Idaho Residents Protest VA’s Decision to Seize Firearms From Veteran Labeled ‘Financially Incompetent’

By Star Fox

Idaho residents gathered outside Veteran John Arnold’s home in Priest River on Thursday to protest the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs decision to threaten seizure of Arnold’s firearms after labeling him “financially incompetent.”

Arnold claims that an error on paper work he filed with the VA shortly after having a stroke one year ago is the reason he received the label.

“If somebody else makes an error and they cause you grief they should fix it,” Arnold told KREM 2. “That’s all I want is that stuff to get fixed.”

Roughly 100 people gathered outside Arnold’s house on Thursday to show support for the veteran’s right to bear arms.

A VA inspector was set to visit Arnold Thursday but likely flaked due to the protest.

Among the protesters was State Representative Heather Scott and Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler.

“I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho,” Sheriff Wheeler said. “This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.”

“It’s absolutely amazing and it gives you a new found hope that there are still people out there ready to defend our constitution,” Idaho resident Maria Bosworth said at the protest.

It was on July 30 Arnold received a letter from the Veterans Benefits Administration which stated his firearms could be taken away because he had been labeled “financially incompetent.”

According to KREM 2 a field officer with Bonner County Veteran Services made an appearance at the gathering at Arnold’s home Thursday afternoon to announce to the crowd that the VA inspector would not be coming to Arnold’s house that day. The Veteran Service officer also said Arnold may appeal the paperwork stating he was incompetent to handle his finances.

Arnold plans to work with that officer in order to fix the error.

A serious push is underway to strip the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Just last month the LA Times reported that the Obama administration was keen on pushing gun background checks on Social Security recipients. This raised concerns that those receiving benefits, but are unwilling or unable to manage their finances, could be stripped of the right of possessing firearms.

Star Fox is a U.S. based journalist who contributes to His works have been published by recognizable alternative new sites like, and Follow @StarFoxReport

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

38 Comments on "Idaho Residents Protest VA’s Decision to Seize Firearms From Veteran Labeled ‘Financially Incompetent’"

  1. BellsNwhistles | August 7, 2015 at 9:32 am | Reply

    All medical services are part of the criminal justice system. The door opened with drug test and now any test will do.

  2. So shouldn’t the governments of all of our countries be taken in, as they are quite clearly “Financially Incompetent!!!!

  3. John C Carleton | August 7, 2015 at 3:03 pm | Reply

    A state representative and a Sheriff defending the people and doing what they are supposed to do. I was wrong, there are still good people out there in public office, but very few it seems. As for as the evil minions from the District of Columbia, are very busy doing their fathers work. They are”running to and fro on the earth, devouring whomever they may”.

    • EnditsoonLORD | August 9, 2015 at 7:12 am | Reply

      Do you really think they would have stopped them from taking his weapons if they actually tried. They were their to “show support” for this guy but that is a long way from actually standing against them and refusing to let them take his rights. How many rights have we already lost and not a single elected official, appointed judge or police officer has put themselves on the line to stop it.

  4. 2. “he Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

    The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

    A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”LA Times

    Makes sense: people who cannot manage their own affairs, due to mental illness or incompeteem ncy should not have guns, for their own protection and others.

    As for the “financially incompetent” veteran, the story has a very positive outcome: “Arnold plans to work with that officer in order to fix the error.”

    People should be protesting the lack of background checks for semi-automatic weapons in 42 states and the recent dysfunction of the existing background check system, due to lack of staff (funding) and lax enforcement.

    Mentally incompetent people should not have guns. We need to eliminate loopholes and establish strict enforcement of existing regulations: that would be far more sane and save lives.

    • Richard_Throbbin | August 9, 2015 at 6:39 am | Reply

      “People should be protesting the lack of background checks for semi-automatic weapons in 42 states” just semi-autos? Only 42 states? You do know ALL firearms purchased from a FFL dealer go through a federal NICS background check, right? You sound like a troll or meat puppet for the communist demoncrats that post on subjects you know nothing about.

      • Yes, but the loophole in the Brady act allows private sales in 42 states(8 have background checks for semi-automatic rifles) thru gun shows and online ads that hook up buyers and sellers. Since no records are required, anyone can claim to be a private seller and sell semi-automatics without background checks to anyone, criminals, gangsters, terrorists, and crazies. Each year, millions of such sales take place, and this is commonly how criminals get weapons.

        You can go online right now (or go to a gun show) and arrange to buy a semi-automatic rifle in 42 states with no background checks. Fact.

