One of the strangest, and probably worst ways some laws are passed in our system, is when a politician adds a rider or provision they know their colleagues across the aisle oppose onto a larger bill that they know the other side wants so badly, that they will just sign the bill, making it all into law. The Democrats are masters of that legislative trick, and so it seems, are the Republicans.
In the most recent example of this, in a government funding bill President Biden desperately wanted to see approved, Republicans slid a provision in that would restore gun rights to countless veterans who had been denied that right since 1998. At that time, anti-gun officials instilled a rule in the Veterans Administration that if a vet needed help managing their finances, that they were deemed “mentally defective” and since 1968, a federal law had been passed that prohibited the possession or acquisition of firearms by a person who had been “adjudicated as a mental defective.” Thus, thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of veterans who needed help but hadn’t been determined to suffer from mental illness, had still had their Second Amendment rights denied under this rule.
Enter the Republicans to right this wrong. According to the National Rifle Association:
The Department of Veterans Affairs gun ban is a case study of how anti-gun officials opportunistically exploit seemingly benign government programs to advance their objectives. It’s undoing in the 1,050-page spending package, on the other hand, is a case study of sustained pro-gun advocacy in action.
A federal law passed in 1968 prohibits the possession or acquisition of firearms by a person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective.” The main enforcement mechanism for this law is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which must be queried any time a person makes a retail purchase of a firearm. NICS contains records provided by states and the federal government of people who are prohibited by law from possessing guns.
As explained in a 1973 appellate court opinion on the meaning of this archaic language, the term “mental defective” refers to “a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity”, and does not refer generally to mental illness or mental insanity.
Nevertheless, the ATF in 1979 passed a regulation interpreting this law to apply to a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease … [l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), meanwhile, administers a system of benefits for veterans with service-connected disabilities. Its own regulations allow those benefits to be received by a “fiduciary” on the beneficiary’s behalf if the VA determines the beneficiary to be “incompetent” to manage his or her finances. These determinations are made by VA officials, most without any special mental health training. There is usually no judicial process involved.
The only issue in the VA’s “incompetency” proceeding is the individual’s “capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds”. It does not require a finding that the beneficiary is dangerous to self or others, gravely mentally ill, suicidal, detached from reality, etc.
Similarly, a VA finding of “incompetency” in this context is of limited legal effect. It does not, for example, preclude the beneficiary from having his or her own bank account or entering into legally binding contracts. The point is simply to ensure that if the person needs help managing finances, the VA benefits go to someone who can provide that help, usually someone within the beneficiary’s own family or household chosen by the beneficiary himself or herself.
Nevertheless, since 1998 (during the infamously anti-gun administration of Bill Clinton), the VA has been reporting beneficiaries who have been assigned these fiduciaries to NICS as “mental defectives.” This used to occur without any notification to the beneficiary that the government considered him or her legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
More recently, legislation was enacted that required the VA to offer veterans affected by this regime a mechanism to have their Second Amendment rights restored. But that highly bureaucratic process is seldomly invoked and even more seldomly successful. In fiscal year 2022, for example, the VA denied every such petition for relief it processed.
The upshot is that hundreds of thousands of veterans have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights without any judicial process and without any findings relevant to their ability to safely possess and handle firearms. The fact that this is happening to the very people who served to protect the safety and constitutional rights of all Americans, and is perpetrated by the very federal department that is supposed to be devoted to veterans’ aid and wellbeing, is particularly outrageous and galling.
Firearms prohibitionists have reacted to the corrective language in the minibus with their usual fear-mongering, insisting the new appropriations provision would allow “mentally incompetent” people to access firearms and suggesting that it will worsen the problem of veteran suicide. Yet those claims misrepresent both the present system and how it would change under the recently enacted legislation.
The current VA system for determining “incompetency” has no necessary relationship to people who are dangerous or suicidal. It asks a different question, whether the person needs help handling VA benefits. And the answer to that question is provided in the first instance by VA employees, not by judicial officials operating according to the usual requirements of due process for someone facing a lifetime loss of a fundamental civil right.
