This Should Infuriate Everyone

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a policy of reporting those veterans who require help managing their finances to the FBI’s NICS System. Those reported are placed upon the prohibited persons list and will get a decline if they should try to buy a firearm from a FFL. This program has been going on for awhile and impacts those that have a fiduciary manage their finances.

But what if you are a veteran managing your own finances? How can anyone assume that you are mentally deficient and thus should be denied your Second Amendment rights?

Attorney Joshua Prince is now representing a veteran who does indeed manage his or her own finances but was turned down when he or she tried to purchase a firearm. I’ll let Mr. Prince fill in the blanks. (The highlighting is mine.)

In my client’s situation, he handles all of his own finances. The VA does not dispute this. Rather, when I finally got a representative from the VA on the line, she informed us that the VA, on its own initiative, placed him into “supervised direct payment status”. When I inquired as to what “supervised direct payment status” was, the representative stated that it is where the veteran handles his/her own financial affairs but they “watch the veteran’s financial accounts.” While the VA contended that they sent out a letter about this status being imposed on my client, my client never received such a letter and they acknowledged that it does not mention anything about the loss of the veteran’s Second Amendment rights, but that the VA has been imposing such since 2013.

No due process is provided. The representative acknowledged that my client never received a hearing and that the determination that my client was incompetent was made solely by a VA official reviewing his case. She stated that he could have appealed the determination when he received the original letter, but the time has since past to appeal. Remember, this is the letter that my client never received and which makes no mention of the loss of one’s Second Amendment rights…

While they have reluctantly agreed to send my client copies of the putative letter that they allegedly previously sent, they refused to provide his entire file, even at my request. This is the new Veteran Affairs Administration, folks. We now treat our illegal immigrants with more respect and benefits than our own veterans. This is an absolute disgrace and the VA’s policies and procedures need to be immediately reversed. Of course, we’re all aware that such is unlikely if former Secretary Clinton is elected…

This veteran was put on “double, secret probation”, was not informed of it, and now has one of his or her enumerated rights being denied. Regardless of where you stand on gun rights, this veteran served our country. He or she deserves at the bare minimum the due process of law guaranteed under the Constitution. That they are being denied this due process should infuriate everyone.

7 thoughts on “This Should Infuriate Everyone”

  1. This veteran was put on "double, secret probation", was not informed of it, and now has two or more of his or her enumerated rights being denied.

    There. FTFY.

    It's at least two enumerated rights: RKBA (2nd Amendment), and due process (5th Amendment).

  2. So, exactly how do they determine a veteran is taking care of his/her own finances and that they should thus “watch the veteran’s financial accounts"? Further, how do they gain access to do so?

    1. If the veteran hasn't named a fiduciary, it's reasonable to assume he/she is handling his/her own finances.

      The rub is this: According to the VA, if they name a fiduciary, they must be mentally incompetent, so they lose their 2A rights. But if they don't name a fiduciary, they have to be watched to make sure they're not handling their finances wrong, so they lose their 2A rights. Either way, they get no hearing and no due process. It's a no-win scenario for the law-abiding veteran.

Comments are closed.