Tuesday, 26 February 2013 18:30

Why is the Federal Government Disarming Veterans?

Written by 

Veterans around the country are receiving letters from the federal government informing them that because of alleged physical or mental disability their financial decisions will be made by a government-appointed “fiduciary” and they will be forbidden from “purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition.”

This is not a warning of something that might happen; these letters are being sent out everyday by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as part of its Fiduciary Program.

Citing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, VA is warning veterans labeled as incompetent that they will be “fined and/or imprisoned” if they are found in possession of a gun or ammunition.

The final decision on whether the veteran should be disarmed and prevented from ever owning a gun or ammunition will include an assessment of the following:

• The willingness to serve and abide by all agreements

• An interview with a VA representative

• Credit report review

• An inquiry into the criminal background, and

• Interviews with character witnesses

For years now, the Obama administration has followed a policy of targeting vets, taking away their guns, imprisoning them, and labeling them as “right wing extremists” and potential threats to national security.

Consider this quote from a Department of Homeland Security report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”:

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Veterans are being asked to serve tour after tour in unconstitutional foreign conflicts with no identified enemy, then returning home and having their most basic right denied by the very government that asked them to sacrifice their lives.

There was a story last year about a police raid on the house of an Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient in Ohio. The county sheriff executed a search warrant and seized the man’s guns for the “safety of the defendant and the general public.”

Although unnamed, the government ruled the man was mentally incompetent to handle his own affairs or to own a weapon.

Readers also may remember the recent shocking case of Brandon Raub. The New American’s Jack Kenny reported on the story last August. Kenny wrote that Raub was:

held involuntarily as a psychiatric patient at the Salem Veterans Affairs hospital in Virginia over anti-government postings on his Facebook page. Raub, a Marine combat veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was visited by FBI and Secret Service agents at his North Chesterfield home on August 16, then taken by police under an emergency custody order to John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was transferred to the veterans hospital on August 20. A medical assessment of his condition at John Randolph described him as paranoid and delusional, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. But after an hour-long hearing in Hopewell Circuit Court August 23, Judge W. Allan Sharrett dismissed an involuntary commitment petition as invalid.

"The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy," said the release order signed by Sharrett, vacating the order of Special Justice Walter Douglas Stokes to detain Raub for 30 days. Stokes, who presides over commitment hearings, also ordered Raub's transfer to the VA hospital in Salem, about 180 miles from his home. Judge Sharrett said he was shocked to find the commitment order contained no grounds for holding Raub.

The irrefutable fact is that, had the Rutherford Institute not stepped in and defended Raub, the young man would likely still be unconscionably held in a government mental hospital at the mercy of Obama administration bureaucrats.

Apart from the government’s reprehensible quest to disarm veterans, brand them as mentally ill, and treat them as terrorists, there is the fact that all this is being done in violation of the veterans’ right to due process protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

As in the case of so many other constitutional impediments to its statist goals, the president and his subordinates are ignoring the Fifth Amendment and arresting, disarming, and imprisoning veterans without due process.

Of course, the VA assures veterans subject to disarmament that if they file a timely objection to the decision, a VA board will consider their appeal. This is hardly the rigorous legal process required before the government can constitutionally deprive citizens — or any person — of their most basic constitutional rights.

Why is the president targeting veterans? Michael Connelly proposes the following possible explanation:

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

Or, as Michael Snyder wrote at the American Dream, “The federal government wants lots of warm bodies to throw into battle, but when those bodies get broken the government is not there to pick up the pieces.”

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .


  • Comment Link Ziggy T Thursday, 28 February 2013 03:09 posted by Ziggy T

    Robert & Donald
    You sound just like the Liberals, Democrats, Crusaders and FFF's regurgetation what the Govt contolled media is filling your heads with.
    the reason for the 2 nd ammendment is FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION against a tyrranical Govt who stops doing as the people who elected them to do for us or start making this country into something it isnt. Look at the gun control issue!!! Its a BAN!!! They say they arent taking guns away! B.S they are infringing on my right to own a specific gun I want to buy and own for personal reasons. Youdo t think banning a gun isnt infringement on our rights???. This guy was prosecuted WITHOUT DUE PROCESD? next youll be whining about the Terrorists held in GITMO how were infringing on their rights to blow us up or kill Americans.
    We did Train Bin Laden and his group of " freedom fighters" to fight against the Soviets"
    How about YOUR prez now???? Giving Gen-4 fighters and Main Battletanks to a country that is run by a known member of the muslim brotherhood with ties to bin ladens group and others. How about the billions of dollars in aid we give those a- holes. Do you think itgoes for food, formula and diapers?? Hell noooooo IT GOES FOR GUNS! AMMO ETC? now we want to give them body armor and night vision equipment??? WTF is wrong with YOU PREZ YOU ELECTED????? seems to me they are going after the wrong people, we all friggin know the only news station with the balls to report the truth is FOX and it pisses Mein Furher Obama off he cant control them.
    we need togo after the bad guys , support Israel, stop giving shit and money to our enemies because were technicly at war and thats treason!!!!

  • Comment Link Hans Wednesday, 27 February 2013 00:27 posted by Hans

    Sorry Robert, but it was clearly defined what the point of the Second Amendment is a long time ago.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants" -Jefferson

    "that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." -Jefferson

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Also, Jefferson.

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms" -Samuel Adams

    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

    I couldn't care less what anyone, including the Supreme Court, say about he Second Amendment. People far more intelligent, capable, and more directly involved with the establishment of the country determined the point of the second amendment a long ago.

    One of the main points of the article is however that there was no due process. Whether they are capable or not, the government can't just take anything from these people because they decide they shouldn't have it, there was no due process.

    "Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?" -Samuel Adams

  • Comment Link Robert Tuesday, 26 February 2013 21:37 posted by Robert

    This article is bogus. This has been going on for quite some time. It isn't the Obama administration that has done this,the Bush administration was doing the same thing. To beat this all the person has to do is prove he/she can pay his or her bills and manage their own life. If they need someone else to assist them, then ensuring that they don't harm themselves is important. If the writer is going to complain about the VA not doing enough to prevent sucides but then argue that it isn't fair that the government take away the right to own firearms if found incompentent, they can't have it both ways since the vast majority of these veterans will kill themselves with their firearms.

    The 2nd Amendment states:
    A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

  • Comment Link DONALD W Tuesday, 26 February 2013 19:30 posted by DONALD W

    If you do not disarm those that you train, they may very well turn against you. Look at the damage that Osama Bin Laden done and he was trained by our military/CIA. And there are many more stories just like his.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in