These stories should trouble us. We want security not only for the President and our top officials, but also for ourselves and our families. Yet as a nation we make it very easy for dangerous people to arm themselves.
For example, several events attended by President Obama this past summer featured protesters armed with assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. At least one protester had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon even though he had recently been released from jail.
The Fort Hood shooter had been issued a concealed carry permit by Virginia. This killer raised a number of red flags before the shooting, including several apparent contacts with a radical cleric “sympathetic” to Al Qaeda. Yet he was able to walk into a Texas gun store, pass a minimal computer background check, and easily arm himself with a “cop killer” pistol (capable of firing armor-piercing bullets) and formerly banned high-capacity ammunition magazines which allowed him to fire 20 rounds at a time without re-loading.
Even if the Fort Hood killer had been placed on the “Terrorist Watch List” because of his reportedly erratic behavior and connections to radical ideology, our weak gun laws would not have been an obstacle to his gun purchases.
I really find it amazing that some people want to argue with that. But supporting this, is just too much.
And now some elected officials actually want to make it easier for “mentally incapacitated” veterans to get guns. Legislation sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.) would give immediate access to guns to over 100,000 veterans already found to be “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”
Sen. Burr wants to take these individuals out of the “prohibited purchaser” category in the Brady background check system even though professional Veterans Affairs personnel made those competency determinations after hearing medical evidence and following a rigorous system which protects due process.
One of our frequent commenters responded to this on the HuffPo posting of it by offering Senator Burr's comments on Health Care. I just couldn't see the connection, although the objection was clear, perhaps Jay will explain.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb: "One of our frequent commenters responded to this on the HuffPo posting of it by offering Senator Burr's comments on Health Care. I just couldn't see the connection, although the objection was clear, perhaps Jay will explain."
ReplyDeleteOops -- bad URLs. Here's Senator Burr's actual relevant statements:
Setting the record straight on my bill to protect veterans' Second Amendment rights
Posted by: Sen. Richard Burr
There has been a good deal of talk lately about my bill, S. 669, to protect the Second Amendment rights of our nation’s veterans. Much of the ‘discussion’ has been inaccurate, some of it deliberately so. In fact, some newspapers (the Charlotte Observer and the Baltimore Sun) have run disingenuous editorials in opposition to my bill, claiming that I want to provide firearms to mentally unstable individuals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me explain the reason I introduced this bill. Under current rules, a veteran who goes to the VA for help and is appointed a fiduciary to help manage their own finances is immediately reported, along with members of their household, to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS list (alongside convicted felons) and are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. To date, the names of over 100,000 veterans have been arbitrarily included on this list despite the fact that they have not been proven to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.
My bill seeks to do one thing, and one thing only: provide that a judge or other judicial authority determine whether a veteran poses a potential danger to themselves or others before they are denied the ability to own or purchase a firearm.
S. 669 was approved by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on a 14-0 vote earlier this year. I hope that critics of my bill will actually read it before deliberately misrepresenting it in the press. While the Administration worries about due process for terrorists, we should instead be concerned about due process for our veterans. They risked their lives to uphold the Constitution and they deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.
Here's Burr's actual relevant statements (continued):
ReplyDeleteProtecting the Second Amendment Rights of Veterans
A response to the editorial boards of the Charlotte Observer and the Baltimore Sun
Just as the public expects elected officials to read the text of bills before they pass judgment on them, your editorial board should do the same. Yet it is clear that you did not read S. 669, the “Veterans’ Second Amendment Protection Act,” before you published your editorial.
Here’s the text of my bill in its entirety: “In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.”
Allow me to share with you some facts about my legislation now that you’ve had the opportunity to read it.
Nothing in my bill exempts veterans from the Brady Act, nor does it seek to provide guns to the mentally ill. Rather, it requires a judicial process to be used as a condition for satisfying the Brady requirements. Veterans—those who fought in defense of our freedoms—are the only recipients of federal benefits who are automatically deprived of a constitutional right solely because they’ve been appointed a fiduciary, regardless of the reason.
Second, you wrote that it is an exercise in “common sense” to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Even a quick reading of my bill would indicate that the process it proposes would require the very thing you and I find entirely sensible before a constitutional right is abridged: a finding of dangerousness by a judge, rather than an assumption by a bureaucrat. I would hope you would agree that due process is just plain “common sense.”
Third, you wrote that most states ban gun sales to those with mental disabilities. True, but were you also aware that most states require some kind of judicial authority to render that judgment? My legislation proposes a similar judicial rendering in the case of veterans.
Fourth, you wrote that it would be madness to ignore the fact that some individuals pose a risk to themselves or others. I agree, and had you read the bill you would have seen it is the centerpiece of the rational process my legislation would put in place.
Fifth, you wrote that it is “bizarre” that I’m standing behind my legislation. I do stand by my bill, just as the full Veterans’ Affairs Committee did last Congress, and just as a unanimous Committee panel did again this Congress. Furthermore, the bill enjoys the support of numerous veterans’ organizations.
Sixth, in an ironic (and I am sure unintentional) endorsement of my legislation you wrote, “Although an inability to manage one’s finances is far from a perfect measure of dangerousness, it’s not an especially capricious standard either.” My bill attempts to improve the existing process, which, by your own admission, is “far from perfect.”
The bill described by your editorial is far different than the bill I introduced. I am more than willing to engage in an honest debate on my legislation; perhaps it is too much to expect that an editorial board would engage in such a debate and read the plain legislative text of my bill.
One has to wonder whether the paper would have run this editorial if the Social Security Administration used the same standard as the VA to deprive all seniors who need a fiduciary of the Second Amendment right. The answer is probably not. They might even defend the Second Amendment rights of seniors with the same enthusiasm with which they exercise their own First Amendment rights.
For example, several events attended by President Obama this past summer featured protesters armed with assault rifles
ReplyDeleteAn Assault Rifle is capable of full-auto fire--I thought the guns in question were merely semi-automatic rifles? And even with fully automatic rifles, nobody was hurt?
and semi-automatic pistols.
...the most common kind...
At least one protester had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon even though he had recently been released from jail.
What level of crime should revoke a license?
and easily arm himself with a “cop killer” pistol (capable of firing armor-piercing bullets)
...nevermind that he was unable to purchase those bullets, and wasn't shooting people in armor, making this whole line irrelevant.
Even if the Fort Hood killer had been placed on the “Terrorist Watch List” because of his reportedly erratic behavior and connections to radical ideology, our weak gun laws would not have been an obstacle to his gun purchases.
My understanding was that they had watched him, then decided to take no further action. Anyone who is ever suspected of anything should be forever banned?
What would prevent an anti-gun bureaucrat putting all known members of the NRA and any pro-gun activist on the watch list?
“mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”
It appears that this would apply to someone loosing consciousness due to a battlefield injury. In fact, it appears that it would be possible for someone who won a medal for heroism to lose their right to own guns in the same incident.
What a crappy way to treat a combat veteran.
At least one protester had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon even though he had recently been released from jail.
ReplyDeleteAnd? Had he been CONVICTED of any crime that would disqualify him from firearms ownership?
If not then who cares?
I admit that might have been a bit of anti-gun spinning to say, "At least one protester had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon even though he had recently been released from jail."
ReplyDelete