Are veteran gun rights being crushed along with spent brass?

November 2, 9:51 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

5 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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And we soon reported "Military ammunition policy rescinded," where it looked, as St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann noted, like "A grassroots win for gun rights."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).