[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 87 (Thursday, May 21, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3684-H3692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information
to the Department of Justice for use by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1041
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
TRANSMITTAL OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR USE BY THE NATIONAL
INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 5501A the
following new section:
``Sec. 5501B. Prohibition on transmittal of certain
information to the Department of Justice for use by the
national instant criminal background check system
``The Secretary may not transmit to any entity in the
Department of Justice, for use by the national instant
criminal background check system established under section
103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C.
40901; Public Law 103-159; 107 Stat. 1541), personally
identifiable information of a beneficiary, solely on the
basis of a determination by the Secretary to pay benefits to
a fiduciary for the use and benefit of the beneficiary under
section 5502 of this title, without the order or finding of a
judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent
jurisdiction that such beneficiary is a danger to themselves
or others.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5501A the following new
item:
``5501B. Prohibition on transmittal of certain information to the
Department of Justice for use by the national instant
criminal background check system.''.
SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION OF LACK OF BASIS FOR THE SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO HAVE TRANSMITTED CERTAIN
INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR
USE BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND
CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Such chapter (as amended by section 2) is
further amended by inserting after section 5501B the
following new section:
``Sec. 5501C. Notification of lack of basis for transmittal
of certain information to the Department of Justice for use
by the national instant criminal background check system
``The Secretary shall, within 30 days of the enactment of
the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, and in accordance
with section 103(e)(1)(D) of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901(e)(1)(D); Public Law 103-159;
107 Stat. 1541), notify the Attorney General that the basis
for the transmittal, on or after November 30, 1993, by the
Secretary, of personally identifiable information of a
beneficiary, solely on the basis of a determination by the
Secretary to pay benefits to a fiduciary for the use and
benefit of the beneficiary under section 5502 of this title,
to any entity in the Department of Justice, for use by the
national instant criminal background check system established
under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act (34 U.S.C. 40901; Public Law 103-159; 107 Stat. 1541),
does not apply, or no longer applies.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter (as amended by section 2) is
further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 5501B the following new item:
``5501C. Notification of lack of basis for transmittal of certain
information to the Department of Justice for use by the
national instant criminal background check system.''.
[[Page H3685]]
SEC. 4. DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
THAT A PERSON IS MENTALLY INCOMPETENT IS
INSUFFICIENT TO TREAT SUCH PERSON AS A MENTAL
DEFECTIVE.
(a) In General.--Such chapter (as amended by sections 2 and
3) is further amended by inserting after section 5501C the
following new section:
``Sec. 5501D. Determination of mental incompetence is
insufficient basis to treat a person as a mental defective
``The Secretary shall not treat a person as having been
adjudicated as a mental defective solely on the basis that
the Secretary has determined that such person--
``(1) is mentally incompetent under section 3.353 of title
38, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulation); or
``(2) requires a fiduciary under section 5502 of this
title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter (as amended by sections 2 and 3) is
further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 5501C the following new item:
``5501D. Determination of mental incompetence is insufficient basis to
treat a person as a mental defective''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1041, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 1041, as
amended, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
The choice before the House today is clear: whether those who
defended our freedom deserve the same constitutional protection as
nonveterans.
This past February, President Trump and Secretary Collins answered
that question with a resounding yes.
VA overturned a longstanding policy of automatically reporting
veterans and beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, also called NICS, simply because they needed
help managing their VA benefits.
VA reported them not because they committed a crime or because a
judge or a medical professional determined they were a danger to
themselves or others. VA reported them to NICS simply because they
needed help managing their benefits. That was the policy for over three
decades, Mr. Speaker.
I have been working on this issue for 10 years because I know that
this interpretation of the law is wrong. That is why I have long-
championed this bill, as well as my bipartisan provision in this, the
yearly VA appropriation bill, to prohibit VA's fiduciary program from
reporting veterans' names to NICS.
This is a bill about due process. Most importantly, it is about
protecting our veterans' Second Amendment rights. It is time we put a
permanent end to the practice of treating our veterans' Second
Amendment rights as an option and pass H.R. 1041.
This bill would codify the policy rider that was included in the
MILCON appropriation bill that passed the House last week.
As a veteran and sportsman, I believe it is a gross violation of due
process to say that a veteran with a fiduciary should be treated as a
second-class citizen. Our veterans raise their right hands to defend
the constitutional rights of American citizens. I know because I was
one of them, and I took that responsibility seriously.
