Sound Off: Are Veterans Losing Gun Rights?



As reported last week, Senator Chuck Grassley has rekindled a debate over whether veterans who cannot manage their own benefits should be considered “mentally defective” by the FBI and barred from buying guns.

Veterans in the VA’s Fiduciary Program are automatically flagged and it turns out that over 99% of the names the FBI’s database came from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans whose names are on the list are barred from buying guns under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Veterans can regain the right to manage their benefits, but it’s a lengthy and complicated process.

In his letter, Grassley writes, “Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights — a consequence which is wholly unrelated to and unsupported by the record developed in the VA process.”

What do you think? Is a declaration that a vet is incapable of managing his or her own benefits enough of a red flag to warrant a ban on buying guns? Does the Fiduciary Program work and are its decisions fair? Should people with mental health issues be prevented from buying weapons? Or is that provision of the Brady bill a violation of the Second Amendment? Sound off below!

  • Sgt. Rock

    Sorry but if you can’t take care of yourself, wtf are you doing with a gun? This has nothing to do with being a veteran, this is more about people that cant take care of themselves just plain shouldn’t have a gun!

    • charlie 2-10

      So, you think someone who doesn’t have money managing skills shouldn’t have a gun. A lot of people are poor, for lacking these skills. Better be careful how you agree with the government. Once something is implemented it might end up affecting you. Does obamacare ring a bell?

      • SemperGunny

        They are not talking about ‘poor money managing skills’ the program is for Veterans who are so physically or mentally debilitated that they cannot make competent decisions for themselves. And this has to be declared by a court, or backed up with medical documentation. In civilian cases, the court usually assigns someone as a Conservator for the incompetent person.

    • Paul

      Fine. Then let there be a hearing before a competent and have the veterans 2nd amendment rights removed by due process rather than by administrative fist. His or her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Infringement can only be done by legal due process.

      • SemperGunny

        According to the program, they do. “VA’s Fiduciary Program was established to protect Veterans and other beneficiaries who, due to injury, disease, or due to age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made the determination.”

      • NSO

        A fiduciary assignment does not have to have a court order to back it up. To fight it, you need a psychiatrist to examine you and deem you competent. The fiduciary is for VA affairs only. Good luck getting your gun rights restored after being found competent again!

    • John Franco

      So let me understand you’re argument sir, you are saying that just because you may not be very competent at handling you’re finances you should not be able to exercise you’re Constitutional Right to defend yourself or you’re family? That argument makes no sense.

    • Warren M

      Just another atrack on the US Constitution. It’s really not the weapons their after it’s our rights.

    • Jim

      The problem occurs when the VA Doctor asks “How are you handling your finances?” and the Vet replies “Well enough, My wife suggested that I use auto pay on the bills, so we started doing that.” and the Doc rules you mentally defective due to inability to manage finances. Its a broken system. If you use auto pay or let your spouse handle the money, you loose your 2nd amendment rights.

    • Donald Freas

      Sgt I do not know what Branch of service you served in (thank you for your service) However somewhere along the way you lost your respect for what you were fighting to protect. The united states Constitution.. D Freas USN Retired.

  • Dale

    As long as they are treated no different than any other citizen would be then I see no problem with this.

    Simply being a “veteran” which these days is actually a pretty low bar should not always forever entitle a person to “special rights” or a “different set of rules” no matter what the details of the case are.

    • John Franco

      That is the problem Dale, they are not being treated “equally”, they are being singled out by a government agency that is suppose to be supporting them…not helping to strip them of their rights. Oh and by the way that “low bar” statement of yours sounds incredibly disrespectful to those who lost their lives in a foreign land for this country. You might want to give that some thought, before you flippantly comment like that.