        If knowing the law is trolling, I am a troll. If making stupid remarks in ignorance of the law is trolling, you are the troll. As for “communistic demoncrats,”that is just the kind of lunatic talk of people unqualified to even own a gun.

        32 states allow sales without background checks for private sales;42 states allow sales without background checks for all guns,including semi-automatics, without background checks. That’s a fact, and whether you are aware of it or not, it’s a fact.

        “The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun-show loophole.

        The study focused on — a popular classified site similar to that facilitates private sales of firearms and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background-check compromise this spring.

        At any given time, more than 15,000 guns were for sale in those states, according to the study, and more than 5,000 of them were semi-automatic weapons. Nearly 2,000 ads were from prospective buyers asking to purchase specifically from private sellers, where no background checks are required

        . Background checks — designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill — are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.” Washingtonpost August 5, 2013.

        • Do you think “I” should have the decision whether “you” can buy a gun, or a home, or what job “you” can have or where “you” are allowed to go, and when? Or do “you” think “YOU” have those rights? “I” get to decide if “YOU” are allowed to have children or what “YOU” are allowed to eat, Of if “YOU” should get healthcare or just die? “You” think “YOU” have those rights to choose, “YOU” don’t think “I” should control “YOUR” life! BUT YOU THINK YOU SHOULD DECIDE IF I CAN HAVE A FIREARM and YOU SHOULD DECIDE IF I AM ALLOWED SELF DEFENSE. I am sick of liberals thinking they should have control of me, when they can’t even control their own lives! LIBERALS DO NOT KNOW BEST!

        • Richard_Throbbin | August 13, 2015 at 9:45 am | Reply

          “. As for “communistic demoncrats,”that is just the kind of lunatic talk of people unqualified to even own a gun.” Because I I do not agree with you and feel a political party has been corrupted by a fringe element from within I should not own firearms? Ideas like yours are the reason firearms are needed by the American populace who are qualified to own them by the laws of their states

    • EnditsoonLORD | August 9, 2015 at 7:16 am | Reply

      You are really mixed up. Who gets to determine “mental capacity”? Who gets to determine who gets tested for “mental capacity”? You are going down a very slippery slope to destruction of any rights or freedom.

      • This would be people who are unable to manage their own affairs and require someone to do it for them, as is clearly stated. Who determines when a SS recipient is unable to manage their own affairs? Ask the people, usually their family, which manages their affairs for them.

        Do you think a person who cannot manage his own affairs should be given a gun? Do you think people who require someone else to manage their affairs destroys their freedom (people who cannot manage their own affairs are already mentally incapacitated) or protects them? People in this condition (have you ever been around the kind of people we are talking about?) are not allowed to drive cars, travel on their own, etc. It’s for their own protection.

        Lack of mental capacity is easily determined: a person cannot manage their finances, cannot take care of themselves. These are people who need our love and protection: keeping guns from them is part of that caring.

        SSA states: “Sometimes, people who receive Social Security Benefits are not able to handle their own financial affairs. In those cases, and after a careful investigation, SSA appoints a relative, friend, or another individual or organization to handle their Social Security matters.

        Examples of properly disbursed benefits are:





        Medical care and insurance

        Dental care

        Personal hygiene

        Rehabilitation expenses

        If there are funds left over once the beneficiary’s current needs are met, the representative payee must save and/or invest the remaining funds in trust for the beneficiary.”

        In cases of abuse, there is a fraud hotline which will investigate. We are talking about people who are unable to take care of themselves. About 10% of SS recipients have representative payees….most are those at the end of their lives or in serious conditions of mental deterioration.

        This is hardly a slippery slope; it is a way of protecting the mentally incapacitated and those around them. The slippery slope is actually NOT keeping the mentally incapacitated from firearms, the lack of background checks for the mentally unbalanced, criminals, and terrorists, who can buy semi-automatic weapons without any background checks in 42 states.

        With 32,000 gun deaths a year, the US is already far down that slippery slope.

        Among relevant facts, the suicide rate for those 85 and older is 18.6 per 100K, far higher than the national rate of 12.6. The American Journal of Public Health points out that many of the questions that have come up about senior citizens and driving — such as those relating to memory, cognitive impairment, and judgment — apply to firearms, as well.