The new language, originally led by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), corrects both problems by prohibiting the VA from reporting beneficiaries to NICS as “mental defectives” without “the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.” This ensures both that the beneficiary is given due process under the law and that a relevant finding is made before any VA determination of incompetency results in a loss of Second Amendment rights. If a beneficiary is suicidal and that could be established before a judge, the person could still be reported to NICS.
Appropriations bills are considered “must-pass” legislation because they fund the operations of government. Without their passage, the entire federal government grinds to a halt. They therefore provide opportunities to either gain or lose progress on issues like the Second Amendment through riders that are inserted into the legislative text. Thanks to the pro-gun leadership in Congress, and the determined work of the NRA, this year’s minibus appropriations package delivered significant wins for the right to keep and bear arms. It is one more example of the never-ending work that goes into protecting fundamental rights from government encroachment.
So, on the surface, it can honestly be said that Biden did sign a pro-gun bill into law. But make no mistake, if he could’ve ignored that one part of the bill, he would have. He is in no way a politician who has demonstrated any respect for Americans’ gun rights. And like many of his fellow Democrats, he hates being beaten at his own game.
Obama did the same thing to get us carry in National Parks (to match the host states’ laws) when he signed a huge credit card reform bill.
And miner49er used barry’s signing as proof the dems were not anti gun’
Lying POS will try the same propaganda about biden.
This one is for the forum’s resident bigots who did not like me speaking bad about racists and nazis…
So you are unable to articulate your position?
void…gfy you pathetic pos and take that trash possum with you.
So you have nothing productive to present?
Void,
Has she EVER been able to articulate ANYTHING, in your experience??? If so, I obviously missed it. I guess it is only fair that “we” (the POTG) have at least ONE complete, total, drooling moron who is SUPPOSEDLY “on our side”, making a jack@$$ of herself on the daily on this site, so we are the lucky recipients of the “wisdom of Debbie Dimwit”, whether we like it or not.
Frankly, I’d be willing to trade the gun-grabbing Leftist/fascist idiots on this site one more slot for another MajorLiar, dacian the demented, or jsled, if they would simply take Debbie Dimwit off our hands. Her very presence on this site is just . . . embarrassing. She does far more damage to “our” position by her “support” than MajorLiar, dacian, jsled, and all the other Leftist/fascist morons could do in a year.
“…pathetic pos and take that trash possum with you.”
Unlike you, we really like having the ‘Marsupial One’ hang out in TTAG. He’s often bust-out laughing to read. He puts a smile on your face when he drops his humorous nuggets.
You, on the other hand, just endlessly parrot the same tired crap every day, adding NOTHING to conversations here except pathetic personal attacks on the people that make the comment section a useful and vibrant community that’s an enjoyable way to pass some time throughout the day.
Just shut the fvck up, you bitter old shrew, no one here likes or appreciates your written diarrhea that pollutes this fine forum.
Don’t go away mad, just go away, and never darken our door again… 🙁
Debbie W. articulated her position very well…..you have brain defects and should turn in any firearms you own. Don’t drive a car either, you probably cannot understand road signs.
Did “she” now?
Nobody watches the videos you link.
Sure they do………
There seem to be a lot of members of the ‘he-man woman haters club’ on this forum.
Men been telling women to shut up for 2000 years…
1 Timothy 2:13-15
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak… And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.”
Some men just don’t like women, they seem to prefer men.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course…
Sadly, all you have is personal insults.
Yes, the democratically controlled House and Senate both passed the CARD act of 2009, which Barack Hussein Obama signed into law, returning firearms rights to Americans on millions of acres of federally managed lands.
But it wasn’t some ‘must pass’ legislation, it was actually a credit card reform bill that protected citizens like you and me from predatory lending practices.
You see, ordinary people were getting ripped off by credit card and lending companies, the Democrats did something about it, and in doing so also passed an amendment reversing a Reagan-era prohibition that banned the carrying of firearms on national lands.