    • Michael Byrnes

      Your lack of respect for those who have fought, are fighting, and will fight for your rights and the rights of the citizens of this country is astounding. The fact your statement saying as long as they are being treated the same as every other citizen means you have no clue what so ever of the topic at all. Most of the comments I see make sense, but then there are a few people such as yourself who seem very ignorant about the entire scope of the issue. I retract that statement. Ignorance can be fixed by educating yourself on the issue which you obviously chose not to do therefore your stupidity is beyond measure. There was one example of a Vietnam veteran who chose to have his wife handle all of their finances because in their generation that was a job handled by the wife. It wasn’t because he couldn’t it’s just how it was. He came back from the war and some time later diagnosed with PTSD. The information the V.A. had on file was his wife paid the bills and he had PTSD. They never bothered to even discuss it with him or his wife they just sent him a letter in the mail saying he could not own, buy, receive or even transport a firearm. The fact that he was drafted to fight for this country in my opinion does give him and every other veteran drafted exceedingly more rights than those who chose to hide from their responsibilities. In fact those who choose to put their lives on the line for those who are too scared to stand up and defend or believe they’re too privileged deserve to have a few extra abilities to live a normal life. Notice I didn’t say better. The government in the past and even now choose to go to war but when those who make it back try to exist as they once did a lot of them aren’t able to. I believe part of it comes from the stupidity people such as yourself bleed into the way they’re perceived. Americans who weren’t drafted but chose to serve don’t decide when, where, or who to fight so to blame them for what they have to endure (which some will) is again stupidity on the part of those throwing stones. So the “low bar” comment again is your complete stupidity. My I must say you have not shown much intelligence as of yet. The fact you could be a veteran has crossed my mind but most I’ve talked with no matter how long they’ve been out usually never turn their back on their fellow brothers and sisters but if this is the case with you Dale I feel extremely sorry for you. I will leave you with one final bit of information so that you might decide to change the amount of stupidity you possess into an added bit of intelligence. That is assuming this link works.

      • Gary Taylor

        Michael, you hit several nails right on the head. One problem I see is that men of a certain age that didn’t go to ‘Nam seem to think that they were “slick” not to serve, and that if you did serve you are functionally deficient in some manner. In addition, ‘Nam was the first war that didn’t have a huge amount of people back home supporting them. If you look at WW II, you see that almost everyone had a stake in the war, knew someone who was serving, probably several someone’s. A great deal was made, and should have been, about Blue Star and Goldstarmitgers and sisters. This was still somewhat true of Korea, but ‘Nam was the very first war that didn’t have broad-based community support and involvement.

    • Dennis

      then most of the government workers and elected officials should not be allowed to have guns nor their body guards, considering they don’t have the brains to properly run our country. and that would also go for the FBI, considering their actions. they are no better then the Vets, and yes, Vets are different the the normal people due to the fact, they are that way for defending this great nation. Yes, I have the right to say it, I am a DAV, and yes I take care of myself.

    • Daleizanidiot

      Hey Dale… Are you actually a “veteran” ? No one has EVER given me any “special rights” I earned every damn thing I got….. What different set of rules are you talking about?? Me and several thousand more must have missed out on this handbook…Bottom line either you are very young and naïve in your career or just simply an “f-ing idiot…….

    • larry

      so being a veteran is low bar? you are ignorant.

    • ante seput

      Dale I will agree with you “However this rather should and must apply to all law enforcement Officials no exclusions.

    • dkf

      What are you implying? Being a veteran is a pretty low bar?

  • Jon

    If a vet is not able to care for their own money do mental or emotional problems then it is reasonable to believe they can not make good decisions in regards to having a gun.

    • SSG Thomas

      They aren’t saying anything about mental or emotional problems. Just not being able to manage their benefits. So if someone can’t balance a check book they can’t defend themselves? If that was true then congress and the oval office is screwed!

      • SemperGunny

        Actually, the program IS only for Veterans who are physically or mentally unable to make competent decisions for themselves… “VA’s Fiduciary Program was established to protect Veterans and other beneficiaries who, due to injury, disease, or due to age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made the determination.”

  • MSG Infantry

    This is a very dangerous issue, when we have a PRO-GUN Control President, he could appoint a PRO-GUN Control Person to head the VA. Then could change or tweak the language of PTSD or mental standard that could disarm Millions of veterans. It’s important to know just because a person can’t manage his money doesn’t mean he can’t own a gun, there are millions upon millions of people that never served who own guns but can’t manage there own money, and the government is not taking there right to own a gun. To think it would never happen or couldn’t happen, just remember the 2012 election when the IRS went after conservative and Tea Party groups.

    • BRIAN

      The VA pushes mental health and cant even see a medical doctor, yup, your right ,just a little tweak and any veteran seeing the mental health doc will be screwed. DB

  • Steve Huffstutler

    does he also lose his free speech rights? What about all the other rights guaranteed to citizen of this country?

    • guest

      Why do you ask?