{time} 1220
Yet, when the question came before our committee on whether it would
defend their rights, Ranking Member Takano and our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact that some Members in this
Chamber plan to defend this discriminatory practice. Generally, a
civilian cannot lose their Second Amendment rights without involvement
from a judge, but veterans did for three decades. Democrats would
prefer they continue to.
A veteran goes to the VA to ask for help, and the VA bureaucracy
answers ``yes,'' but only in exchange for your Second Amendment rights.
Mr. Speaker, that is not due process. This is an antigun, antiveteran
agenda. If a veteran poses a legitimate threat to themselves or others,
judges already have legal tools available to them. Let me say that
again. Judges already have legal tools available to them. A veteran
should receive the same rights as every other American.
There is also something else that I want to raise: the false
assumption that disabled veterans are dangerous and the harmful
assumption that the capacity to manage your finances has any bearing on
dangerousness or that you are dangerous, as well. Those sorts of
cartoon-like simplifications cause those with disabilities to face
extra hurdles when exercising their rights. It is unacceptable, and, as
a veteran, I am not going to stand for it anymore.
There is no evidence that these veterans are more dangerous to
themselves or others simply because they need help managing their
benefits. Holding veterans to the evidence-less standard is outrageous.
Frankly, it paints the veterans' mental health issues in a way that
should concern everyone. Over 200,000 veterans were reported to the
NICS list under this practice. Let me say it again: 200,000 veterans.
Secretary Collins and President Trump worked with DOJ to change that,
wiping the list clean. I want to be clear that no person, veteran or
otherwise, reported to NICS by a State judge, law enforcement agency,
or other reporting bodies for any other reason was removed.
At committee markup, Democrats also offered amendment after amendment
designed to delay and weaken this bill. They wanted more studies.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired after 10 years of delays. Democrats want a
system where veterans are presumed guilty and a system where veterans
are forced to prove their innocence.
In America, constitutional rights are God-granted rights. Veterans
should never have to choose between assistance and preserving their
constitutional rights, and veterans with disabilities should not be
discriminated against.
This Congress has a responsibility to protect veterans' rights just
as fiercely as they protect any other American's rights.
This Memorial Day, let us not just remember those veterans who made
the ultimate sacrifice. Let us also remember the freedoms and the
people who they sacrificed it for.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 1041, as amended, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and I
urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well.
May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be
Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before
Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country,
so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consider this bill now
is not lost on me.
They are here, once again, putting politics above policy, only this
time Republicans are playing political games with the lives of
veterans.
It goes without saying that there is a mental health crisis in this
country. Americans of all stripes lack access to the resources
necessary to properly care for their mental health--or fail to fully
realize them--and they suffer because of this crisis.
Veterans are certainly no exception, and they face additional
challenges due to service-connected mental health conditions. Many
veterans can access mental health care through the VA, but those not
connected to VA care may face additional challenges seeking resources
and support.
Unfortunately, because of cheap, easy access to firearms in this
country, our Nation's mental health crisis is one of the many
contributors to the epidemic of suicide and gun violence in America.
Again, veterans are not immune to that, and where those two issues
converge, veterans and their communities suffer the consequences.
[[Page H3686]]
Let me just cite a few examples: Lewiston, Maine; Thousand Oaks,
California; Sutherland Springs and Fort Hood, Texas; New Orleans,
Louisiana; Jasper, Georgia; and countless others. The absolute tragedy
of veteran suicide remains persistent.
Despite our best efforts, the rate of veteran suicide has not
declined as far and as fast as we would like it to. More than 6,500
veterans die by suicide each year, and more than 70 percent of those
suicides are deaths by firearms.
In fact, veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide using
a firearm than their nonveteran peers. So why, knowing all of that, do
we find ourselves debating a bill today that will only lead to more
firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable veterans in VA care? The
answer is pure and simple: politics.
This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is about Republicans
invoking their favorite political shield whenever they need to distract
from their failure to govern. They have brought versions of this bill
to the floor and in committee. They have brought it up again and again
for nearly a decade and usually when they want an election-year fight,
not a serious veterans policy debate.
Veterans should know exactly what is happening here. The majority is
using the Second Amendment as branding for a bill that has nothing to
do with veterans losing rights for seeking care. That is not happening.
What is happening is that Republicans are stoking fear, feeding
stigma, and using vulnerable veterans as props in a political fight.
More specifically, Republicans desire to invoke the sacred Second
Amendment and use the issue of access to firearms for political gain,
and that is what is driving this conversation.
That they would do so by endangering veterans' lives is disgusting to
me, and it should be to them, as well. What we will hear from
Republicans is that fear of having their Second Amendment rights
encroached upon leads to a reluctance of veterans to seek mental health
care. That is true, but that very fear is being stoked by the stage
that they have set for today's debate.
The constant refrain from Republicans that the VA will take your guns
away if you seek help is what is fueling the harmful stigma. Under no
circumstances does seeking mental health care at the VA lead to a loss
of rights or firearms, and if the Republicans were interested in the
truth, they would acknowledge that.
We will hear from the majority and we have heard from them already
that veterans' due process rights are being violated and that veterans
are having their rights stripped away unconstitutionally by bureaucrats
at the VA. Again, not true and false on many fronts.
There is robust due process built into the VA's systems that passes
constitutional muster. We are going to hear from Republicans that the
VA's decision to assign someone a fiduciary and subsequently add their
name to the NICS list is based on whether someone can balance their
checkbook or whether they can manage their benefits. Again, another
blatant falsehood.
{time} 1230
The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness
or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs.
Let me say that again: The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of
severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from
managing their own affairs.
It is documented in medical records by a clinician, not just some
what they would call a bureaucrat. It is documented in medical records
by a clinician and interpreted by someone trained in reading those
medical records. At no point is anyone just given a mere math test.
Mr. Speaker, at times I feel like we are screaming into the void
regarding gun violence. How many more preventable deaths and injuries
will we tolerate? How many veterans will we let languish in a spiral
that leads to it? When will we stop political posturing and start
making meaningful change to actually help veterans?
This bill is certainly not accomplishing that task. Unfortunately, my
counterparts have lost sight of the truth at the heart of this issue.
What is at the heart of this issue is the veterans' health and safety.
The majority wants veterans to believe that this debate is about
protecting constitutional rights. It is not. It is about recycling a
decade-old talking point, stoking fear about VA care, and hiding behind
the Second Amendment because they do not have a serious governing
agenda.
Today, we are debating this bill, and I want you to remember that the
rhetoric of the majority is not based on the reality of the situation
but, rather, it is based on their desire to use veterans as pawns in
their election-year political games.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I find this argument offensive, that
veterans with fiduciaries are dangerous. This is simply not true. There
is no evidence provided that veterans with fiduciaries are any more
violent, suicidal, or dangerous than nonveterans.
Yet, Democrats continue to push the idea that veterans who need help
managing their finances should be treated as though they were presumed
dangerous. Now, he can say that that is not the case, but there are
over 200,000 people who would argue differently.
Incompetence in financial ability is not and should not be something
that should take away your Second Amendment right. Yes, veterans
struggle with suicide and mental health greater than the rest of the
population. Yes, those financial hardships often face negative
thoughts, but the problem facing the veterans are separate and
distinct.
They deserve to be treated as such. That is why we have a VA that
spans everything from healthcare to benefits. If someone is truly a
danger to themselves or others, there are medical and legal
professionals who can stand by and address these issues just like it is
for those people who are nonveterans. H.R. 1041 does not change that
fact. It simply dispels harmful stereotypes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Van Orden), my good friend, who has been a veteran who served beside
veterans, his combat brothers and sisters, and knows what veterans
face.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.
``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.'' That is the entire text of the Second Amendment.
I would argue that this should apply to those of us who literally
bore arms to protect the freedoms of our fellow Americans. It is
critically important.
If a veteran who is incapable of balancing his checkbook has his
right to bear arms removed, I would argue that this entire body could
not legally carry arms because we are incapable of balancing a
checkbook, and that has been proven over decades.
I implore the minority to look at veterans for who we are. We are
patriotic, loving Americans, but this supersedes the Second Amendment.
Ninety-seven percent of all referrals to the NICS database come from
the VA. Sixty percent of veterans who commit suicide have not been
connected to the VA, and a significant reason that our veterans don't
go to the VA is because they are concerned that they are going to lose
their Second Amendment rights.
With the passing of Matthew Burns, 22 of my friends have committed
suicide, so I take this very seriously. I commend Mr. Takano for having
the 988 veteran suicide crisis line number behind him. I thank him for
that. I know my colleague does not want our veterans to commit suicide,
but this is how they are going to do it because my fellow veterans
refuse to go to the VA because they refuse to give up their
constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Again, I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly
support this bill, as I do.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, let me address this issue of who is actually
in the fiduciary program. Let's talk a moment about the population that
this bill is intended to cover, those who are actually in the fiduciary
program.
These are veterans with severe illnesses, illnesses like
schizophrenia, significant traumatic brain injury,
[[Page H3687]]
post-traumatic stress, bipolar disorder, and dementia. These are people
who meet the level of injury or illness criteria such that they cannot
manage their personal affairs, not just their checkbook.
I have heard this argument over and over again by the majority. Oh,
people are being denied, veterans are being denied access to firearms
because they can't balance their checkbook. No, no, no. This is not to
be reduced to that talking point.
We should be looking to these veterans with care and compassion. We
should look at how to better serve their needs regarding access to
consistent care and treatment. All these disorders are associated with
elevated risk of dangerousness to self and others--suicide in
particular--especially when combined with a host of other factors that
are actually concentrated in the veterans population.
Moreover, we also know empirically that veterans who are found to
have poor financial management abilities are also two times more likely
to have substance abuse disorders, suicidal ideation, or engage in
violent behavior and be in the justice system.
Drawing a distinction between those who simply cannot balance their
checkbook and those who are more explicitly dangerous to themselves or
others is not warranted and, in fact, could cause more veterans to slip
through the cracks.
It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps
that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary
program. I, for one, would like to know more about the veterans that
are in the fiduciary program.
This bill addresses none of those data gaps, which is one of its many
flaws. Instead of seeking to understand who is in this population, the
majority rejects any attempt to know more about them.
The majority suggests that there are veterans on the fiduciary list
who don't have the opportunity to get off that list, that there is a
lack of a robust appeals process. He cites 200,000 veterans being named
in this list because they are assigned a fiduciary and cites that there
is only maybe a couple of folks who have ever appealed. He cites that
as a failure of the appeals process, but maybe it is the other way
around. Maybe it is not really what veterans want to do who are on this
list. I would like to know that for sure, and we could study that, but
the majority has rejected all attempts.
There is very limited information publicly available about the
population of veterans deemed to be financially incompetent who have
historically been reported to the NICS list and whether they, on
average, have elevated rates of suicidality or violence.
{time} 1240
We have no data on the desired beneficiaries in the fiduciary program
to purchase or own firearms. We don't even know if people on this list
actually want to own firearms.
We have no data on why beneficiaries are failing to utilize the due
process afforded to them in the system already.
We have no data on if fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a
major impediment to seeking help or if other factors are more
important.
In other words, the claim that fear of losing Second Amendment rights
is a major impediment to seeking help is a claim being made that has
not been borne out by any sort of research or study.
We also don't know the long-term mental health outcomes of those in
the fiduciary program.
Democrats in the past have offered amendments to address all of these
data gaps, and they were universally rejected by the majority because,
again, this is not about policymaking to them. This is not about really
trying to understand what we can do to help veterans.
What Republicans have put forth here today is a philosophical debate
about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment, and they have made this
argument in the absence of data to push legislation without safeguards
that will have real-life consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the
Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Ranking Member
Takano for his leadership on the committee. I know he feels just as
strongly as I do on this issue. That is why I must rise in opposition
to this bill today.
Every day, 17 veterans die by suicide, and 13 of them use a firearm
to take their lives. That number is simply unacceptable to me, as I
know it is to all of my colleagues, but I am deeply concerned that,
with this bill, we are about to make it worse.
The current law was written to help protect veterans. A key moment is
when their doctor and care team deem that they are not able to manage
their own life and are deemed to be mentally incapacitated.
At that point, the law is designed to prevent them from owning a gun
and potentially harming themselves. The VA should be able to refer
veterans to NICS who are at the most risk for the purpose of saving
lives, but this legislation will permanently tie the VA's hands.
As the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have opposed this legislation
every time it has been attached to our bill, in the name of protecting
veterans.
When I was in the Rules Committee last week and on the floor debating
the MILCON-VA bill, this provision was raised multiple times, but, Mr.
Speaker, I heard something different this year. There are some core
agreements. There is a glimmer of hope.
We all agree that we have a major issue with getting help to our
veterans and keeping them safe. While we disagree about this
legislation, I think that there is a path forward to a bipartisan
compromise, a compromise that could allow the VA to do the work that we
need to save lives, the work that we directed them to do, and that also
respects the choices of some of our veterans.
In the meantime, I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
legislation that is attempting to use a sledgehammer where a scalpel
can do the job.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we should go ahead and listen to what was actually said
whenever we said that they actually were having some mental problems,
the issue where the ranking member actually said that we only take it
away and then they have an appeals process, and that that appeals
process is a great appeals process. Mr. Speaker, 240,000 veterans have
had their rights taken away, and through the appeals process, less than
800 got them back--less than 800.
He also said that some of them might not want to have their Second
Amendment rights. There is nothing in our Constitution that forces you
to use your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights
do not become less important simply because ignoring them is
convenient.
In fact, moments like these are when the constitutional protection
matters the most. My colleagues say we should respond with more
studies. That is what they want, more studies. A peer-reviewed study is
not standing for the rights granted to every American citizen of our
Nation. Who should keep their rights more than the people who stood up
and fought for them?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1041,
the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
This bill would restore Second Amendment rights to the veterans who
valiantly served our Nation but whose constitutional right to bear arms
has been stripped away by unelected bureaucrats.
Federal law, enacted in 1968, prohibits individuals who have been
``adjudicated as a mental defective''--and the keyword is
``adjudicated''--from possessing or acquiring firearms. This
restriction is enforced primarily through the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.
At the same time, the Department of Veterans Affairs allows service-
disabled veterans to receive their hard-earned benefits through a
fiduciary when the VA determines they are unable to manage their own
finances.
[[Page H3688]]
However, this determination is often made by VA officials who may
lack adequate mental health training. When the VA makes such a
determination, the veteran is automatically reported to NICS as a
mental defective, and there is no actual adjudication, resulting in the
loss of their Second Amendment rights.
This happens without any judicial finding that the veteran poses a
danger to themselves or others. In other words, service-disabled
veterans who simply need assistance with financial matters can be
stripped of their constitutional rights, not by a judge but by an
unelected bureaucrat.
These veterans are faced with an unacceptable choice to either
receive the benefits they rightly earned and risk their Second
Amendment rights or retain their constitutional rights and risk their
veteran benefits. This is a shameful and unjust dilemma, particularly
for those who risk their lives in defense of our freedoms.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say
that Congress took an important first step toward addressing this
injustice through the annual appropriations process. The FY24 enacted
Consolidated Appropriations Act and subsequently enacted appropriations
bills have included language directing the VA to cease this practice.
I am pleased to report that earlier this year, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs Doug Collins confirmed the VA has complied with the current law
and will no longer report veterans to NICS solely because of their need
for a fiduciary.
That is a real, meaningful victory for our veterans and a testament
to what this body can accomplish when we stand up for those who serve
in our military, but that progress is only temporary and will not
remain unless we pass the bill before us today to make it permanent.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital bill that builds on
that appropriations victory and ensures these protections are
permanently codified so that no future administration can reverse
course and once again use a veteran's need for financial assistance as
grounds to unilaterally revoke their God-given Second Amendment rights.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to try to bring us back down to Earth and dispel the rumors
that those on the other side of the aisle can't help themselves but to
spread.
We have heard that H.R. 1041 is a matter of restoring veterans' due
process rights, that it is a matter of veterans losing their guns if
they need a little help with their finances, and that veterans are
stripped of their rights to bear arms for life by unelected VA
bureaucrats. None of this is true.
Veterans are not having their weapons taken away if they utilize VA
mental health care. Under no circumstances is VA traipsing around the
country confiscating firearms.
This is a story that needs to stop being told. I would encourage my
colleagues to stop intentionally spreading misinformation.
The Veterans Health Administration, where veterans would be receiving
care, has absolutely no role in this process and absolutely no
communication with the Department of Justice or the NICS list.
Veterans can and should go to VHA, the Veterans Health
Administration, and the VA medical centers for care without fear.
Stop spreading the false fear or the false basis for fear. Start
telling the truth.
The truth is that there is robust due process present in this
program. A veteran can appeal the assignment of a fiduciary and their
subsequent reporting to NICS both before and after the fact, including
in Federal court.
I will note, though, that VA data indicates that not many people
choose to appeal this decision. That is not because it is too difficult
but because it is a pathway that veterans simply are not choosing or
simply don't desire.
Again, we are talking about veterans and other beneficiaries who have
been injured or made ill in such a way that they cannot make decisions
for themselves.
To be clear, this is not something VA launches into without regard.
{time} 1250
Veterans in this program have gone through a rigorous, medically-
based--medically-based--process to determine their needs for a
fiduciary. The decision is not some flippant choice to take away
weapons by unelected bureaucrats over a math test as we often hear. An
assignment of a fiduciary is done after highly specific criteria are
met, and only then, when those criteria are met, does a veteran's name
get forwarded to the NCIS database.
However, the majority asks: Why are we treating our veterans like
criminals?
Why are we assuming guilt and barring them from obtaining weapons?
This is a rhetorical flourish. It is also fantastical. Veterans are
not being treated like criminals. They are being handled in a manner
that is commensurate with their medical status as determined by a
medical provider in order to protect them and those around them from
potential harm.
We have to stop spreading falsehoods and be honest with our veterans.
It is inappropriate full stop.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great
State of Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is my good friend and a passionate
advocate for gun safety in America.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me
to share some insight today.
Mr. Speaker, as an American and someone coming from a military
family--my father was a dentist in the Army Dental Corps, and I still
have three members of my family today who are currently serving in the
military forces--I can tell you that our veterans have given so much of
themselves to this country.
We owe them our protection. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act
fails that duty. It does not protect them, and it puts them in danger.
The facts are clear. Veterans are far more likely to die by firearm
suicide than the average American. That risk is even higher for
veterans assigned a fiduciary when they can no longer manage their own
affairs. That is the group that this bill targets. Nearly 100,000 of
them would be removed from the background check system with no thought
for their safety or the families who love and care for them.
Without red flag laws in most States, and with loosened gun rules and
regulations that are flooding our communities, veterans and their
families are the ones who are paying the price.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what this price looks like.
Ben Miller served his country, coming home not only as a combat vet
but as a different man. He was 30 pounds lighter, unable to eat and
unable to cope with what he had experienced and seen in war. He was
getting help at the VA, but his family could see that he was in crisis.
His sister and his father drove from gun store to gun store, showing
his photo, begging strangers not to sell him a gun.
However, that wasn't enough. Ben died by suicide. He used a gun that
he bought himself at a local store.
There are thousands more stories like Ben's and ones that don't even
get talked about in the news. We owe our veterans more than this. It is
not about taking away their Second Amendment rights if they are law-
abiding gun owners: hunters, gun enthusiasts, and sportsmen. It is not
about taking their guns away. It is about making sure that they are
protected against harm against themselves or others in their families
and their communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Georgia.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this egregious bill,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, if you really care about veterans, then do what is right
for them. Do what is right for their safety and their protection.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1041, the
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act because I do, in fact, care about
our veterans.
For three decades, the Department of Veterans Affairs has abided by
the misguided policy that a veteran's fiduciary status alone, absent
any judicial order, is grounds to report such a veteran to
[[Page H3689]]
the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
This policy is wrong. It not only infringes on the Second Amendment
rights of our veterans, but it also strips them of their due process
protections, which are afforded to every other American citizen.
Fortunately, President Trump and Secretary Collins have taken the
lead by halting this policy. It is now up to Congress to ensure this
kind of abuse is never witnessed again.
Mr. Speaker, our courageous veterans have made incredible sacrifices
to safeguard both our country and our founding freedoms and principles
that we cherish every single day. With over 40,000 veterans across
Wyoming, ensuring that we are permanently restoring the Second
Amendment rights for each of them is of paramount importance to me, and
that is precisely what this bill will do.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I want to thank Chairman
Bost and the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for their tireless
leadership on this critical issue, and I urge all my colleagues to
support H.R. 1041.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the great State of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my
good friend and fellow committee member.
Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1041,
legislation that would prevent VA from keeping firearms out of the
hands of some of the most vulnerable veterans in the VA system.
As a physician and the wife of an Army combat veteran, I care deeply
about making sure our veterans receive the care we owe them for their
service. Like my colleagues, I am heartbroken and appalled by the scale
of veteran suicides in our country, and I remain committed to working
with my colleagues to end this epidemic.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today is a step in the wrong
direction.
VA's decision to assign a fiduciary to a beneficiary is made based on
medical evidence, and there already exist multiple avenues for
beneficiaries to appeal VA's decision. In addition, we know that many
of these veterans suffer from severe mental illness or impairment and
may face an increased risk of death by suicide.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 46 percent of
people who die by suicide suffered from a known mental health
condition. In addition, a recent VA estimate suggested that veterans
are 57 percent more likely to die by suicide than nonveterans.