The Democrats did not need to pass the bill, they were acting for the good of common people like you and me, providing protection that the Republicans would not do because their financial owners would not allow the oversight.
There’s no way around it, the Obama/Biden ministration did indeed sign into law the largest expansion of firearms rights in the past 50 years.
And you gotta ask yourself, what was Republican Ronald Reagan doing restricting your ability to carry firearms on taxpayer lands in the first place?
“…was actually a credit card reform bill that protected citizens like you and me from predatory lending practices.”
too bad it wasn’t a bill to protect people from predators like you.
So, is he right or is he wrong?
“So, is he right or is he wrong?”
A stopped clock is correct twice a day, and is useless the rest of the time…
MajorMistake,
Funny, I thought St. Paddy’s Day was a few days ago, and yet here you are, peddling blarney . . . in a pathetic effort to label the gun-grabbing propensities of your “fellow traveler” demented, Leftist/fascist politicians.
First, a simple factual observation: It was, INDEED, a piece of “must pass” legislation for the Leftist/fascist Dimocrat Party – it was a stated element of the Dimocrat Party platform, it was introduced, championed, and argued for by a number of “major players” in the Dimocrat Party, and it was a legislative priority of the Barry Soetoro Administration. I KNOW you will ALWAYS lie about your party, but at least try to keep your lies SOMEWHAT credible, why don’t you???
Several questions for you, MajorLiar – did, or did not, BOTH the Lyin’ Hawaiian AND Senile Joe, the serial child molester frequently demand/espouse “assault weapon” bans? (I know it’s like kryptonite to Superman, but at least TRY to be honest in responding to that). Has not Senile Joe’s fascist ATF repeatedly tried, via unconstitutional “rule-making”, to infringe the rights of law-abiding gun owners (including, but not limited to, our rights under the 2A)?? (And if you want to lie about this one, at least don’t be a coward about it – show your work. How are ALL of the recent examples of proposed or “final” rulemaking by the ATF NOT infringements of those rights??).
MajorLiar, I know it is difficult to try to maintain even the pretense of good faith while defending (as “pro-gun”, which is simply absurd on its face) the fascist initiatives of the Dimocrat Party and their fellow Leftist/fascists, but simple pride would require any intelligent person to at least make the effort. I must reluctantly acknowledge your absolute commitment to Leftist/fascism in your die-hard willingness to make a complete @$$clown of yourself with every post you make, continue getting raked over the coals by everyone here, and yet coming back again and again, and trying to peddle stupid with a straight face. Your lack of self-awareness and ability to feel shame is becoming legendary, here.
You are right, protecting citizens from predatory lending by payday lenders and credit card companies was indeed “a legislative priority of the Barry Soetoro Administration”, because Republicans don’t give a shit about ordinary people being abused by financial institutions.
Minor have you tried not posting things worthy of derision? I get your militant athiesism with communist leanings probably gets in the way but it can be nice to take a break from trolling occasionally.
The credit card companies love Biden. They even hired his son.
The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA)…appallingly, the bill made it completely impossible to discharge student loan debt. It may very well be the single piece of legislation most responsible for putting the U.S. in the current student debt crisis. Biden was one of the bill’s major Democratic champions, and he fought for its passage from his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. BAPCPA made it through, successfully erecting all kinds of roadblocks for Americans struggling with debt, and doing so just before the financial crisis of 2008.
Over the past 20 years, MBNA has been Biden’s single largest contributor. And as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal note, Biden’s son Hunter was hired out of law school by MBNA and later worked as a lobbyist for the company.
The Times also details just how helpful Biden has been to MBNA and the credit card industry. The senator was a key supporter of an industry-favorite bill — the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005” — that actually made it harder for consumers to get protection under bankruptcy.
Biden voted against a proposal to require credit card companies to provide more effective warnings to consumers about the consequences of paying only the minimum amount due each month.
Once again, you post a rant without any information about the source or their veracity, no authors name, no publication, no web link…
And the text you provided does not materially explain how that particular wall was bad, no details whatsoever about what particular or specific actions or policies it implemented, and no details on how these harmed individuals or the economy.
