Key Takeaways:
1. A Department of Veterans Affairs policy, criticized as a “veteran gun ban” by Second Amendment supporters, is unlikely to receive funding in the new spending bill, despite the Biden administration’s broader support for the omnibus.
2. The policy involves reporting veterans unable to manage their VA financial benefits to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a move contested by Gun Owners of America (GOA) as unconstitutional.
3. The GOA has actively lobbied Congress to defund this policy and encouraged supporters to advocate for the repeal of the “veteran gun ban,” claiming it has disarmed 250,000 Americans.
4. Critics argue that the policy deters veterans from seeking mental health support due to fear of being disarmed, potentially exacerbating the veteran suicide crisis.
5. The White House has expressed opposition to the exclusion of this policy from the spending bill, emphasizing its commitment to preventing gun ownership by those deemed unfit under federal law.
—
A policy from the Department of Veterans Affairs, labeled by Second Amendment proponents as a “veteran gun ban,” is poised to miss out on funding in the upcoming spending bill. This development has drawn criticism from the Biden administration, which, while supportive of the larger omnibus, has pledged to seek alternative methods to restrict firearm access to those deemed unfit.
Currently, the VA reports veterans judged incapable of handling their VA financial benefits to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. This action has been vehemently opposed by Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA), who deems it unconstitutional and a violation of veterans’ rights.
The GOA has been proactive in urging Congress to withhold funding for this policy in the short term and has mobilized its supporters to push for the repeal of what it terms the “veteran gun ban,” a policy it claims has already led to the disarmament of 250,000 Americans.
Critics, including Johnston, argue that the policy not only infringes on constitutional rights but also inadvertently contributes to the veteran suicide crisis by deterring veterans from seeking necessary mental health care out of fear of losing their gun rights. This, they argue, stigmatizes mental health issues further among veterans.
The White House, in a policy statement, expressed its disappointment over the exclusion of this measure in the bill, underscoring its opposition to any language that could weaken the VA’s ability to report individuals to NICS who are federally prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms. The administration remains dedicated to exploring all avenues to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, thereby ensuring the safety of individuals and communities.
This policy is an integral part of the Brady Act, which established the instant background check system. The Veterans Benefits Administration is tasked with determining whether a VA beneficiary, due to injury, disease, or age-related illness, is incapable of managing their financial affairs, subsequently reporting this to NICS. This process includes a provision for appointing a fiduciary to manage the beneficiary’s benefits and an administrative relief procedure to balance the desire for firearm ownership with the safety of the veteran and their family.
Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a staunch advocate for gun control, has voiced his potential opposition to the entire omnibus over this gun measure, highlighting the contentious nature of the policy. He emphasizes that it would, for the first time in three decades, allow veterans deemed mentally incompetent by the VA to purchase firearms, a move he views as detrimental to those at high risk of suicide.
In response, the GOA has defended the provision, arguing that it protects at least twenty thousand veterans annually from being disarmed, labeling any opposition to this protection as unpatriotic.