TexasCHLforum.com

tallmike wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:

AndyC wrote:Here's an actual case:

The specific benefit is called the “Aid and Assistance/Housebound” and is meant for veterans so disabled that they cannot take care of themselves at all. It allows a small stipend to help a designated caretaker provide for the severely-disabled vet. Sgt. Wayne Irelan of Arkansas, wounded in combat in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart, made the mistake of signing up for this benefit.

For the Irelans to receive this benefit the VA first declared Wayne’s PTSD to be so bad that he was considered “mentally incompetent,” and his wife Lana was designated his caretaker. Only Wayne apparently didn’t realize what else he was signing up for besides that small amount of money.

Any vet declared to be mentally incompetent instantly loses his rights to own firearms or ammunition. And those rights are stripped regardless of what that vet has actually done.

You read that correctly. All it takes is a declaration by some government bureaucrat, and a veteran’s rights–the exact same rights guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to defend with his own life–can be stripped away. Even if the vet hasn’t done anything wrong.

About a year after he started receiving the Aid and Assistance/Housebound stipend, Wayne Irelan got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his Arkansas concealed carry permit had been revoked.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0 ... bear-arms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Protecting civil liberties while protecting the public is tough. I do think about a mentally disabled vet waking up and feeling the need to sweep the "town" of insurgents. It would only need to happen once.

The "aid and assistance" money that his spouse got is a very small amount of money, but to get it they had to say that his PTSD was so severe that she needed to stay home from work to take care of him full time. Since the disability was a mental issue and he was stating the mental issue was so severe that he needed a caretaker, a doctor declared him unable to take care of himself due to severe mental issues and she was declared his caretaker.

Was he really that severely impaired? I don't know, but he obviously convinced at least 1 VA doctor that he was. If someone requires a full time caretaker due to a mental disability, don't we want their doctor to say something?

Well said. I'm totally on board with following the law and and "due process". That being said, due process in this country involves what you can afford. lawyers are expensive. Are we willing to bear the cost burden in our current environment to insure due process is performed?

My mother-in-all has severe dementia. To follow due process to get her in a safe, secure facility, we're looking at $10K to $20K just in legal fees. We need to pay for our attorney and hers.

We now have her in a very good facility. safe and secure. I'm down $13K but my wife sleeps well at night knowing her mother is safe. Money well spent.

My entire point. Are we willing and ready to assist with the price of due process to protect the rights of our citizens? I'm really concerned that most veterans are not able to pay for " due process" and those insisting on it are not willing to foot the bill.

I'm willing to foot the bill.

My problem with compromise is there has been plenty of it demanded by their side and all it does is take from ours. This cake comparison was quite a good read - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=61390&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I can understand the idea that some of the things they are proposing are not horrible and I could personally live with it (not like it, live with it) the things that are not being discussed or the things we 'win' by compromising will soon be back on the table and they will take some more. When there is not something so simple to concede, what will we do then? At a certain point you have to say enough is enough and IMO now is that time. If we continue to compromise we will eventually end up with nothing.

To say we aren't bringing anything to the table is troubling as well. I know the intent is in the right place but if we do not challenge what they are doing full bore we may lose more than we think. The NRA has presented options which are a good step in the right direction, that is not 'nothing'. Enforcing current laws, allowing more people to carry and in more places, and offering trained protection in our schools are all ways to help without limiting law abiding citizens.

I've read it several times here but it's one we all should remember, the government does not give us rights, they protect them. You don't protect one right by limiting or taking away another.

mojo84 wrote:Sounds like a head fake to me.

It may well have been a head fake.

So..... I wonder what the other hand was doing "under the radar" while we were watching the one with the AWB.

I would tell you what my compromise would be but we were asked to tone down our posts.

I can tell you that my compromise would not be giving up any more of my rights.

Anygunanywhere

mamabearCali wrote:We have "compromised" again and again and again...and all we seem to do is lose ground when we are willing to "compromise." This particular administration's view of compromise is "be reasonable, do it my way". Look at everything else that has been "compromise"....the healthcare bill, the tax deals of late, the fiscal cliff, sequestration, again and again and again when we are willing to compromise they get everything and we get nada. NO MAS! BASTA! (No more, Enough) This admin has a take no prisoner attitude...fine so do I. Here I stand and not one inch farther will I go.

Things like Budgets and even heath care are built on compromise. Other things maybe not so much. Our recent victory with Federal parks Carry was because of "compromise". I personally don't believe these new issues require any compromise. We've hit back pretty hard and the Obamian forces are starting to show retreat, while we seem to be moving forward in our cause, and there are signs that the public is seeing things "our way" even though some on our side seem more than willing to throw the Obamian dogs a bone. It shouldn't be necessary, at least legislatively.