Just an empty rant about how ‘bad’ it was…
And it was Republican President George Dubya Bush who signed the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act into law, Joe Biden was just one of 100 senators in the senate at that time, he didn’t become president until 15 years later, after the Republicans crashed the economy in 2008.
Anyone reading that could figure out how to look a bill up. Regarding the quotes, you can copy them, and plug it into your favorite browser if you want to reread it within the articles. Sometimes, more than one link gets sent to moderation. The references don’t even matter in this case because it’s self-explanatory, and bills are public information. Read the bill yourself if you want the details.
“Joe Biden was just one of 100 senators in the senate at that time”
How does that absolve Joe of anything? He’s well-known for his work on behalf of the credit card companies. We all understand how Congress works, Miner.
“Anyone reading that could figure out how to look a bill up“
Still more empty speech, and no substantial information about how this bill harmed consumers.
So why are you concealing your source, you could’ve easily included a Web link or even the name of the publication and/or the author… But you didn’t, even when asked.
I think we all know why, you don’t want folks to see the source for some reason, either it’s not credible or there’s actual information in the source showing your contention is wrong.
Either way, more empty speech.
And the facts of history haven’t changed, the Obama/Biden administration, along with the Democrats in Congress, can take credit for expanding gun rights for Americans on millions of acres of federally managed, taxpayer owned lands.
Meanwhile, y’all want to reelect the guy who said “I think we should take the guns first, and worry about due process later”.
Miner said:
“You see, ordinary people were getting ripped off by credit card and lending companies, the Democrats did something about it…”
I countered that with the fact that Joe has always been well known for helping credit card companies (instead of consumers) because he was the senator from the state they were incorporated in. You can’t dispute anything I said, so you’re fretting over citations. Citations are relevant when there is difficult to find news or data displayed. A very public, easy to find bill is none of those things.
I was already aware of this. All I had to do was search for Joe working for credit card companies, and multiple sources came up. You could do the same, if you really wanted to. There are articles about it dating back to when Joe was running for the 2008 primary. I pulled from two or three sources to get the point across. I’d have to do the same thing you would to find those again. Sometimes, when I try to post more than one link, it goes to moderation on this site. Therefore I avoid that. These facts are so well reported on that one of my quotes is reiterating something the NYT and WSJ already reported on (“And as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal note…”). Are those sources good enough for you? Refute anything I posted, or move on. (You can’t seem to do either.)
In 2005, Warren, then a professor at Harvard, faced off with Biden in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing over the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), a bill meant to bring down the number of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. Biden had long championed the Republican-backed bill’s provisions, and Warren had fought against them. With Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, eventually voting in favor of the bill, Warren lost her most public political battle up to that point in her career.
“By making it harder for people to discharge their debts and keep current on their house payments, the 2005 bill made the 2008 financial crisis significantly worse,” she argued.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-reignites-feud-with-joe-biden-over-personal-bankruptcy-policy/
A son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mbna-paid-bidens-son-as-biden-backed-bill/
MBNA executives and employees contributed roughly $200,000 to Mr. Biden’s campaigns from 1989 to 2010, making the company his largest corporate donor during that time, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/us/politics/banking-ties-could-hurt-joe-biden-in-race-with-populist-overtone.html
Okay. I did your work for you. Now what?
“I think we all know why, you don’t want folks to see the source for some reason, either it’s not credible or there’s actual information in the source showing your contention is wrong.”
Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Miner?
Government has no authority to take firearm rights, period!
Yes many hate having it done this way. But this is the 21st century. Not the 18th century.
This is a victory.
Another non-kinetic means for “The Government” to quietly end the natural, human and civil right of individuals to “keep and bear”.
Govt wins when citizens are watching the front door, rather than the actually effective methods of disarming the public. Keep in mind that when Republicrats had control of Congress and the White House, none of them submitted legislation to end the VA overreach. Nor, will the Repubs do so when they actually have control again.
