s notice.

        • OC says:

          I thought the veteran ban has been around a lot longer than a year David.
          And if memory serves, my NRA was complicit in it’s passage.
          ‘Course, I can’t remember what I had for supper last night…..

      • Commissar says:

        You have reading comprehension issues.

        I said that the lack of due process makes it unconstitutional. And you decided to be an asshat. As usual.

        • Poetrooper says:

          If you did not have writing skills deficiencies, Lars, your point would have been understandable:

          “This will not hold up to constitutional challenge.”

          Just what “this” are you referring to, the original executive order or the new law in Congress?

          Learn to write, you silly asshat, before you criticize readers for not understanding you!

          • Hondo says:

            I’ll go one step further, PT. The subject of Jonn’s article was the proposed new law requiring due process. Poodle’s comment was a base comment and not a reply; it thus referred to the article itself.

            Given that context, the only reasonable interpretation of Poodle’s semi-literate verbal diarrhea above is that “this” refers to the new law.

            That in turn means that he simply fooked up yet again, and doesn’t even realize that fact. Or perhaps he does, and is trying to dissemble his way out of being caught short.

            Those who are truly intelligent make billions. Those with delusions of genius often think themselves infallible while proving their true mental acuity through erroneous and/or asinine statements in public without even realizing they’ve done so.

      • Commissar says:

        You just spun everything I said to its exact opposite and then disagreed with the OPPOSITE of what I said.

        You can’t find common ground even when we agree. You just alt-fact the fuck out of it so you can disagree.

    • rgr769 says:

      Well looky who now has a law degree and is an expert on constitutional law. What law school did you graduate from, Babbles? Or have you just been studying those Con Law books authored by your hero, 0bama?

  8. David says:

    The old ban was not just financial, but a combination of needing a fiduciary to handle money and a mental condition. The list of mental conditions included relatively benign to others) conditions like bulimia. One wonders if gender disphoria was on it? After all, trannies have a very, very high suicide rate. So if you ate till you puked and couldn’t properly manage your checkbook, you could have rights taken away without a judicial review, just the selection by a GS-4 clerk who never met you. This affected not just VA, by the way, Obama also EO’ed this for Social Security recipients too. Even the ACLU opposes it.

  9. Carlton G. Long says:

    “General” Petraeus has no credibility with this veteran.

  10. 26Limabeans says:

    Hire a private board certified MD Psychiatrist to represent you in front of the VA.
    Name that MD as a person in your durable healthcare proxy. That will protect the MD from having to deal with Medicare,VA or insurance company’s probing questions. Name your personal attorney as a secondary on the proxy.
    That will protect your atty/client privilege in a manner that no one can unwind. Not even the VA. Veterans need to protect themselves from the VA. They are not your friend.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      Additional Info:

      Put a statement on the cover sheet of your proxy. “the persons named in this document are not to be contacted for any reason other than the specific purpose of this document. Sign and date it.

      • Poetrooper says:

        Why a psychiatrist? Couldn’t your family doc serve the purpose? He likely knows you better than a psychiatrist. Another reason I ask is that psychiatrists are accustomed to serving as expert witnesses in legal proceedings and will likely charge a very hefty retainer fee–a family doc not so much.

        • 26Limabeans says:

          Psychiatrist because they can attest to your non danger to yourself or anyone else. Family doc can’t do that.

          Money is unimportant when it comes to keeping your second amendment rights.

  11. Ret_25X says:

    Are we ready to admit that government production of veteran healthcare is the problem?

    Public funding of veteran care is an obligation the people must fulfill, but the existence of a corruptocracy does not follow from that obligation.

  12. Atkron says:

    Those Admirals and Generals are going back for seconds on that bag of dicks they’ve been feeding on.

    How much is Bloomberg, Soros, Allen, Gates, Bezos, and all the other assholes paying you guys for that endorsement?

    Two quote a Shipmate: Cocksuckers

  13. The Old Maj says:

    “The ACLU will take this case for the first veteran that has the time and energy to challenge it.”

    Yeah cuz the ACLU loves gun rights issues. The same way they love unborn children, Christianity and States Rights. It’s a crazy kind of prison shower scene love.

    • rgr769 says:

      ACLU really stands for American Communist Lawyers Union. It was actually created to provide lawyers to defend Communist Party members being prosecuted under federal law. Roger Baldwin, its founder, told his crew they had to take non-commie cases as cover for the real work of defending fellow commies.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      I’m trying to remember the last time the ACLU stood up for veterans + gun rights?

      Also, did the AL and VFW run this by their respective PAC’s? Hopefully the left and right hand of both organizations are on the same page concerning this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *