Buckeye Reporter

Earlier this month, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a legislative hearing on several proposed bills that would alter procedures and standards for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA, established by Congress, operates under statutes that guide and fund its activities.

During the hearing, VA officials informed members of Congress that the department “could not” and “would not” comply with proposed legislation aimed at addressing its focus on gun control. This stance has been reported by the NRA-ILA, which has long advocated against what it considers unauthorized gun control activities by the VA.

The origins of this issue trace back to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which prohibits certain categories of individuals from receiving or possessing firearms. Among these are those adjudicated as "mental defective." A federal appellate case clarified that this term referred to individuals who never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity, contrasting them with those whose faculties were impaired by mental disease.

However, in 1996, under the Clinton administration, ATF regulations broadened this definition to include persons deemed potentially irresponsible and dangerous. This interpretation included beneficiaries deemed mentally incompetent by the VA, leading to their inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) without judicial findings of dangerousness.

Congress has since passed measures requiring such adjudications to include judicial findings. The Consolidated Appropriations Act now mandates that beneficiaries cannot be reported to NICS as "mental defectives" without such findings.

Despite these legislative changes, VA officials maintained at the hearing that they would not comply with congressional mandates if they conflicted with their interpretation of "mental defective." One bill discussed was the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act of 2024 (SARA), intended to correct what proponents see as misapplication of law by ensuring unauthorized records are removed from NICS.

VA's testimony stated: “VA’s reporting was not improper. Mentally incompetent beneficiaries are prohibited persons under the Gun Control Act pursuant to the ATF’s regulatory definition.” They further asserted that compliance with SARA would require erroneously notifying the Attorney General about incorrect reporting practices.

Members of Congress expressed frustration and concern over VA's position. They emphasized that compliance with laws passed by Congress is mandatory for executive agencies. The VA also indicated its intent to participate in red flag gun confiscation proceedings against veterans and insisted on testifying in protective order cases involving veterans.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have also addressed issues relevant to VA's authority in gun control matters. The court rejected disarming individuals based solely on lack of responsibility while affirming temporary disarmament for credible threats to safety.

The hearing underscored ongoing tensions between legislative directives and administrative interpretations within federal agencies like the VA. Members have sent a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough seeking assurance that the department will comply with SARA if enacted into law.

© 2024 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced but not for commercial purposes.

___