“when Republicrats had control of Congress and the White House, none of them submitted legislation to end the VA overreach“
Yep, it wasn’t until the Democrats held the White House that the VA overreach was ended.
Just like the Obama/Biden administration freeing us from the Republican Ronald Reagan’s prohibition, it took the Democrats to successfully end the VA overreach on this issue.
‘Pro-gun Trump’ had four years, two of them with the majority in the House and the Senate, and all he did was give a $2 trillion tax cut to the wealthy one percent. Mission accomplished!
it just took Republicans and 2A Rights organizations to make this tyrant president sign it, while now the democrats are trying to circumvent it by drumming up bills and sending letters to the VA to do it anyway.
and….the VA was directed to submit veterans that needed a fiduciary to NICS as mental defectives by Executive Order of President Clinton.
so don’t come in here with your deceptive ‘yea democrats’ BS
“it just took Republicans and 2A Rights organizations to make this tyrant president sign it“
So why didn’t the Republicans and 2A Rights organizations make this tyrant president Trump sign it?
They had 4 years, two of them holding the White House and both houses of Congress… but still they sat on their hands…
Because it’s just lip service, they were too busy kissing Trump’s ass to actually expand veterans’ gun rights.
Imagine walking into a bank seeking a loan for, say, home improvement and the bank says “you would have the money if you managed you money better, so to help you we are going to put you on a regular payment schedule to make payments for the loan in a timely manner. But because of this, we will code you as ‘mentally defective’ so you can’t own a computer or anything else with internet access that you might use to exercise your first amendment right to free speech.”
Why are you putting out a game plan for my state?
“Imagine walking into a bank seeking a loan for, say, home improvement and the bank says “you would have the money if you managed you money better, so to help you we are going to put you on a regular payment schedule to make payments for the loan in a timely manner.”
I would welcome a friendly bank like that; someplace to go, someone to talk to. I like the fact such a friendly bank would relieve me of having to do my own interactions with entities having systems that require me to have a personal computer, and get all that spam and unwanted advertising. Government and companies taking over all my responsibilities. And for free.
Could things get any better?
1,050 pages, eh? Thatsa lotta pork. I wonder how many of the provisions would have passed as standalone bills…
BIG WIN For Veterans!!
Buttttt! this had made a lot of the democrat congress big mad. Now they are trying to get bills running, and sent letters to the VA to have them go ahead and code these anyway and put them in NICS no matter, to actually red flag these veterans.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument today in Bianchi v. Brown about whether Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban of semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment.
Neat hopefully goes in a direction that is useful.
More sneaky backdoor demoCrap…
it wasn’t just some anti-gun officials …. the VA was directed to submit veterans that needed a fiduciary to NICS as mental defectives by Executive Order of President Clinton.
https://securityncigars.substack.com/p/enormous-win-for-veterans-2a-rights
Eric,
I would point out that Billy Zipperpants WAS an “anti-gun official”. Along with Dianne Feinswein, Malig-Nancy, Gerry “I just shat my pants” Nadler, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, and about a hundred other lying, fascist Leftist politicians. Just sayin’.
Joe looks like he hears god calling. Go to the light Joe!
Today I watched a cat bury a pile of shit.
It reminded me of theBiden.
No not the cat.
And under that mental nut stuff criteria it should say.
You can’t have a gunm but you can still be a President.
possum,
“Today I watched a cat bury a pile of shit.”
One of my dear daddy’s favorite sayings (when describing an idiot trying to justify their obvious idiocy – think “MajorLiar” for a good example), “Boy looks like a cat trying to cover shit on a linoleum floor.”
Debbie Dimwit, for your edification, THIS is why we love The Marsupial. He’s says random sh*t, but it’s usually funny; you ALWAYS post random, irrelevant sh*t, and it’s NEVER funny. I’ll loan you a dollar; go buy a clue.
Thats the one with the attached lobes not to be confused with the one with the unattached lobes…got it.
That the classic “who took a dump in my pants” look.