January 1, Veteran Gun Rights: Shocking Reactions from the Biden Administration!

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy, known among Second Amendment advocates as the “veteran gun ban,” is on the verge of losing its funding in the new spending bill. This development has drawn criticism from the Biden administration, which, despite supporting the broader omnibus, has criticized the provision and pledged to explore other avenues to prevent firearms from falling into the “wrong hands.”

The VA currently sends the names of veterans deemed incapable of managing their VA financial benefits to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

“The VA is acting totally unconstitutional in this veteran de-armament process. This is illegal, unconstitutional and should have never been done,” Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA), stated in an interview.

The GOA has been lobbying Congress to defund this policy in the near term and has urged its supporters to contact their members of Congress to “repeal the veteran gun ban.” The organization claims that this policy has already “disarmed 250,000 Americans.”

“These are not adjudicated cases,” Johnston emphasized. “These are not insane veterans. These are people who have had trouble with their health or might need someone to manage their finances.”

Despite the VA’s defense of the program, citing its potential to prevent veteran suicide, Johnston argues that it’s counterproductive. He believes that veterans will be hesitant to seek mental health counseling if they face any repercussions.

“This contributes to veteran suicide as they will be reluctant to seek care at the VA,” Johnston said. “The VA is stigmatizing mental health.”

Johnston also warned that if a federal agency can disarm veterans, it could potentially disarm any other Americans who have sought therapy or are deemed unable to manage their finances.

The White House, while endorsing the larger omnibus bill, expressed criticism towards the measure concerning veterans and firearms.

“While the administration is pleased that hundreds of poison pill provisions and extreme funding cuts were rejected, the administration opposes the language included in the bill that would potentially undermine the ability of the Veterans’ Affairs Department to report a beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited under federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms,” the White House statement of administration policy reads.

“The administration remains committed to exploring every possible pathway to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them and ensure the safety of these individuals and their communities,” the statement continues.

When asked for comment, the VA referred to the White House statement.

The policy in question is part of the Brady Act, which established the instant background system. If the Veterans Benefits Administration determines that a VA beneficiary is unable to manage his or her financial affairs due to injury, disease or age-related illness, it discloses that information to NICS. This decision is based on either medical evidence or a court declaration, according to the VA.

The VA then decides whether a fiduciary should be appointed to manage the beneficiary’s benefits. The VA claims to have an administrative relief procedure that balances a beneficiary’s desire to own firearms with the safety of the veteran and family members.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a gun control advocate, expressed his potential opposition to the entire omnibus due to the gun measure.

“Republicans (and one or two Democrats) pushed for the new rider that allows, for the first time in 30 years, veterans judged by the VA to be mentally incompetent to buy guns,” Murphy tweeted. “These are very very mentally ill veterans – those at the highest risk of suicide.”

In response to Murphy’s thread, the GOA stated, “This GOA-backed provision protects at least TWENTY THOUSAND veterans from being disarmed PER YEAR. Not supporting this protection is as unpatriotic as you can get. Disgusting.”

As our loyal readers, we encourage you to share your thoughts and opinions on this issue. Let your voice be heard and join the discussion below.

Source