  • wtpworrier

    “Sound Off: Are Veterans Losing Gun Rights?”____________________________________I have to say no…I mean, I’am a vet and I didn’t have any problems buying my guns. If you are a nut job, I wouldn’t sell you a gun, vet or not.

    • Joe

      If you read the article however, you would understand that anyone that has problems managing their money (like more than 60% of society) miraculously falls into this magic category that can’t exercise their rights protected under the second amendment. This doesn’t happen to all vets, but it doesn’t happen to anyone on EBT/SNAP (food stamps) or welfare. No, it only happens to our veterans. The one group that is probably the safest candidates for gun-ownership.

    • Richard C

      It’s not just veterans who can’t take care of themselves. They’re taking the rights away from veterans who take certain meds without even taking it to court. Veterans with PTSD are starting to lose their gun rights as well. I’m totally against this, unless a shrink can say this person is a threat, but give the guy a chance in court first.

  • MCPO (Submariner)

    Some of you guys are making a judgment call based on your own opinions & just like noses – everyone has one. I have a brother-in-law, a WWII vet. He is a man of no guile – aka he is a target for every scam that comes along – especially the ones draped in the flag touting their support of vets. I had to work with the state A.G. to bring fraud charges against two different outfits who got into his skivvies to the tune of $15,000. Because we all live at least 3 days by car from him, we got his accountant to take care of his money by going to court & having him appointed to do that. We were made his guardian. But, he had a life time of hunting experience. No reason to take his guns. He isn’t some “crazy” that is going to suddenly explode & injure/harm/kill folks with the guns.

  • Guard Dog

    ALL VETERANS BEWARE! This president has started a new program out there and if you go to the V.A. there are certain clinics that will have a nurse ask you 4 questions and believe me they are fairly general. Then if you answer honestly they will put you down on the charts as having P.T.S.D. We all know Miss Hillary is running on the “Don’t you think it’s time you had a woman President in the White House’? slogan. She’s been working on the small arms treaty for ages. It will then come down that All Veterans who have P.T.S.D. are not of sound mind and therefore cannot own a gun. It’s on it’s way. So brace yourselves. Semper Fi

    • Wally Lind

      I wonder about that. There are tons of veterans with mild TBI and PTSD diagnoses that are no threat to anyone, are they going to be denied the right to bear arms. Many, if not most, of them went back into combat AFTER incurring their injuries, and carried weapons a lot more lethal that they will probably have as civilians. People talk about political correctness running amok, where did common sense run to?

  • macgringo

    Do they lose their RIGHT to VOTE, too?

    • guest

      No. Why do you ask?

  • dannyb

    if you cant mange your benefits that alone should not preclude you from owning or buying a gun for if that’s the height of the bar then all three branches of the government more that qualify s to loose that right and more

    • guest

      How do you “loosen” a right?

  • sam

    Vet or not all that will carry guns should be treated the same, A vet though especially if he/she saw
    combat is much more qualified that a civilian to carry a gun. I had guys in my platoon in bootcamp
    that did not know how to read or write, but they did know how to fight. USMC

  • Andrew Moothart

    i don’t think it matters one way or the other, the Government wants to take your gun rights away weather you are a Veteran or not

    • guest

      That dirty gummint! We should go commie!

  • Ron Brown

    I didn’t spend 3 years in the Army for the Government to take away my Constitutional Rights.

  • guest

    They potentialy are if they have dealings with the VA.

  • JWAnderson

    This rule is not unique to the VA. I just returned from my regular civilian doctor and he again said he was required by Obamacare to ask these silly obvious questions including, “how is your mood?”, “do you have angry or violent feelings toward anyone?”; “do you own a gun?”, “do you keep one in your home?”. (The only time I get really pissed is when I am asked these questions)
    I think I am in “normally” good health, retired from a major corporation and an attorney. I am a combat veteran as well. While I resent being asked these stupid questions, I feel that any decision on gun ownership should be made strictly on an individual basis & certainly not a blanket rule that is applied across the board on a group of millions-veterans or not, by a bunch Washington Bureaucrats.

    • Pete C

      Required by Obamacare? That doesn’t make sense. My civilian Doc has never asked me anything like that, but then I’m not under Obamacare. Can anyone verify where in Obamacare it says this, or os this another fabrication passed on as truth to slam obamacare?

