Due process: it's for veterans, too

May 20, 4:30 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

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

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

    Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

Back in March, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) introduced S. 669, the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act."  S. 669 would, basically, restore the requirement for due process in denying veterans the right to buy firearms.  Here's the summary:

3/23/2009--Introduced.

Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act - Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms 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.

One might think that there would be no need for such a law--that surely, there already exists a requirement for a court order to determine that a military veteran is so mentally imbalanced that he must be denied the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

That, unfortunately, would be wishful thinking.  Since the early 90's, the mere fact that a veteran needs help balancing his checkbook has been used as grounds to designate him a "prohibited person," in terms of purchasing a firearm.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is expected on Thursday to advance the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, which is being co-sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

The legislation would overturn a section of the law that prohibits veterans who are unable to manage their finances from obtaining a firearm. The bill maintains a 1990s gun restriction on veterans found to be a danger to themselves and others.

The bottom line is that the inability to manage one's financial affairs without assistance has nothing to do with one's right to effective self-defense.  The Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke sees it differently, of course:

Asked about the legislation, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, sighed. “I don’t understand why it’s needed,” Helmke said, adding that there’s an appeals process for veterans who feel they have been unfairly denied guns.

Exactly, Paul--nothing says "shall not be infringed" like subjecting oneself, hat in hand, to an appeals process.  Success in negotiating such a process will most likely require the assistance of an attorney, I imagine.  Just what "veterans who are unable to manage their finances" need.

The Politico article I quoted seems to imply that "pro-gun Democrats" will find it difficult to not support this bill.  That, perhaps, is true.  It seems to me, though, that support for the bill has less to do with being "pro-gun," than lack of support has to do with being anti-veteran.

That, I can't help but think, would make it not only evil, but bad politics, as well.