Senator wants veterans' names removed from gun list

Status
Not open for further replies.

anarchris

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
114
Senator wants veterans' names removed from gun list
By Barbara Barrett | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Since a severely mentally ill man rampaged through Virginia Tech last year, killing 32 people before turning a gun on himself, Congress and several states have been working to tighten rules on who can legally purchase a firearm.

But a push in the U.S. Senate would remove from the national background check the names of 115,000 veterans who have been declared "mentally defective" — and would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from adding any more names unless the agency goes through a judicial system.

The problem, says the senator behind the efforts, is that the veterans were added not because they were a danger to themselves or to others, but because they were assigned fiduciary guardians by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"This is a constitutional issue," said Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. "The (national database) is for criminals, not for folks who have troubles handling their own financial affairs."

His bill would allow the agency to submit only the names of those who have been declared dangerous by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority.

Burr said he wants to protect Second Amendment rights but isn't trying to give guns to dangerously ill people.

"Clearly, we want to (include) people that reach the point of mental instability where access to firearms is not an option," Burr said.

Burr succeeded this summer in getting his measure tacked to a popular veterans health bill now headed to the full Senate floor.

But while Burr is supported by the National Rifle Association and several veterans groups, others fear the move could lead to an increase in gun deaths. Gun-control organizations argue that veterans have higher rates of suicide than non-veterans and so may be more at risk.

"To take this group out of the system and give them ready access to guns, that's just not a good idea," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. "It's a sad fact that veterans have increased risk of suicide and increased risk of mass shootings, but that's reality."

In the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs has sent about 115,000 names to the National Instant Criminals Background Check System, known as the NICS, under an agreement with the FBI.

The names include those veterans adjudicated mentally incompetent or who have been committed to a mental institution, but not others who are mentally ill, according to the Department of Veteran Affairs.

The national log is the database that gun shops use to check for names of those trying to legally purchase firearms. It was set up as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993.

Mark Seavey, a lobbyist for the American Legion, supports Burr's proposal and said it isn't right to lump veterans with financial troubles into the group of people on the no-buy list.

He also worries about broadly stereotyping veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder but still have control of their affairs.

"We didn't want to stigmatize people," Seavey said. "It should be anybody who actually is a threat to themselves or others. I think veterans as individuals ought to be given the constitutional rights they fought for."

With the highly publicized suicides of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with increasing reports of warriors suffering from mental trauma, the issue of taking away Second Amendment rights is sensitive to politicians.

In debating Burr's measure recently, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said he wants to fully respect veterans and their service.

"I feel an obligation to veterans to respect what they've done and what they've given and how they've suffered," Rockefeller said in a meeting of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. "And it just causes me not to want to oppose the ... amendment. In fact I very strongly don't want to oppose it."

Only Democratic Sens. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who is the committee's chairman, and Patty Murray of Washington opposed the bill -- and then only because they wanted a fuller hearing process.
 
"I feel an obligation to veterans to respect what they've done and what they've given and how they've suffered," Rockefeller said in a meeting of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. "And it just causes me not to want to oppose the ... amendment. In fact I very strongly don't want to oppose it."

Then don't :D

Its a sad fact that most veterans who get diagnosed with PTSD are still considered "fit for duty" in the military. IMHO fit for duty = can buy a gun. Or am I missing something here? I read the "Veterans Disarmament Act" and where it did not clearly say so, it did seem to suggest that the standards of "due process" were going to be lowered for Vets.

Glad they are finally going to fix that legislation.
 
Maybe next, for our own protection from ourselves, they can pass a bill saying;

Dentists, having a higher suicide rate(I don't know that they really do) than the general population, if they ever declare bankruptcy they forfeit their gun rights. Financial ineptness can now be used as proof of mental instability.:banghead:
 
The overall average for suicide in the armed services year over year is on par with that of non-military. It continues to amaze me that service to one's country is held in such overall disregard as though we are the aged guard dog who can no longer be trusted...
 
Wasn't the "NICS Improvement Act" HR 2640 signed into law on 1/8/08 by president Bush supposed to take care of this problem of Veterans denied by a process that didn't involve an "adjudication".

I know that is what the supporters of that bill on THR were claiming.

So, what happened?
 
"To take this group out of the system and give them ready access to guns, that's just not a good idea," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington. "It's a sad fact that veterans have increased risk of suicide and increased risk of mass shootings, but that's reality."

I love how these people can spout supposed "facts" and not be called on their lies.

I guess that's what happens when you don't believe in truth and just want to tell "both sides of the story."

Newsflash, media: there's not two sides to the truth.
 
Any more info on the bill? I think it is time to do my civic part and let my legislators know EXACTLY how I feel about this bill and how they should be voting on it :D
 
didn't the NRA promote the bill?

I didn't like the bill and neither did the GOA, this is the same bill right?
It does deny depressed Vets their rights!!! everyone swore it didn't!!!
 
This is not th efirst time the anti's have attempted this...back duribg the Clinton Reno Dept of Justice days;there was the "Eppley Memo" I referenced in an earlier post.
 