There is often a claim that we are losing ground. Over the last 15-20 years we have gained ground, not lost ground. We have gained ground only because we have allowed compromise. Texas gun laws are a wonderful example of this forward progress built on compromise. I do agree that we shouldn't have to give up any of our rights. But to condemn compromise is to condemn progress of our side.

Edit to clarify case RaL

BLG wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Sounds like a head fake to me.

It may well have been a head fake.

So..... I wonder what the other hand was doing "under the radar" while we were watching the one with the AWB.

What he was doing was making the economy, fiscal cliff "deal", taxes going up on everyone as of Jan 1, no effort to reign in spending, implementation of Obamacare, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, rediculous cabinet appointments, and all of the real issues disappear off your TV screen. I'm beginning to believe this guy is as brilliant as people claimed he was.

If he had the votes for an AWB, it would have been introduced right after the shooting. He knew he didn't but to avoid letting a good crisis go to waste, he appointed Biden to head up an effort to have highly publicized meetings with antis and the NRA. Sure, he's hoping to gain some ground for his side in the area of gun control, but his real purpose here is diversion. A high cap magazine ban would just be a bonus for him. Two months ago, everyone on the right was railing against spending and the unchecked expansion of the federal governement. Now we are all "dug in" for our fight to retain our RKBA while he continues to tax and spend us into oblivion. What do you hear in the media (or even on the internet) about irresponsible spending now? Nothing.............<sound of crickets>

Obama has not changed his mind.

He might tell you that. Do not believe him. Do not let down your guard.

The only thing he will change is tactics or timing.

He has a plan. His plan includes dealing with the resistance he is seeing right now.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Obama has not changed his mind.

He might tell you that. Do not believe him. Do not let down your guard.

The only thing he will change is tactics or timing.

He has a plan. His plan includes dealing with the resistance he is seeing right now.

Anygunanywhere

Here's a valid point-

"many of our political leaders have become corrupted beyond repair.”

2firfun50 wrote:Well said. I'm totally on board with following the law and and "due process". That being said, due process in this country involves what you can afford. lawyers are expensive. Are we willing to bear the cost burden in our current environment to insure due process is performed?

My mother-in-all has severe dementia. To follow due process to get her in a safe, secure facility, we're looking at $10K to $20K just in legal fees. We need to pay for our attorney and hers.

We now have her in a very good facility. safe and secure. I'm down $13K but my wife sleeps well at night knowing her mother is safe. Money well spent.

My entire point. Are we willing and ready to assist with the price of due process to protect the rights of our citizens? I'm really concerned that most veterans are not able to pay for " due process" and those insisting on it are not willing to foot the bill.

I'm willing to foot the bill.

It sounds like you followed "a process", but it certainly isn't Due Process. Due Process comes from the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. I've highlighted the relevant parts in red.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In other words, it takes a court of law to remove someone's rights from them. It is not the vet or their family who pays for Due Process of Law unless, for some reason, the family is attempting to get the vet declared mentally incompetent. It is the taxpayer who bears the cost of proving the a person's rights should be taken away. And, in this instance, that is a burden the taxpayers SHOULD bear.

canvasbck wrote:

BLG wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Sounds like a head fake to me.

It may well have been a head fake.

So..... I wonder what the other hand was doing "under the radar" while we were watching the one with the AWB.

What he was doing was making the economy, fiscal cliff "deal", taxes going up on everyone as of Jan 1, no effort to reign in spending, implementation of Obamacare, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, rediculous cabinet appointments, and all of the real issues disappear off your TV screen. I'm beginning to believe this guy is as brilliant as people claimed he was.

If he had the votes for an AWB, it would have been introduced right after the shooting. He knew he didn't but to avoid letting a good crisis go to waste, he appointed Biden to head up an effort to have highly publicized meetings with antis and the NRA. Sure, he's hoping to gain some ground for his side in the area of gun control, but his real purpose here is diversion. A high cap magazine ban would just be a bonus for him. Two months ago, everyone on the right was railing against spending and the unchecked expansion of the federal governement. Now we are all "dug in" for our fight to retain our RKBA while he continues to tax and spend us into oblivion. What do you hear in the media (or even on the internet) about irresponsible spending now? Nothing.............<sound of crickets>

A diversion in deed. As you mention the so called fiscal cliff. The middle class just took another shellacking and few are talking about it.

http://www.philstockworld.com/2013/01/1 ... t-blowout/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that any back-down from the administration is a ruse. Perhaps they misjudged the support/outrage they thought that they'd have with the news cycle's undivided attention on dead children.