        “A mound of evidence tells us that risk of violent death increases immediately after the purchase of a handgun — mostly due to suicides and accidents — and remains high for at least five years. This risk, however, is particularly high among those age 65 and older.” New England Journal of Medicine

        • EnditsoonLORD | August 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm | Reply

          As a preface to my comments I must say that citing the cost and fraud of programs that shouldn’t exist as a reason for anything is a non starter.
          THESE people have nixed your argument. THEY have already ERRONEOUSLY established for themselves this persons mental capacity to the point of trying to implement their remedy and have thus proven that your faith in government preventative intervention is sorely misplaced.
          You cannot gloss over your remarks about family as I’m sure that if this person has family and were to be in that bad a state THEY would take the precautionary measures. I have seen it time and time again as family is most concerned about their relatives. Minus family their are always friends, church members, etc… who all care more than some government lackey.
          Also, this is not about “giving” anyone a gun. This is about confiscating someone’s property by order of some medical examiner’s idea of mental health. Sounds good to you today but as with every other power given to your government you will regret it later. Well, not this in particular since you hate guns but giving someone arbitrary authority to establish “mental capacity” for the purpose of ???????.
          Careful the precedence you set. Almost every government program in existence today shouldn’t be. Including Social Security. And giving the medical establishment even more power over peoples lives is repugnant to me.
          The number ONE, #1, NUMERO UNO cause of death in the United States Of America is…..drum roll……. The Medical Establishment. And all the big shootings of late have been linked to drugs prescribed by the same. Wonder how many of those suicides are caused by the same since so many elderly are drugged up to the max. So if you are so worried about lives why not protest the beast you seek to feed? Just sayin.
          If people would stop trying to do so much “good” then the world would be a better place.
          “There is a way that seems right to man but the end thereof is destruction.”

          • You comment indicates a careless reading of mine.
            Caretakers are almost always family, and almost always, they are the ones who go to SS to arrange for a representative payee. Since they are caring for the elderly, disabled person, perhaps it should be their choice whether to be armed and not left to a person unable to care for themselves.

            It’s not hard to figure out when an elderly person has lost the mental capacity to care for themselves. They lose things, they forget your name, they lose the SS check, etc. And if you don’t trust medical examiners, whom do you trust?

            A person who can’t remember where they live with a gun?

            BTW,Social Security and Medicare are the most successful government social programs in our history, no matter what you think. SS has kept hundreds of millions out of poverty. You are using a technology (the internet) developed by the government,and you probably went to government schools, use government roads daily, and depend on the government if you lose your job or have a fire or theft. If you take any prescription drugs, there is a good chance the government had a hand in the primary research out of which they were developed.

            I stand against the tyranny of government when it comes to NSA spying, CIA assassinations and economic sabotage, and US military aggression worldwide, but SS,Medicare, infrastructure, and research and development help Americans every day. Like it or not, you depend on government every day of your life.

          • EnditsoonLORD | August 9, 2015 at 6:09 pm |

            BTW, social security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes that have enslaved us and doom future generations. And no I do not depend on government for anything that has not been forced. Just because I am forced to use the tools at hand because it is you/government have made it impossible, through legislation, to survive without it does not mean it is for the better or that I owe any praise for such.
            Keeping old people alive just for the sake of living at the expense of future generations is immoral. Perhaps if more people truly had faith in God then they wouldn’t fear death to the point of sin as they do now.

          • “BTW, social security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes that have enslaved us and doom future generations.”

            Ponzi schemes do not last 70 years and have a 2.8 trillion surplus. Someone has been lying to you. The hundreds of millions
            SS has kept from poverty are hardly enslaved.

            Medicare also has a surplus, and it has helped hundreds of millions and is very beloved by most Americans.

            When you are old and someone tells you to go ahead and die,then repeat the obscene BS you are spouting here:

            God wants us to live and be healthy and to help the elderly, not push them into death, as you suggest. What sick religion do you belong to? We do not want to live because we fear death but because we have children and grandchildren and because life is good. Death will come, but until it does, let us live the best lives we can, without calling the help we give to seniors “immoral.”

            I am 74. Life has never been richer or more connected, and never have I been in a better position to teach others and to help them.

            I urge you to reject the lies you have been told about SS and Medicare (both of which are insurance programs)and to reject the sick religion which has perverted your mind and heart.

          • Our government is mentally incompetent, supports terrorism in the name of ‘regime change’ and is bankrupt, and cannot responsably manage its own money / affairs. It needs to not just disarm but to stand down from all those foreign ‘entanglements’.