I chalk this up to politicians believing they are going to save us from ourselves.

Its amazing how the DNC and liberals whine about suspected terrorists rights and privacy because safety is not as important but when it comes to the men and women who fight and too many times give the supreme sacrifice, trash thier rights in the name of safety.

And people wonder why veterans and servicemembers vote overwhelmingly against liberals and Democrats.
 
What is Sen. Richard Burr trying to do? Either there is no substance to the problem he is trying to fix (i.e., it has been fixed already by HR2640) or there is a hole in HR2640.

I'm not sure there is much point to discuss the veteran mental health disqualification issue absent a statement from Sen. Burr about why his bill is necessary?

But I doubt the NRA was "very watchful" about release of mental health records since they supported HR2640 which gave incentives to the states to release these records for the purpose of placing a person on the NICS list of disqualified.

No more opinions are necessary - but facts are.
 
Last edited:
In debating Burr's measure recently, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said he wants to fully respect veterans and their service.

"I feel an obligation to veterans to respect what they've done and what they've given and how they've suffered," Rockefeller said in a meeting of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. "And it just causes me not to want to oppose the ... amendment. In fact I very strongly don't want to oppose it."

Hey Jay,

Taking away the gun rights of veterans doesn't play well in West Virginia.

You might actually get in trouble over this gun vote.

Take care,

LAR-15
 
What is Sen. Richard Burr trying to do? Either there is no substance to the problem he is trying to fix (i.e., it has been fixed already by HR2640) or there is a hole in HR2640.

The standard for disqualification in HR2640 is "(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs."

Burr's bill would change the disqualification as it relates to managing financial affairs from a VA determination to an adjudication in a court.
 
My Standing on PTSD is pretty simple, as it pertains to the Military. Just like with most everything else, the Military ignored the problem for years and years, and then when they finally got kicked in the ass for it, they had to do something, so they went extremely overboard. It's ridiculous. The standards they have set down now for PTSD are so bad, that THREE of my friends have been told they had PTSD and had to be sent for further evaluation, after we did a post deployment health assessment. Without getting into specifics, they ask you a bunch of questions without caring about the reason for the answers. IE: I don't like being in large crowds. I NEVER Have liked it. But now that I've come back, that means I have PTSD. My drinking is considered by the Marine Corps to qualify as "Alcohol Dependant." For the record, my Grandmother, who drinks a glass of wine or a beer a night at dinner would also classify as an alcoholic under Marine Corps Standards. Since I'm alcohol dependent, I must have PTSD.

So, No, I don't think that being diagnosed with PTSD should interfere with rights to own and carry a firearm.
 
gc70 asserts:
The standard for disqualification in HR2640 is "(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs."

It appears he is paraphrasing from HR2640, TITLE I—TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS, SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM, (c) STANDARD FOR ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS RELATED TO MENTAL HEALTH, (1) IN GENERAL, subparagraph (C) in part.

That he is quoting in part gives a misleading impression exactly contrary to the bill's intent. He didn't give the part of the material of the "(1) IN GENERAL" paragraph which pertains. The actual material, properly constructed should read
No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if . . . the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code . . .

As I've written previously (see my analysis of HR2640):
Section 101 prohibits any Federal department or agency from providing any record to the US attorney general concerning an adjudication or commitment if the adjudication or commitment has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring, or if the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law, or the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

So, I guess the question is whether the VA claims their disqualifications of veterans included the opportunity for a hearing by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" and that their adjudication wasn't "based soley on a medical finding of disability."

I'd still like to see a clear statement of what problem Senator Burr is trying to fix and what is the failing in HR2640. I'd also like to see a statement from the NRA explaining this problem.
 
Last edited:
Below is an Army times account of Sen. Burr's intention. It still isn't clear why Burr's effort is needed. HR2640 was supposed to fix all the problems and people disqualified without an adjudication that included a finding that the person was a danger to self or other were supposed to be not allowed. The claims by some were that veterans would have their names removed from the NICS list if they didn't meet the new standard.

So, what went wrong? I still don't understand.



Friday, June 27, 2008
Committee votes to protect vet gun ownership
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jun 27, 2008 6:27:14 EDT


Lists of veterans who have been assigned fiduciaries to handle financial matters on their behalf could not be used to prevent gun ownership under an amendment approved by the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday.

By voice vote, the committee attached to a veterans’ health care bill an amendment prohibiting the Department of Veterans Affairs from sharing lists of so-called “incompetent” veterans with the FBI. Only if there has been specific ruling that a veteran poses a risk to himself or others could the VA pass a name on to the FBI for inclusion in records used to make instant background checks before gun purchases, under the amendment to S 2969, the Veterans’ Health Care Authorization Act of 2008.

Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, ranking Republican on the veterans’ committee and the chief sponsor of the amendment, said the VA makes a determination of incompetence based, primarily, on whether a veteran is capable of handling his own finances. If he cannot, a fiduciary is appointed to handle their benefits.
go here for more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top