[ray9898]

This is really no different than the process outside of the .mil arena. These are people who are deemed fully disabled due to their mental illness and are drawing funds as such. In the civilian arena if someone is believed to be incompetent by SSDI and it is proven to a court or panel then they lose rights also and will have a guardian appointed.

Bottom line is if you are considered fully disabled due to mental illness, are not competent to handle finances and other important life decisions and have to have a guardian then you are the definition of someone with a serious mental illness.

38 CFR § 3.353 "Determinations of incompetency and competency.

(a) 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.

(b) Authority. (1) Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for purposes of: insurance (38 U.S.C. 1922), and, subject to §13.56 of this chapter, disbursement of benefits. Such determinations are final and binding on field stations for these purposes.

(2) Where the beneficiary is rated incompetent, the Veterans Service Center Manager will develop information as to the beneficiary's social, economic and industrial adjustment; appoint (or recommend appointment of) a fiduciary as provided in §13.55 of this chapter; select a method of disbursing payment as provided in §13.56 of this chapter, or in the case of a married beneficiary, appoint the beneficiary's spouse to receive payments as provided in §13.57 of this chapter; and authorize disbursement of the benefit.

(3) If in the course of fulfilling the responsibilities assigned in paragraph (b)(2) the Veterans Service Center Manager develops evidence indicating that the beneficiary may be capable of administering the funds payable without limitation, he or she will refer that evidence to the rating agency with a statement as to his or her findings. The rating agency will consider this evidence, together with all other evidence of record, to determine whether its prior determination of incompetency should remain in effect. Reexamination may be requested as provided in §3.327(a) if necessary to properly evaluate the beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.

(c) Medical opinion. Unless the medical evidence is clear, convincing and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, the rating agency will make no determination of incompetency without a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities. Considerations of medical opinions will be in accordance with the principles in paragraph (a) of this section. Determinations relative to incompetency should be based upon all evidence of record and there should be a consistent relationship between the percentage of disability, facts relating to commitment or hospitalization and the holding of incompetency.

(d) Presumption in favor of competency. Where reasonable doubt arises regarding a beneficiary's mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including the disbursement of funds without limitation, such doubt will be resolved in favor of competency (see §3.102 on reasonable doubt).

(e) Due process. Whenever it is proposed to make an incompetency determination, the beneficiary will be notified of the proposed action and of the right to a hearing as provided in §3.103. Such notice is not necessary if the beneficiary has been declared incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction or if a guardian has been appointed for the beneficiary based upon a court finding of incompetency. If a hearing is requested it must be held prior to a rating decision of incompetency. Failure or refusal of the beneficiary after proper notice to request or cooperate in such a hearing will not preclude a rating decision based on the evidence of record.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))

[36 FR 19020, Sept. 25, 1971, and 40 FR 1241, Jan. 7, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 2069, Jan. 10, 1977; 58 FR 37856, July 14, 1993; 60 FR 55792, Nov. 3, 1995; 66 FR 48560, Sept. 21, 2001; 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002; 68 FR 34542, June 10, 2003]"

[ezthumper]

Originally Posted by PicardMD

This is a mental health issue, not a veterans issue.
Being a veteran does not give one any special rights to circumvent mental health prohibitions in gun ownership.

Using VA's and veterans in this way to promote gun rights is dishonest, and no better than the anti-gun crowd's dishonest tactics.

A 70 yo guy with dementia and paranoid behaviors should not be allowed to own guns, for the same reason he shouldn't be allowed to drive or be left alone in a house with working stoves. I don't care if he is a highly decorated war veteran with a chest full of medals. I am grateful for his service to our country and I will do everything medically possible to help him. But no, he shouldn't own guns and he shouldn't be paraded out by us for "gun rights." Doing so is just as bad as Obama dragging Newtown or Aurora victims out for his gun control agenda.

A 36 yo guy with severe PTSD who is prone to violent outbursts should not be allowed to own guns. I don't care if he was a Tier One operator who has kept our country safe by killing many terrorists. I am grateful for his service to our country and will do everything I can to help him. But no, he shouldn't own guns at this point and shouldn't be used as a puppet by us for "gun rights."

I agree with you and your view of this subject on it's own. If the person who is a veteran or not, is not mentally stable enough to posses and use a fire arm, then said individual has no business possessing one.

However, the reaction we are seeing is on a very high and guarded emotional response to the continuing cumulative rhetoric we are hearing from this administration and the media.

Hopefully we can agree that some of the stuff coming out of this current administration is a little unsettling for quite a few folk, not mention to our Veterans.

For an example, in 2009, Home Land Security released-leaked a memo using Timothy McVeigh as their argument why Veterans are a threat and suggest Vets should be put on a watch list.

They were not the only group on that list, but essentially any one that would be deemed to be a threat, pro-lifers, Right wing activists, conservatives etc.

It is emotional, it runs deep, it is hard for some to look at things on a topical level when emotions are running so close to the surface right now.

[bluesman55]

To the guy trying yo make info wars look like the tin foil hat crew. I used to think the same way until I did a little research into some of things he says. Do I believe all? No. But about 95% of it has been true. Look up the national defense authorization act for starters. How about project northwoods. You can print it off of wikipedia. Read the fine print. How about MK ultra? Educate yourself a bit and you may be shocked at what you discover. I don't think they can take away every vets rights, but if you have PTSD they are going to try. This is not the america you and I grew up in.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by bluesman55

I don't think they can take away every vets rights, but if you have PTSD they are going to try.

BS....this is nothing new and is a longstanding process. There has always been and always will be a difference in those simply being treated for a variety of mental illnesses and those who are at the high end of the scale that cannot function in society due to their illness. Years ago they were locked away, now we assign them guardians and 'community based treatments'.

[Shark1007]

Section "f" of the 4473 may be one of the issues, I'm not sure the database(s) available on a clearance to purchase, but, I'd rest assured many mentally incompetents would deny that question. With HIPPA and privacy issues, I'm just not sure if that data is available to scrub a purchase, same as the domestic violence types.

Anyone know for sure?