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.
Anytime gun ownership is discussed it invariably turns into a sticky issue. The gun owners want to protect their right to own guns and the other side want to protect the population from the owners that should not own guns. The 2nd Amendment sets a powerful precedence that makes it almost impossible to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unfit.Â
Â
I am a gun owner, I am also a progressive, liberal Democrat and I've had Republicans tell me I was unfit to own a gun. But in the early 1970s Uncle Sam didn't care what my politics were and they trusted me with two weapons; 1911 Colt .45 sidearm and a M16 rifle. When I got out of the Army I was not considered unfit to own a gun. I do trust the judgment of the military and if they feel an individual could pose a danger if armed that individual should be placed on a list to keep them from buying and owning a gun.
Â
"The suicide rate was higher in the military than the general population for the first time in 2012, with 30 incidents per 100,000, compared to 24 per 100,000 for a demographically comparable civilian population." ref cited Defence-GovExec.com And with each passing month the number of military/ex-military suicides are almost double than the month previous. That is a powerful statistic.
This stinks. How does being unable to mange your finances make you unfit for gun ownership? Now before the anti-gun crowd starts fussing I think someone who is deeply traumatized, suicidal, homicidal, or displays violent schizophrenic behavior should not own a gun. This is a slippery slope to start down, who determines this the VA? They can't even take care of our vets properly so how are they supposed to determine who gets on the list? Is there a way to get off this no buy list? There is too many things that do not add up in this proposal that I don't think it was though out at all, just a way to see if they can start cracking down on our 2nd amendment rights, shame on them for starting with the veterans. Not really surprised though when politician on both side say things like this:
Â
In a joint letter to the budget âSuper-Committeeâ signed by the chairmen and ranking members of the Veteranâs Affairs Committees of both the House and Senate, it was stated âwe believe no constituency better understands the challenge America faces, and no constituency is better suited to, again, lead by example by putting country first.â The letter was signed by Sen. Patty Murray(D-WA), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), and Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA). Veterans are being called upon by Congress to sacrifice for the country yet again. Both parties seem willing to let it happen.
This is just the beginning folks.  One foot in the door, then another!!!
"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.
Â
Sounds reasonable.Â
Pure crap. Just because one isn't able to manage money wisely doesn't make them a threat to themselves or anyone else. If that were the case, Every Single Person who bounces checks, falls behind on bills, or files for bankruptcy would end up on the same list.
Â
Our Constitution guarantees the right to defend one's self and own firearms to do so. Our veterans fought to preserve that document so that we may all live under it's guarantees. Managing financial affairs should not be a 'qualifier' to the rights we have guaranteed to us.
Schumer doesn't care one way or another about veterans; he is a known anti-gun twit and he will use any method he can to ban gun ownership.Â
Â
There are rules and procedures for insuring that people (including veterans) purchasing a firearm can do so legally. The BATF has procedures, and the states have procedures. This BS by Schumer is just another move to take away the rights of citizens, veterans or not.
 @Veteran Mentally unstable people shouldn't own guns. Why not arm an entire mental hospital and let them all loose?
 @Larry*X*K @Veteran Being incapable of handling monetary affairs doesn't make one "mentally unstable". If it did, then anyone who has a "financial advisor" could be considered unstable. Anyone who is truly unstable enough to be a hazard to themselves or others should not (& currently cannot) own a gun.
@Larry*X*K @Veteran if a vet files for bankruptcy he can be placed on that list. brankruptcy shows you can't handle your money wisely. that is in the bill. read it! so if it works there. then any one that had a BK could lose their rights too.
It is true that some soldiers that come back from combat area a little unstable. Some remain that way and some recover. Should they have to not only fight betting their feet back on the ground but a government mob as well before being able to have their American rights back? This give me the feel of BIG BROTHERISM in the making. ObUma is anti gun anyway but do we need something like this along with his twisted ideas as well????
The military puts some soldiers into the rubber gun squad because of mental health issues. It is a logical extention to continue that safeguard for everyone concerned. There should be a way to get your name off the list if you get better but it makes no sense to give gun rights to people that are already a danger to themselves. Let's not make this an emotional issue.
@memory9 Actually, we already have these rights, and as long as the veteran has not committed a crime or action that would eliminate their ability to own firearms, there should be no ryubber stamp that allows that right to be done away with. This could only be a take-away. There needs to be a process to take them away, and the onus needs to be on the government to document it. Innocent until proven guilty. Your suggestion as to "get your name off the list" is laughable, especially using the example of the "no-fly" list. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.