As always, I had a great time on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio show yesterday. You can listen to the segment via podcast by clicking here.
Tom brought up two things in our conversation that I'd like to get more information on, so consider this column more a request for information than a report.
He said he'd been given information that the military was once again destroying spent brass rather than selling it to ammunition manufacturers. Regular readers here will recall we've already been through all this earlier this year. Our explorations included:
"DoD under Obama squeezes already tight ammo supply"
"Ammunition controversy shows failure of mainstream media to inform gun owners"
And we soon reported "Military ammunition policy rescinded," where it looked, as St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann noted, like "A grassroots win for gun rights."
So I admit seeing this topic brought up again caught me flat-footed, especially since I've heard no chatter, seen no reports, received no tips...
Here's a document at the heart of the renewed interest:
The issue, apparently, is any spent brass not sold through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office must, per DoD regulation, be destroyed. It's not a new requirement. So the questions are, is any, how much, and why?
Or is this merely a statement of existing regulations that is not being widely practiced? I note that it centers on Ft. Campbell, which has been at the center of confusing controversy before, so it's important to note I'm trying to determine the truth, not start a new rumor.
Tom then talked about S. 669, a bill by NC Sen. Richard Burr "to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes," with the short title "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act."
What will it do?
`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.'
Per the Senate report:
S.669...would amend the criteria used by VA in reporting names of VA beneficiaries to the FBI for entry into the NICS.
It does add a level of legal protection that does not currently exist, but here's the thing: The bill was introduced in March and has only gained support from 17 cosponsors. And per Open Congress.org, the last activity was on June 16, when it was "reported to Congress without amendment." They further note:
[N]o news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number...or title...
A cursory search of the NRA website does not show this to be a front-burner issue. GOA reported on the bill in May, noting it "was recently reported favorably out of the Veterans Affairs Committee."
So my questions here are, why isn't this a front-burner issue? Why are there only 17 cosponsors? What would the arguments be against giving veterans due process, and would the majority really dare make them?
I'd like to get definitive answers to my questions for both issues and I'm asking for help. If you have knowledge on either, feel free to educate the rest of us in "comments." And if you're interested in seeking the answers, please do so and let me know what you could find out either here or via email (dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom).
Comments
Even as a vet, I ask, why should it not be necessary for anyone any government entity wishes to have their constitutionally protected rights denied not be entitled to a judicial hearing. Not merely a judicial order. After all, search warrants, especially no-knock warrents, are issued by judges all the time with no reasonable rules of evidence or public hearing.
Tinfoil hat time: without that public hearing the VA could be instrumental in assisting DHS in confining the "threat of domestic terrorism" posed by veterans. Just find a judge that will issue "orders of finding" placing that person on the prohibited persons list, then sending the BATFE teams to pick them up on weapon possession charges as a prohibited person.
It seems to me that this bill needs work before going forward.
No one should have to be subject to a rogue government regardless of vet status.
About the legislative news- I'd sure rather see old BAD "laws" removed from the books instead of new "patches" being applied to fix problems.
On the brass issue: It is my reading that the Ft. Campbell people are saying that the choice is to either have the brass examined to make sure there are no "explosives," etc. and sell it through DRMO, or they can shred it and sell it directly to a recycler. They are apparently choosing to shred, which is just stupid and wasteful. If the Ft. Campbell people are right about this, the regs need to be fixed from on high.
As to S.669: I've written about this several times. Burr's bill is a good one and there is no reason why it should not be supported and moving. It would be an excellent choice to slap onto some "must-pass" legislation coming out of the Senate. At this point, the only thing keeping this from going to the floor as a stand-alone is Harry Reid. Everyone should ping on their Senators to cosponsor this bill and ping on NRA to put some pressure behind it.
www.FirearmsCoalition.org
Well as usual I’m getting around to KABA late.
David this is an issue that burns me to the core. The mental health disqualifier is nothing more than an excuse for more gun control.
People that suffer mental illness are withdrawn for society and not the mad crazies that the anti-gun media loves to report when something bad happens.
The few people that are a danger to themselves/others should be in an appropriate facility where they can get help.
Demonizing people over a health problem is part of the NRA compromise package that today we call the 1968GCA.
David we need to put pressure on the NRA to repeal a lot of gun control.
As far as the brass issue you can add that to the info that I’m getting that HLS is buying primers. I don’t think it’s a rumor
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!