Unbelievable: Va Exec testifies to Congress they (the VA) will not comply with laws.

[broncovet]

Im shocked, and would not have believed it.  See for yourself.

And, we wonder why VA does not comply with its own laws, and grant our benefits promptly, but instead makes us appeal, sometimes for decades!!!

 

 

[Lemuel]

Court of Appeals (CAVC) is dragging its feet on Haskel v McDonough, Now Laska V McDonough decision.  CAVC 22-1018.

On July 9, CCK filed  "Pursuant to U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ Rule of Practice and Procedure 30(b), Appellant provides the following supplemental authority: Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, -- S.Ct. -- , 2024 WL 3208360 (2024)." 

Attached.  This should provide movement on SMC-T for those waiting.

240709 Laska v McDonough suplemental filing..pdf

Edited July 12 by Lemuel

[Tbird]

Concerning to veterans is the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act and its potential impact on your rights.Her is some key information and context: The Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act aims to address a longstanding issue where some veterans have had their gun rights restricted because of the VA's process of appointing fiduciaries to manage benefits. Here are the main points to consider:

1. Since 1998, the VA has required to report veterans who are appointed a fiduciary to manage their benefits to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) [4] This effectively prohibited these veterans from purchasing or possessing firearms without a judicial review of their mental competency. VA halts taking away gun rights from veterans who require help managing their benefits — but only for 6 months

2. Recent changes: In March 2024, the VA temporarily halted the practice of submitting names of veterans appointed fiduciaries to the FBI's background check database [4] VA halts taking away gun rights from veterans who require help managing their benefits — but only for 6 months. They have currently set the expiration date for this change on September 30, 2024.

3. Proposed legislation: Lawmakers have introduced the Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act in various forms over the years, to establish a formal process for adjudicating veterans’ mental competency for firearms possession purposes [2] This would require a judge or magistrate to make the determination, rather than a VA administrator. Introduced in Senate S.1331 05/06/2019)Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2019

4. Impact on disability compensation: It's important to note that these changes and proposed legislation do not affect your eligibility for or receipt of VA disability compensation [undefined] [6](Current Veterans disability compensation rates). Your disability benefits are separate from firearm rights.

5. Rationale for change: Supporters of these measures argue that needing help to manage financial benefits doesn't mean a veteran is a danger to themselves or others with firearms. They believe the decision to restrict gun rights should involve due process and a relevant finding by a judicial authority [9](Appropriations Bill Passes with Language Protecting Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights ).

6. Concerns: Some worry that changing the current system might allow individuals who may be at risk to access firearms more easily. However, proponents argue that the new process would still allow for restrictions when necessary, but with proper judicial oversight [9](Appropriations Bill Passes with Language Protecting Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights ).

**Sources:**

- [(1) House Republicans and VA at a standoff over veterans who lost gun rights because they needed help to manage their benefits](House Republicans and VA at a standoff over veterans who lost gun rights because they needed help managing their benefits)

- [(2) S.1331 - Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2019]( S.1331 05/06/2019)Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2019)

- [(3) VA Disability Compensation | Veterans Affairs]

- [(4) VA halts taking away gun rights from veterans who require help manage their benefits — but only for 6 months]

- [(5) S.2386 - Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2386)

- [(6) Current Veterans Disability Compensation Rates - VA.gov](https://www.va.gov/disability/compensation-rates/veteran-rates/)

- [(7) Grassley, Manchin Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Restore ...](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-manchin-reintroduce-bipartisan-legislation-restore-veterans-second)

- [(8) Compensation Home - Veterans Benefits Administration](https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/)

- [(9) Appropriations Bill Passes with Language Protecting Veterans ...](https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240311/appropriations-bill-passes-with-language-protecting-veterans-second-amendment-rights)

[Tbird]

From the hearing

Quote

"Kevin Friel, VA deputy director for pension and fiduciary service 

upon questioning by lawmakers, repeated several times that the VA would defy the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act and similar legislation.

Friel said he was following the direction of VA Secretary Denis McDonough in his responses.

“You are putting the VA secretary in a bad position. You sit here and tell us you are not going to comply with the law,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas. “This is a cause for concern.”

Friel responded: “The issue we have is with the [proposed] law. We are being asked to remove everyone who’s being reported.”

Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., also asked Friel whether the VA would follow the terms of the law.

“Is it your position that you will not comply with an act of law passed by Congress?” he asked.

Friel responded: “Yes, sir.”

“That you would not comply?” Rosendale asked, expressing disbelief.

