For this piece I have to credit my uncle Jay.
Pretty much every day he sends me a number of things he finds interesting, mainly in the fields of aviation and guns. It makes sense because he’s a licensed pilot and owns firearms. So I checked out the link he sent me yesterday morning to a story in The Gateway Pundit.
While author Jim Hoft rightly castigates the VA for its assault on the Second Amendment rights of those who served, I read through more of the letter and to me it reflects a worrisome trend in government. To the veterans who receive this letter, the VA is becoming more and more like the IRS, declaring someone guilty and demanding they prove their innocence.
Most troubling is how the VA determined the recipient was incompetent – “We received a report from Portland VA Medical Center…This evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition.” Later on, they note that the VA will be judge and jury as to whether the recipient is competent.
What’s interesting is that the letter describes in one paragraph that a fiduciary will be appointed, but takes another to specifically point out the prohibition on possessing firearms based on the Brady Act, also stating that the appeal process will go through the very same VA office which declared the veteran incompetent!
Circling back to Hoft’s main point, it bears consideration that among the groups which most strongly believe government has overstepped its bounds are our veterans. They made up the original three percenters in our heritage and many would likely fight what they consider a tyrannical federal government as currently comprised. In short, Hoft sees this as a subtle disarmament of our veterans and I can’t say I disagree with that sentiment. Perhaps the “evidence” of a mental condition to the VA is a veteran’s belief in limited government.
While this is not really a new story, I think it continues to bubble beneath the surface because there’s no shortage of mistrust between the government and the governed. Look at the corruption report I detailed last night, and ask yourself if this isn’t a different case of misfeasance – one set of entities makes legal political donations, but with the expectation of gain, while another uses the law to disarm potential opponents who may be no cause of concern except to a tyrannical state bent on maintaining power.
In 2014 there will be grievances to redress; the only question is whether ballots or bullets will end up sufficing. Obviously the preference is for the former so we can avoid the latter.