      • deane gilmour

        It is written into the ACA law, and as a matter of fact pediatricians are required by the same law to separate children from their parents and ask if their are firearms in the house

      • SemperGunny

        Isn’t that a good idea, though? If the pediatrician knows there are firearms in the home they can address child proofing techniques and safety concerns, the same way they advise parents about childproofing medicine and household chemicals, putting safety covers on electrical outlets and a host of other safety issues, such as not having pillows or blankets in the crib with an infant, etc. What’s wrong with discussing those things?

  • Lt. Mike

    Forget whether the person is a veteran or not, the question should be is the individual capable, mentally and physically, of handling fire arms safely and responsibly?

    • SemperGunny

      Exactly!!! “VA’s Fiduciary Program was established to protect Veterans and other beneficiaries who, due to injury, disease, or due to age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made the determination.”

    • wife of vet

      Why should an administrative back office VA function about financial skills where there in neither a hearing or a potential to defend oneself upfront make that decision.

  • charlie 2-10

    It’s called CONTROL. Does there seem to be a problem with people who don’t know how to handle their money, going bull$#!t with guns? I don’t think so. Control starts with those less fortunate and slowly creeps up the scale until somebody squeals, then they know to look for another route to total domination. They pay people, to set around and think up ways to own you.

    • Pete C

      Someone seems a bit paranoid. Gun sales shot up in my state once Obama got elected. All the stories of how he was going to take away our guns. Has he? No. But he makes good bogeyman to sell more guns for the gun lobby. He hasn’t taken them yet, you say. Well, wait. When he leaves office your gun rights, and mine, will still be safe. All this paranoia for nothing.

    • RA1966

      The trilateral commission is at work here.

  • The issue here is that the vet is denied his Second Amendment rights without due process, and the only appeal is to the VA. The VA should have to go to a state court. If a court agrees and states he is to lose his rights, so be it.

    • Vickie

      Problem with this statement is that the full story is not told. The veteran is given due process and has a right to appeal before the decision to appoint a fiduciary is made. I personally am not wanting someone who cannot handle his own affairs without assistance handling a firearm. Poor decisions are poor decisions. I don’t want to give a loaded weapon to someone who makes poor decisions.



  • George L. Damron

    Have you everheard the saying: “Shepherds Lead and Sheep Follows”? Those that agree to let our Goverment take away our Constitutional Rights, don’t belong in this Country. They should be deported to China or Russia.

    • Pete C

      Okay, who is agreeing with the government to take away your gun rights? Obama has not taken away your gun rights? You still have your guns right? I don’t see the problem.

      • It isn’t for trying on Obama’s part that we still have gun rights. Obviously you don’t follow the attack on our Second Amendment rights by this administration. Since you need enlightening, Obama’s administration has leaned on banks of gun dealers and manufacturers to eliminate them as customers, they have outlawed the importation of certain types of rifles, government agencies have been buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point ammo for “target practice (you use full metal jackets as they are about 1/2 the price), his administration has agreed to a UN resolution which could seriously affect gun ownership and those are just a couple of examples. If it wasn’t for activists, you would have seen the Second Amendment decimated.

  • Wayne Childers

    I told the VA shrinks what I did in the Vietnam war and my paranoia about talking about it. I had been in essence ordered to never speak about what I had done, where I had been, what I had seen, what I knew and anything I had experienced. My job according to my boss Robert H. Maltby, was to cover up war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention. Now I was having flashbacks and nightmares about things I began to remember after I fell and broke my hip, femur and wrist. I remembered getting shot in the buttock and I have a little scar there now. There are of course no records that would support this just the occasional vet that had been involved with “black ops” of this variety who assured me that their threats of disappearing me were real. I had gone through a spell like this in 1986 in Jackson, Mississippi. I had sought and received treatment at the vet center there who finally managed to come up with some records of this for the current VA mismanagement of my life. I figured it was PTSD but no I was “Delusional NOS” and delusional vets are incompetent by definition QED. So I went to see my VFW representative (Walter Barry) who told me to my face he could not certify to the VA that I was competent to handle my own financial affairs. I am or was an attorney so I fired him as my representative when he in essence was not representing me. There is in the law a position called “the party in interest”. This is the person who is paying the lawyer or agent. The VA is paying the VROs and it is the VA’s interest that is being served here. Mr. Barry then informed the VA that I was not going to have a C&P exam and again in essence telling the VA to declare me incompetent. It turns out that it did not matter because I had a C&P by and Indian or Pakistan non-native speaker of English shrink who once again found me still delusional. Based on her remarks I am also a Neo-Nazi…..So I am a name on the NCIS, probably one of the 80,000 or so vets on the no fly list as it seems the vast majority are vets placed there by the VA. I am now subject to the Brady Bill and have to have a fiduciary handle my VA funds. I can still spend my Social Security monies without restraint but I do wonder why sequestration of the one but not the other. One thing you can be sure of, if it is if it is not sex, drugs and rock and roll, it must be cold hard cash money. Follow the money and it will tell you what is REALLY going on.