            (edited for spelling)

    • #1 There is no lack of background check in 42 states! It’s federal law that ALL firearms that utilize a removable cartridge or have been manufactured after 1890, buyers must have a background check from a licensed dealer for the sale. Otherwise is just liberal crap! And speaking of you liberals, Liberalism is a recognised mental disease! “the inability to tell the truth without lying and then believing their own lies…..lack of grip on reality! Liberals live in a fantasy world of their own imagination! It’s impossible to contract, agree, or treat with them as they have no intention of keeping their word! In short! Liberals should be banned from any position that requires honesty and integrity as they have none! And NO LIBERAL should be allowed NEAR a firearm!

      • ” It’s federal law that ALL firearms that utilize a removable cartridge or have been manufactured after 1890, buyers must have a background check from a licensed dealer for the sale.” Under the Brady Act (Federal law), no background checks are required for private sales, online hookups, gunshows, etc.

        You can look up the law or see “Top 10 Frequently Asked Firearms Questions and Answers”, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ( or here is the summary from Wikipedia:” Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks of buyers to verify that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification. As of August 2013, 33 states do not require background checks for sales of firearms by private individuals.”

        Since Oregon change its law recently, only 32 states do not require background checks for any weapons. 42 that ban semi-automatic handgun sales without background checks allow them for semi-automatic rifles. The Federal law only applies to licensed dealers but not to private sales. And since no identification, records, or background checks are required, anyone can sell and anyone can buy.

        90% of the public, over 80% of gun owners, and 3/4 of NRA members support universal background checks for all gun sales but the NRA and the Republicans have blocked the will of the people.

        According to a 1999 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) these legal transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases.

        This is not liberal crap, as you say, but straight facts. Gun stores and licensed dealers must do background checks, but if you are a criminal, you go to an online hookup website or a gunshow and all you need is cash. If you can’t acknowledge the facts,you are too mentally incompetent to own a gun.

        If we already had universal background checks, why would the NRA and Republicans reject making them the law of the land?

        “The Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 andGun Show Background Check Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324, S. 843) were pending pieces of legislationin the United States 111th Congress intended to change record keeping and background check requirements for sales of firearms at gun shows, and closing the gun show loophole. These bills were not brought to the floor of either chamber for a voteThe House legislation had 112 cosponsors as of September 22, 2010, mostly Democrats, but includes Castle’s fellow Republican Main Street Partnershipmember Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL], as well as, Rep. Peter T. King [R-NY].[3] The Senate bill had 17 cosponsors as of April 15, 2010, all Democrats.” Wikipedia

        Why do Republicans oppose a bill supported by 90% of public, 80% of gunowners, and 74% of NRA members?(see survey by Republican pollster Frank Luntz). Could it be because of the money flowing in from the NRA and the threat of using it to defeat you if you cross them. Opensecrets reports the following money spent on Republicans: contributions:$ 984,000; lobbying $3,400,000, and “affiliated spending” of $28 million.
        If you have any sense at all,you will admit you were wrong and thank me for educating you with facts,sources, and the true understanding of the Brady Act. I am not holding my breath.

        • Not one word of truth has EVER come out of the “Brady Bunch” A liberal bunch of liars! And your figure of 80% and 90% are from thin air! Pure Bulls..t, Like the liberal figure of 97% (of scientists support global warming) Why don’t you quote the SPLC, another wacko-group! of leftist liars! All of you think anybody that resists Obama’s thugs is wrong! BY the way Handgun Control is now The Violence Policy Center! They got caught lying too many times, so like all liberals they don’t quit lying…they just change their name!

          • Look it up. Unlike you, I do not make claims I cannot back up with credible sources. Look up the many pools and the Frank Luntz survey. I have reported the polls exactly. What is you evidence the Brady Campaign are liars? BTW, All actual climate scientists accept that global warming is an empirical fact. The Kochs have koched our brain with propaganda. Also, I am not a liberal. You make claims without support, which is just hot air, worthless.

          • Don’t forget when you quote, The Center For American Progress is a leftist propaganda group FUNDED BY SOROS! consider the source!

      • Actually, we have a friend who is a dyed in the wool liberial, completely honest, but…. that Lack of grip on reality totally applies… they DO live in a fantasy world of their own imagination, as if how they want things to be is how it is in truth. And of course, you cant tell them otherwise. He thought that ‘arab spring’ was great….the people after all just wanted democracy, and were acting against injustice …. I told him that not good would come out of it, and we can all see what happened With Lybia, and that the military had to step in , in Egypt to seize back the country from the Islamic Brotherhood.
        LIberals live in a fantasy land where it comes to indivuals being armed enough to defend themselves. Great Britain is now asking folks to turn in their KNIVES! and the Dutch soldiers having to yell Bang! for their military exercises?!! WWII it was American sportsmen that initially armed England as they were short of military supplies, and citizens gave up their firesarms so that soldiers over there would have them.
        We the people value our freedom and don’t need the Feds nanny stating us like the Europeans do with their own countries.

