Skip to main content

.40 caliber semi-automatic pistol
Over the past several years, four unsuccessful attempts have been made to turn the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act into law. Last week, one of its 21 co-sponsors in the Senate, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, tried to attach it as amendment to the defense appropriations bill. It momentarily "threatened to become the biggest sticking point" in getting that $631 billion bill passed. It appears Coburn will give up that effort, but seek to add the amendment to some other bill.

At issue is whether a veteran who has been found unable to handle his or her financial affairs should have the right to own a gun. The Department of Veterans Affairs frequently assigns someone else, often a family member, to handle a veteran's finances, including his or her government pension and benefits. This triggers a report to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that the veteran is "incapacitated." Under the law, any such person, veteran or not, is barred from buying or owning guns. The law also applies to family members living under the same roof.

Coburn, as well as the four Democratic co-sponsors of the amendment—who include Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana—argue that veterans should not lose their right to own firearms simply because they can't handle their finances. The bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives The House version of the bill, S. 1707, which passed last year, would require that the right to purchase or possess guns could only be taken away if a judicial authority rules a veteran to be dangerous.

That's not how Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York sees things. On the Senate floor last week, he said:

"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."
The hang-up would seem to be what is meant by "judged." Coburn and his co-sponsors aren't happy with VA bureaucrats making the rulings and want veterans to "at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution."

As would be expected, the National Rifle Association supports anything that means more guns in more hands, so it's behind the amendment. Among the veterans groups that support it is the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. The organization's chief policy officer, Tom Tarantino, told the Associated Press that some veterans afflicted by traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others may be unfairly being kept from possessing guns. He says these are combat injuries, and nobody who lost a hand in combat would be barred from gun ownership.

A lousy comparison, as Tarantino surely knows. To be sure, TBI and PTSD affects each individual uniquely, which the VA obviously recognizes. Of the 127,000 veterans whom the VA has placed in the mentally "incapacitated" category since 1998, only 185 have appealed to get their names taken off the NICS registry. That seems to indicate the current approach works just fine as it is. The vast majority of veterans with TBI and PTSD have not been judged incapacitated and those that have are afforded an avenue by which to prove they were misjudged. Given the high rate of suicide among veterans and the potential for other tragedies when guns are close at hand for people who have been ruled unable to handle their own affairs, the law as it now stands ought to be considered a reasonable dose of preventive medicine.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:45 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site