  • Walt

    Unfortunately the VA can’t manage their own affairs so who are they to judge someone else? The VA won’t even see many vets so no, this is not right.

  • James Pratt

    “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. The government could come up with a million reasons why people should not have guns if we let them. An argument with a wife, an angry neighbor who wants to cause problems. a non-violent crime committed 30 years ago, an empty threat, someone of a particular race, religion, or political belief……..the list could go on and on. The rules allow the government to evaluate each of us as to whether we are worthy. Eventually, very few people would be. These congressmen are coming up with new bills everyday, attempting to erode away our gun rights. We should file class action law suits every time one of them attempts to infringe on our second amendment rights. We should not have to constantly defend that right, it is in the constitution and therefore can only be changed by changing the constitution.

  • Ovez Japanwalla

    Given how much amount of dollar benefits is actually awarded and the basic costs/ expenses of health, education, food, shelter, clothing, personal hygiene etc. of supporting a family in reality, a Veteran must be Financial Genius.



  • galloglas

    The current administration views all veterans as terrorist.
    Bubba, if they could they would put every returning veteran in a prison upon their RELACDU they see us as nothing heroic, give us no thanks and consider us all criminals in need of rehabilitation or imprisonment.

  • George

    A vet with ptsd can’t own a weapon, but a blind person in the state of Iowa can get a concealed weapons permit and buy them. Maybe we should all move to that state..

  • aflong

    Having known many individuals on the recent ISIS kill list, I have known for years that veteran’s sacrifice their rights. We enter a base that is protected by the lowest ranking and often lowest IQ’d individuals that we trust to protect us. We expect our safety yet security incursions happen, just ask anyone from the Fort Hood attack. If someone wants to kill us, they can, just as easily as attacking a school. We should be able to conceal carry at all times everywhere simply because we are not only always on parade, but in times of GWOT, we are always at battle, even in our homes.

  • Doc Couch

    Holy cow. So if you have any mental health documentation in your claim profile, even if it’s stable with medication, you could be flagged on this no purchase list? I inherited 2 shot guns and a rifle from my dad 3 years ago, but left them back East because I didn’t want the hassle of trying to bring them home on a plane. We’re driving back East in a few weeks and I plan to bring them home to add them to the other 12g I inherited years ago from my great grandfather. I was finally planning on buying ammo for them as part of our long term supply storage. Luckily, I don’t fit the “fudiciary” category, but I am 100% perm. Many physical health issues, but I still get up every morning and get out of bed! You have to find the positive things in life, but these rat face politicians aren’t one of them. And it doesn’t matter their party choice. They’re all crooked!

  • Surprised

    There are probably some Veterans that should be around or have access to firearms. The same holds true for the general population (think of the bell shaped curve model). For the VA to have the authority to deem anyone irresponsible enough to ban them from firearm ownership is wrong. As an example, a Veteran that sounds off to a VA employee about the mishandling of a claim could be put on the list. Could I be placed on the “list” because I complained about the recent manner of computing mileage for travel reimbursement. My travel is 108 miles utilizing paved roads and Highways and usually takes about 2 hrs. and 15 minutes. The new system takes me across a mountain pass, through the back country of an Indian reservation on unpaved gravel roads that takes 3 hrs. and 30 minutes. The VA is a huge bureaucratically run Agency. The bottom line on the firearm issue is once the Government can do this to a specific class of citizens, what group will be targeted next?

  • Cory Cook

    Since when does defending your country degrade you to a second class citizen status without the rights given under the Constitution of the United States? Our rights under the Constitution have NOTHING to do with financial management (or a large portion of our community would be disenfranchised, much less these vets).
    This BOHICA kowtowing to UN and liberal ubercontrol freaks in Washington and several of the states should serve as a warning that there is a fundamental flaw in the liberal thinking that people cannot think for themselves, make decisions. The current administration and cronies in several state have been around WAY TOO LONG with undue influence. People, open your minds and THINK for a change before allowing this to continue past the next election. DEFEND your constitutional rights (hard fought for over two centuries},by getting out to exercise your right to VOTE and remove these people from office who view the Constitution as provisional to their greater cause. God I am so disgusted with the VA as well, they are not serving our vets appropriately or adequately.

