The VA isn't a court. They don't have the authority to strip anyone of their rights. One could argue that because of the nature of the VA, particularly as a healthcare provider, they're in a position to petition an actual court for that, but the truth is that they themselves don't have any constitutional authority to do so.

Of course, there's no constitutional authority for their existence, so...

However, the VA has a history where they've taken it upon themselves to basically strip veterans who need help with their finances of their gun rights.

This is something that the legislature has been trying to address, with absolutely no help from Democrats to speak of. Nothing about this is surprising. Adherence to an anti-gun position seems to be almost a requirement in Democratic politics these days. 

What is surprising is that two Republicans joined them in a recent vote to address this injustice.

Reps. Michael Bost (R-IL) and Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa) on Wednesday voted against Rep. Eli Crane’s (R-AZ) amendment to restore veterans’ gun rights.

Crane’s amendment dealt with the ongoing problem of bureaucrats in various parts of the government flagging military veterans to prevent them from purchasing and/or possessing firearms. 

...

Crane pushed an amendment to restore the rights of veterans who have been targeted by this and similar practices and Reps. Bost and Radewagen voted against it, siding with Democrats who wanted to see it delayed.

Radewagon is a delegate, so a non-voting member of the House. Bost is still a voting member, though I'm currently debating whether that's a good thing or not.

Breitbart didn't report any commentary on why these two voted for the delay. Then again, it's not like there's going to be an excuse any of us would tolerate.

The problem, as I noted, is that there's no due process involved. With the VA, they decided that anyone who needed a fiduciary to help them with their finances was someone who couldn't be trusted with firearms. While sometimes, that may well be the case--someone who has general competency issues, for example, should probably be adjudicated as incompetent--the truth is that bureaucrats aren't the people to make that decision.

All a vote would do is right a profound wrong.

Now tell me, is there any excuse you'd tolerate for opposing that, even as a delay?

The truth of the matter is that Democrats would revolt if we tried anything similar with a group they're protective of. Suppose you try to determine that someone who agrees to start the gender transition of their child is too irrational to vote, for example. In that case, they'd lose their minds, especially if you handed that authority to a bureaucrat to determine for themselves.

And yet, here we sit, watching it happen to veterans. These are people who served, many in combat where they witnessed horrors most of those members of Congress voting to delay couldn't dream of in their worst nightmares. They saw those things and they came home changed. Different.

Not all of them are well enough to function in today's society, but the vast majority of them are. The idea that some unelected bureaucrat without absolutely no legal training can just drop a name in the NICS database is an affront to all this nation stands for.

And if two Republicans are going to join Democrats in trying to kick the can down the road on ending this, we've got a big freaking problem.