    • You are being naive.

      Imagine an elderly person – whose son or daughter offers to take over the paying of bills, etc. That requires a power of attorney or the like in order to sign checks and the like.

      This will qualify as ‘incompetence’ to these bozos…

  5. InalienableWrights | August 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm | Reply

    Where were these stupid bastards in 1968? They still are not even standing for the rights that were taken then under the 1968 gun control act. Are people stupid or what?

    • “The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA orGCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.” What rights were infringed?

  6. That’s our own money that went into the SS and medicare funds, and we SHOULD be able to benefit from them. THat being said there is no surplus…its on paper only, because the embezzlers in Gov. have constantly raided the fund (if they were civilians they would be in jail for that) for offsetting their deficate spending, including the vast costs of all those wars and money give aways to just about everyone other than the US citizen. The run up in debt is HUGE!!!

  7. That’s just being a troll.
    Dale Ruff is a liberal, that’s all. Doesn’t understand that gun laws are of themselves intrinsically unconstitutional. Doesn’t realize that the original gun control act was modeled exactly from Hitler’s one to disarm the German citizenry before he went to war and threw the Jewish population in work camps.

    • Hitler,s German Weapons Act of 1938 expanded and deregulated guns for 99% of the population. You are proudly brainwashed. For more tips on how to blame liberals,which I am not, read Mein Kampf. Hitler called anyone who disagreed with him a liberal and blamed them for everything. All fascists do . look it up. I will waste no more time with fascist ignorance and propaganda.

    • Before Hitler. Threw the Jews into the death camps,he threw in liberals, social democrats, and other leftists like labor leaders,Marxists,etc.

      • Exactly, And in EAST Germany they taught that! But in West Germany the Zionists got to write their new constitution and all of their laws. So that was hidden! Think, the conditions are almost the same here now, and ripe for another Hitler! (The communists overturning our whole way of life and destroying our economy and subverting our electoral system) Hitler got the support of the people by killing all of the communists! Most of us would welcome that right now! But how to stop the “savior” before it goes too far? And the “Savior” is NOT the illegal alien who calls himself Obama! I would guess he is the sacrifical goat!

  8. First, Bragging about your education, usually ID’s you as a very liberal academic, those who live in a fantasy academic world. Even trying to reason with your type is impossible! By your actions it seems that you have Alinksi’s book at hand, as you revert to it and the usual leftist tactics! Quoting leftist propaganda sites and leftist speakers , and twisting other sources! Also the tactic of demanding “proof” links from leftist sites! There are quite a few of your ilk, and we begin to recognize you when we read your posts (although you would prefer that , like the liberal media, all OTHER posts be banned) You believe in “freedom of speech” ONLY when it’s YOUR viewpoint! WE have watched your useful idiots interrupting meetings, and heard THEIR viewpoints ” only we liberals have freedom of speech”. Anyway for you, some COMMON SENSE: It seems that over 88% of Americans own guns, so in that they bought them, paid good money for them and have resisted CONFISCATION, No thinking person believes that ALL OF THEM WANT CONFISCATION. And as most of them are smarter than you, they realize from history, that registration (and all of your plans necessarily call for registration) is followed by confiscation, and then by tyranny, then by genocide! And as this administration is rank with communists and muslims, genocide is a certainty! All the preparations for complete tyranny are almost in place! The usurper is totally ignoring the law as are the czars he has appointed to destroy our economy. Your “newspeak” words like Reasonable regulations, sustainable anything, and consensus, are twisted to have new meanings Reasonable means anything ONLY YOU want……..Sustainable means NOTHING, completely banned,……..consensus means: ONLY YOU AGREE not the majority! Sort of like you using in the past, UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT It really means only WE disarm and our enemies don’t! WE know who are ENEMIES ARE it’s YOU AND YOUR ILK! Now your turn: as a liberal I expect accusations of “you are stupid, you are ignorant, you drink the koolade, and don’t forget “the great unwashed”, The standard actions of a liberal to somebody who doesn’t agree with them!

  9. Don’t I see your posts in The Naples News ??

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.