  • Don

    A person who does not have the ability to control their own finances or treatment should not be able to purchase a gun. The problem is not that the VA is reporting the information, but that there is no reporting for all of the none vets who are in the same position. There could also be a process for getting the ability to purchase a gun even though financial control has been taken away from the person.

  • snidely731

    It may be that some vets in this (fiduciary) program are not people that we would think should own a gun due to their inability to exercise sound judgment, HOWEVER having a faceless, nebulous GOVERNMENT bureaucracy make a unilateral decision to take away a person’s GOD given rights is, in my opinion, wrong. Very wrong. To have the right to own a gun snatched away by a “program” like this is too simple. I would have to see a lot more discipline, rigor, and fact finding instilled into the process before I could even think about buying into a process like this. It is one thing to exercise poor judgment in financial/fiduciary matters, it is something entirely different to extrapolate a problem like that into a decision to remove gun rights from an individual. There are literally millions of people (veterans, prior military and civilians who have never served) who have exercised poor judgment in financial/fiduciary matters (credit card debt, bankruptcy, foreclosure etc.) and no one is saying that THEY can’t own a gun. One other thing. Never forget that once you let the government take control of any decision making process or any program you will never get that control back. This is truly an example of the nose of the camel getting under the tent. Beware.

  • Plato

    There are many things going on with the idea of removing gun ownership from VETS. One, among average citizens a vet is the most likely to act in the capacity of defending the ideal of liberty from enemies foreign and domestic with disciplined skill and capacity. The most prevalent enemies we have are domestic, they are politicians who call themselves leaders. A leader doesn’t think of self interest or arcane ideologies that minimize one sector or its charges. Leaders make the hard decisions that benefit the whole group as well as stimulate personal and collective growth. Point two, remove the right call it justifiable then you can more easily label the person who violated the new “law” a terrorist. Thereby justifying any and all following actions. With so many people who can’t manage their money why target only vets? Anyone can pull a trigger but who can hit their target. Why not go after those who have given over to random nonsense violence and destruction for the sake of entertainment? It all boils down to Control and who has it? That in mind ask this, once control is gained What happens next? News flash control is an illusion humans create for the sake of trying to live relatively peaceful, structured and uncomplicated lives free of random fits of destruction, chaos and fear. All while trying to reach a measureable sense of self worth and fulfillment.

  • SemperGunny

    Goodness, did anybody click over to program to see the requirements? It has nothing to do with people who are ‘not good with finances’ It is a program of Conservatorship for persons who are unable to make competent decisions regarding their financial or medical needs. Here: “VA’s Fiduciary Program was established to protect Veterans and other beneficiaries who, due to injury, disease, or due to age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made the determination.”

    • Gary Taylor

      SemperGunny–people writing about the issue of financial competence, (that has somehow changed to gun rights), don’t want their inconsistencies and outright misinformation or lying about the Obama Adminstation to be pointed out by cooler heads. Just wTch–if someone reads this comment they will first accuse me of not being a veteran, and then accuse me of being a gun control apologist. I challenge these people, who by their opinions seem too uninformed themselves as to qualify for need of a fiduciary, to name three specific documented instances if Obama trying to take anyone’s legal right to bear arms.

  • Greg

    You’re too literal Gunny. With politicians – especially the current administration – you pay attention to what they DO. Not to what they SAY. Obama and cronies are using the definition you cited as justification for furthering their gun control agenda. Additionally – and no one’s touched on this yet – his definition also precludes offspring and/or family of “diminished ” gun owners from taking ownership under what used to be the right to inherit. Under Obama’s interpretation you can inherit Dad’s property, but you can’t have his guns.

  • ABN333

    Well, should a person “with bad judgement” drive a car? They already do! If you cannot handle your financial affairs, should you drive a car? I see no difference between the two lethal weapons: a car and a firearm. I met a veteran (I’m a fellow Nam veteran of his era) who was only receiving a fraction of his disability payments. It turns out his family has managed to sidetrack a significant portion. If they used it for his needs, that wouldn’t be so bad; but he does not see any of the funds they siphon off. Where does the VA’s responsibility end when they determine, somehow, that a veteran cannot manage his own funds? Remember, these are the same VA folks who manage appointment data with the same ethics.