“Yes, sir. It is in our testimony that we would have trouble complying with the law,” Friel said." Source: Stars and Stripes

 

[Lemuel]

Great reporting Tbird.  I tend to get my personal views mixed in when trying to do something like you just did.

[broncovet]

Im a big believer in 2d Amendment rights, but I do think this need to be balanced, because I think we can agree that there are "some" people who should not own weapons, when they are a danger to themselves or others.  

The question is, "who" is most qualifed to make a decsion as to who gets to carry a firearm, and who does not.  

Frankly, I always thought it was the Veterans (mental health) doctor who decides.  Its one thing to not be able to manage one's own finances, and quite another to who should be able to own a weapon, that is, if they are a threat to themselves or others.  There are literally millions of people who do an exceptionally poor job of managing finances, both disabled Vets and non disabled Vets.  And, Im not sure "our government" should decide how someone spends their money, in general.  

This said, I also agree here there are Vets who need some protections against their own poor financial choices WHEN it can affect their health and safety.  For example, if a Veteran does not/will not pay his/her gas bill, he/she could be at risk of literally freezing to death in their own home, as an example.  

It does seem like VA tends to be over zealous and forces some Vets to have fiduciaries, with disastrous consequences.  This is especially true with fiduciaries who do some sort of contract with VA to do this.  Veterans have reported the fiduciary actually stole much/most of their money, and some very shady fiduciaries somehow slipped through the cracks.  

THe most important thing is that VA is NOT doing a good job protecting Vets.  Proof:  There are way way too many homeless Veterans, and way too many Veteran suicides.  

We already know that VA thinks they are "above" the law, as they get away with things not permitted in the non va world.  

The VA has "their own police force" which is the VAOIG, and many compare that to the fox guarding the hen house.  

This is my concern about VA non compliance with laws, they already do that, and it almost never works out well for Veterans, either.  

[Tbird]

House Republicans and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are at an impasse over whether veterans who need help managing their benefits should lose their gun rights. The VA has stated it will not comply with proposed legislation that would reverse this practice, sparking significant controversy and debate.

Key Takeaways

• The VA refuses to comply with proposed legislation to restore gun rights to veterans needing fiduciary assistance.
• The Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act aims to prevent the VA from flagging veterans as unfit to own firearms without a court determination.
• Lawmakers express concern over the VA's stance, citing constitutional rights and due process.
• The VA argues that the practice is a preventive measure against suicide risks among veterans.

The Standoff

During a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing, VA Deputy Director for Pension and Fiduciary Service, Kevin Friel, testified that the agency would not comply with the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act. This proposed legislation directs the VA to rescind the names of veterans flagged to lose their gun rights after being found unfit to manage their VA benefits.

Friel stated, “We are being requested to go back and tell the [Department of Justice] that the names we reported, we reported in error, which we don’t believe.” This stance has led to significant tension between the VA and lawmakers.

The Legislation

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act would require the VA Secretary to formally notify the Attorney General that the agency acted without authority or court determination when submitting veterans' names to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This system identifies individuals barred from legally owning or possessing firearms.

Additionally, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act seeks to prevent the VA from flagging veterans to the national background check system when they are appointed fiduciaries, unless a court finds that the veterans pose a danger to themselves or others.

Lawmakers' Reactions

Lawmakers expressed outrage at the VA's refusal to comply with the proposed legislation. Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, requested a private discussion with Friel during a break in the hearing. Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, voiced his concerns, stating, “You are putting the VA secretary in a bad position. You sit here and tell us you are not going to comply with the law.”

Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., questioned Friel multiple times about the VA's stance, to which Friel consistently responded that the agency would have trouble complying with the law. Friel explained that the VA does not conduct background checks or review health records before seeking to revoke veterans' gun rights, basing the decision solely on their need for a fiduciary.

Constitutional Concerns

Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., argued that the VA is overstepping veterans' constitutional rights to due process. Friel countered that the proactive approach to revoking firearms is due to concerns about suicide risks among veterans, noting that most veteran suicides involve firearms.

Crane challenged this, asking for evidence that veterans needing fiduciaries are at higher risk of firearm suicide. Friel cited financial stress as a potential factor leading to depression and hardship.

The VA's Position

Friel maintained that under the VA’s interpretation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the agency can legally remove gun rights from veterans requiring a fiduciary based on a determination of “incompetency.” He reiterated that the VA would not comply with the proposed legislation, even if passed by Congress.

The ongoing debate highlights the complex intersection of veterans' rights, mental health, and gun ownership, with both sides standing firm on their positions.

Sources

• House Republicans and VA at a standoff over veterans who lost gun rights because they needed help managing their benefits, Stars and Stripes.