Veterans' gun rights sticky issue in defense bill
WASHINGTON (AP) - Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.
"I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us," Schumer said. "If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun."
Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran's name in the Criminal Background Check System.
A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year's version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn's amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.
"All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution," Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.
Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VA's policy doesn't appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Still, the legislation over the years has attracted strong support from the National Rifle Association and various advocacy groups for veterans.
"We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.
The NRA did not respond to queries from the AP about Coburn's latest effort.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA's current policy reasonable.
"We're talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they're unable to manage their own affairs," Gross said. "If you're deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that's likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill."
Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said veterans with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others are possibly being barred from gun ownership. The current restrictions might even be a disincentive for veterans to seek needed treatment, he said.
"We want to remove these stigmas for mental health treatment. It's a combat injury," Tarantino said. "They wouldn't be doing this if you were missing your right hand, so they shouldn't be doing it if you're seeking treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder or traumatic brain injury."
VA officials have told lawmakers they believe veterans deemed incompetent already have adequate protections.
For example, they said, veterans can appeal the finding of incompetency based on new evidence. And even if the VA maintains a veteran is incompetent, he can petition the agency to have his firearm rights restored on the basis of not posing a threat to public safety.
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.
"I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us," Schumer said. "If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun."
Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran's name in the Criminal Background Check System.
A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year's version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn's amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.
"All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution," Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.
Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VA's policy doesn't appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Still, the legislation over the years has attracted strong support from the National Rifle Association and various advocacy groups for veterans.
"We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.
The NRA did not respond to queries from the AP about Coburn's latest effort.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA's current policy reasonable.
"We're talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they're unable to manage their own affairs," Gross said. "If you're deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that's likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill."
Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said veterans with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others are possibly being barred from gun ownership. The current restrictions might even be a disincentive for veterans to seek needed treatment, he said.
"We want to remove these stigmas for mental health treatment. It's a combat injury," Tarantino said. "They wouldn't be doing this if you were missing your right hand, so they shouldn't be doing it if you're seeking treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder or traumatic brain injury."
VA officials have told lawmakers they believe veterans deemed incompetent already have adequate protections.
For example, they said, veterans can appeal the finding of incompetency based on new evidence. And even if the VA maintains a veteran is incompetent, he can petition the agency to have his firearm rights restored on the basis of not posing a threat to public safety.
The whole regulatory side of gun ownership is so messed up, that little tweaks like that are not going to make any difference. Its like arguing if printing 'behave yourself' on milk cartons would solve the problem of overcrowded jails.
Â
My solution is:
1. Educate the public on how to handle firearms safely and legally regardless of if you plan to carry concealed or not.
2. Simplify the laws (do not allow local governments to further restrict the federal laws), so that public could follow them and police could enforce them
Â
This would not solve the problem of criminals owning the weapons (there is no solution to that), but it will help to address the issues with irresponsible gun ownership.
 @Julie No it would not help "address the issues with irresponsible gun ownership". You cannot "educate" irresponsible individuals not to be irresponsible. If that were possible, many of society's problems would go away.
Here's a better question... Should you have to ask a fascist government permission to exercise your NATURAL BORN RIGHT to protect yourself... heck no, but the fascist police state wants to dissarm everyone incrimentally . Remember that the second amendment was put there for the people to be armed AGAINST a tyrannical government that would overtax and crush thier rights... remember that.
Unfortunately our government is targeting veterans as the new terrorist and making them the enemy even though they served our country and "protected" americans:
Â
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
Â
"The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this departmentâs Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,â Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.
 @portlandborn83 Yep. They start with veterans as they've stated all along.. and then they'll move to take guns or prevent ownership on all sorts of trivial grounds.
@portlandborn83 Yep, police state USSA.
"Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?"
Â
Because it involves a fine young local man with whom I have been working, I don't want to go into specifics but we have to be careful here. This cannot be turned into a political issue!
Â
Some people, who have suffered certain types of traumatic brain injuries, are not safe with firearms. I've had to turn away two flying students because of TBI. You do not want them flying airplanes and so, by extension, you don't want them around firearms. Trust me. It's not their fault, but I fear for them, their family and their community. Qualifying that against those people's 2nd Amendment is beyond our means.
Â
My grandfather suffered a brain injury in World War II and PTSD afterward but he served the MCSD Reserves for 25 years and hunted along China Hat Road every season his heart could hold out. What hippie unconstitutional commie pacifist POS would have been the one to go tell him to turn over his hunting rifle because the Gestapo cracked his skull? Raise your hand and say your name.
Â
Another family elder of mine has a live grenade. I've seen it. He got it at St. Lo, along with his Purple Heart, where he was captain of an infantry company. (Not the one in the movie, but, his family lives here too.)Â He invented things but his wife managed all of the family matters and kept him sane at night and called my grandfather when she couldn't. Veterans aren't suppose to have grenades, but, if you want his, some fool is going to have to Go And Take It from him. Now get off my lawn, hippie!
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @Playanekes Actually the PTSD and financial affairs are all just red herrings. They will create all sorts of justifications for barring ownership, starting with veterans, and eventually it will be rolled out for everyone.
Â
There has been a concerted efford by homeland security to demonzied returning vets, but the reality they want to bar everyone from buying a gun.
My question would be: "What is going to stop them from getting a gun illegally, or from a relative?"Â In addition, the US Military has gang members who have come home loaded with knowledge of assault tactics and use them against other gangs and police. Not alot said about that though.