  • Catdoctor

    I have read the U.S. Constitution. No where did I find that the government or any of it’s employees have the right to deny any American citizen their Constitutional rights for any reason, even logical ones. If we continue to chip away at the constitutional rights of our veterans, for any reason, eventually, no one will have any rights. To deny a veteran who is an American Citizen his or her Constitutional rights without simple legal recourse is in violation of the oath of office of all government officials, employes, including military personnel who took the oath. Man up people! It is time to get tough and hold our government officials accountable for violating their oath of office. Do it now or you will forever lose all your rights.

  • guest

    There were and are some vets who never learned to read, but were quite capable of managing assigned duties. That changes the assumption that inability to read accounts means person is too mentally deficient to manage care and maintenance of a gun.

  • shotgun

    obama has us in the toliet and chillry is going to flush us doen how are commrade hide all your guns buy ammo when it is available keep your mouth shut of what you have and get ready for the end of the world as we know it

  • Jay

    “Give us your tired, your poor, and your hungry” is not dependant on wealth obviously. We have an inherent right to protect ourselves also not based off of wealth. The 2nd amendment was not based for the wealthy only. That said, just because you have issues with financial efforts does not mean you are mentally unstable to have issues with firearms. What about hand down firearms? What if you were given your grandfather’s service pistol from WW2? You believe cause of financial issues you lose the right to have these items?

  • Brandon Olson

    I cant believe some of the comments that are put here. Some even went as far as putting saying just because your a veteran does not entitle you to some rights. 1st off every American born here or naturalized legally, Are entitled to every single right in the Constitution. Vets don’t feel entitled to their rights because they are vets but because they are Americans just like everyone here. The only difference is that we fought, risked our own lives, watched our friends suffer and die, and returned home broken to defend those right. How would you feel coming home from that and the very thing you fought and suffered to defend was stolen from you by the very people you defend it for. It seams like, in our fear driven society, we have forgotten about innocent until proven guilty and jump to conclusions about people who have done no wrong.

  • Donald Nichols

    If the second amendment rights are revoked because a vet can’t manage his or her money correctly shouldn’t we start with retired politicians and especially active politicians FIRST or have we forgotten who got our Country’s debt so outrageously HIGH.

  • Steven Morris

    Who is certifying the certifier. Not a chance

  • Jasper

    Of course, the right of any American, however demented or incapacitated (unable to make decisions even about managing a checkbook) should in no way be judged by the body count of innocents, including school children.
    Rock-on gun lobby and stooges!
    Welcome to the “new” age in which patriotism means “dumbass”

  • Steve71325

    So, how many cases are there like this? Seems these could be handled on a one on one basis, since I am sure the numbers arent there. BEWARE of anyone attempting to strip anyone else of their RIGHTS!! Rights are given by God, not man!! Seems this is just be a ploy to backdoor in legistlation which can then be endlessly “distorted” with the ultimate goal of disarming everyone, everyone the powers that be dont think should be able to arm themselves.

  • Sandie

    I am a veteran and do not feel this is a Veteran issue but an issue of a person not being able to take care of themselves or being able to manage their own money then maybe it is a good idea not to sell a gun to them. I feel the same way about PTSD, if you have enough nightmares etc with PTSD to get a VA disability then maybe not a good idea to be issued a gun license or be able to buy a gun. Both of these situations can change and if they do then the gun issue could change but while receiving disability for PTSD or unable to manage their life they should be flagged and NO GUN or License for the term of the problem!

  • YourkiddingRight?

    This is the reason vets do not go to the VA for medical treatment, nor participate in mental health training they may need. These are their RIGHTS, not your whim. “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” For those that made the comments in favor of taking the rights away of anyone until their actions, (not the threat of ,or potential for action) demand otherwise…go back to crouching down and licking the hand that feed you.

  • David

    I served in the army for over thirty years. Defending our country. So why can’t we keep on defending our own family. We al took the same oath. And I mite be wrong. but it doesn’t stop after we get out. So who can e do it with nothing. But just like the move the Red Dawn. we will have our heads up our BUTTS. And how an they take our first amendment. Well they will have to take it from my dead hands.
    I love my family God and country. And will keep on defending it for as long as I live.