Or maybe they've been thinking 10 steps ahead all along: Use Sandy Hook as an excuse to propose far-reaching and unprecedented restrictions knowing that they won't get passed. The proposals get the NRA & other groups' members fired up. The attention is hot & heavy. Pro 2As are geared up for a fight. Pull the proposals citing lack of overall public support. The NRA & pro-2As celebrate the "victory" & look forward to life returning to normal. Things cool off. Attention gets focused elsewhere. Life is humming along. Then after a couple of years when nobody's looking, a new set of proposals slips into the congressional agenda. But there's not a lot of opposition this time because any talk of new gun control measures will be met with "I thought we already took care of that, it didn't go anywhere". So the measures get passed quietly & we don't realize it until it's already the law of the land.

Regarding the side-issue of compromise - show me where the anti-2As have given up anything or event offered to give up anything and then we can talk. As has already been pointed out, compromise by definition is a discussion where BOTH sides relinquish something of value. The idea in a compromise is to achieve a mutually beneficial position. Can anyone tell me how enhanced/expanded background checks will benefit our side? Or how about reduced capacity magazines, how does that benefit our side? Basically, none of the provisions that are currently being talked about provide any better position for the pro-2A side. And starting out at a draconian position & reducing it to a less draconian position isn't compromise either.

Liberty wrote: Things like Budgets and even heath care are built on compromise. Other things maybe not so much. Our recent victory with Federal parks Carry was because of "compromise". I personally don't believe these new issues require any compromise. We've hit back pretty hard and the Obamian forces are starting to show retreat, while we seem to be moving forward in our cause, and there are signs that the public is seeing things "our way" even though some on our side seem more than willing to throw the Obamian dogs a bone. It shouldn't be necessary, at least legislatively.

There is often a claim that we are losing ground. Over the last 15-20 years we have gained ground, not lost ground. We have gained ground only because we have allowed compromise. Texas gun laws are a wonderful example of this forward progress built on compromise. I do agree that we shouldn't have to give up any of our rights. But to condemn compromise is to condemn progress of our side.

Edit to clarify case RaL

This admin as made it clear on things like healthcare in which any "compromise" has turned out to be slight of hand and a magic trick designed to fool whoever was in the admin way. Ask the Catholic Church and Stupak about "compromise" with this president. We have gained ground slightly in the past thirty years (mostly in the state legislatures).....it was hard fought for and I am not willing to cede one inch of ground to this administration.

Here is a compromise on gun control. The Feds stop shipping guns to al-queada and the Mexican drug cartels, and agree to put that money into school security guards and mental health programs.

I doubt Obama will change his mind at all:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 95381.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have watched gun owners compromise for 40 years. Every time we give up some of our rights, the anti's are back the following year with demands that we give up another increment. No compromise.

let me step out on a limb
hypothetically
if a person, whether or not he or she is a veteran and has ptsd so severe that is causes this person to be deemed mentally unsound, which is by its own definition has to be very very bad
then that person shouldn't have access to items that aid them in doing a act that would MURDER persons.

that being said, there are ways to get 100% va compensation and still have some form of ptsd, but not be deemed mentally unsound and thus allowed to have firearms, and a stipend for your "helper" at home.
I imagine the veteran has some serious adjustment issues from loosing parts of his body while performing actions approved by the president, That by itself would drive any normal person to the edge of the cliff. BUT this does not automatically mean he or she is mentally unsound

further more the VA doctors, if they did jump the gun on this veteran, and were looking to expedite a claim. Then they FAILED this veteran.
sure he has serious emotionally issues from being blown apart, but that does not automatically make him unsound and the VA could have pursued other paths to help this vet and his family.
AND most veterans going through the arduous process of claims with the VA have no idea the ins and outs of how to work the clam to maximize benefits and still be a PERSON, especially those that are truly suffering from loss of limbs and other body parts.
our state va offices are a great source of help, as are the vets themselves.
I am just as guilty for not being there enough for other veterans starting the process, but I am trying to do more
and the benefit of aid of the housebound, can be received without being deemed mentally unstable


"Special Monthly Pension (A&A / Housebound) - What Is the Benefit?
Answer ID 1306 | Published 10/28/2009 07:04 AM | Updated 11/19/2009 03:00 PM
Special Monthly Pension (A&A / Housebound) - What Is the Benefit?

Special Monthly Pension (SMP) may be paid to eligible Veterans and surviving spouses who—

Need the regular aid and attendance of another
person to help them with daily activities
OR
Are very limited in their ability to leave their home


Two Categories of SMP

Aid and attendance (A & A) is one type of SMP allowance available. You will be considered in need of regular A & A if you:

Are blind or so nearly blind as to have corrected visual acuity of 5/200 or less, in both eyes, or concentric contraction of the visual field to 5 degrees or less
Are a patient in a nursing home because of mental or physical incapacity
Require the care or assistance of another person to help you with things such as
Dressing
Bathing
Eating
Getting to the bathroom

Housebound is another type of SMP allowance available. Medical evidence must show that your disabilities—

Confine you to your home
AND
Will remain with you throughout your lifetime"


i retreat back to the trunk