All told, we lose more than 17 veterans per day to suicide, 13 of
them using a firearm, which is completely unacceptable.
While mental illness and impairment do not lead to suicide on their
own, we must be cognizant of veterans who might be at a greater risk
than the general population.
As public health and suicide prevention experts will tell you, Mr.
Speaker, putting time and distance between a firearm and a person
experiencing a mental health crisis is essential to preventing a
successful suicide attempt.
Preventing VA from reporting to the NICS background check system
risks putting more firearms in the hands of a population of veterans
who are already at an increased risk of death by suicide.
When we considered this legislation in the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I offered an amendment that would have made a carve-out for
veterans suffering from severe conditions, such as schizophrenia,
dementia, Alzheimer's, and other mental conditions with psychotic
features.
Unfortunately, the bill my Republican colleagues decided to bring to
the floor today fails to include even the most basic safeguards for
veterans suffering from these severe impairments.
While no silver bullet that will eradicate veteran suicide, making it
easier for veterans suffering from severe mental illness or impairment
to obtain a gun is not the answer.
H.R. 1041 creates serious risks for a group of veterans who are
already in a vulnerable position, and I cannot support it.
Instead of considering this partisan legislation that puts more
veterans at risk, we should be working together to advance solutions
that will help us fight veteran suicide, like improving access to
timely mental health care, protecting crisis intervention resources
such as the Veterans Crisis Line, and ensuring VA has the resources and
staffing it needs to give our veterans the outstanding care they
deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
For this reason, at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would ensure this legislation does not take effect until
the VA Secretary certifies that it will not lead to an increase in
veteran suicide using a firearm.
If my Republican colleagues are so confident that this legislation
won't risk increasing the rate of veteran suicide, then this should be
an easy measure for them to support.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Ms. MORRISON. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the
motion to recommit.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to what the previous speaker just
said.
She explained that if someone has a mental health condition or
someone has these other concerns, that she would offer an amendment to
that. However, let me explain to you that if we grant them their
constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, they already have that ability.
{time} 1300
They already have that ability and their constitutional rights would
be treated exactly the same as a person that does not serve in the
military and does not go to the VA.
Someone can see that if they had a problem, then they could take and
raise that before a judge, not before a bureaucrat.
Let me explain this again. This is not about gun rights. This is not
about dealing with our veterans that might commit suicide or anyone
else that might commit suicide. This is about the constitutional right
of a veteran who has fought for those rights that a bureaucrat has the
power to take away their ability to have that Second Amendment, which
is in the Constitution.
Now, they might not agree with that Second Amendment and that has
been debated here several times. But now to continue to carry on and
use this law to take away the rights of people who fought for their
rights, how ridiculous is that? How ridiculous is it going to be to go
back for Memorial Day and tell their veterans, I was there for you. We
took away your rights. I think that is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak on this
bill and I certainly appreciate Chairman Bost's leadership on this
important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd
Amendment Protection Act.
This bill is about basic fairness and restoring a standard that
respects both our veterans and the Constitution. Under current
practice, a veteran who simply needs help managing their VA benefits
can be reported to the FBI's background check system and lose their
Second Amendment rights without ever appearing before a judge.
That is an extraordinary outcome for something as routine as
appointing a fiduciary. No other American loses a constitutional right
because of an administrative decision about their finances, and our
veterans should not be that exception.
H.R. 1041 corrects that imbalance. It restores the principle that
should have guided this process from the beginning: Only a court of law
can determine whether someone poses a danger to themselves or others.
That is the due process standard our system is built on, and it is the
only standard appropriate when a constitutional right is at stake.
It safeguards both due process and the constitutional freedoms our
veterans fought to defend. By reaffirming
[[Page H3690]]
that these determinations must be made through proper legal channels,
the bill ensures veterans are treated with the same fairness and
dignity as every other American.
It also brings clarity and consistency to a process that has too
often been confusing, unevenly applied, and out of step with the
protections guaranteed to all citizens. Our veterans stood in defense
of the Constitution and they deserve nothing less than its full
protection in return. H.R. 1041 honors that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crank).
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Veterans 2nd
Amendment Protection Act. I am proud to represent El Paso County and
the 100,000 veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers who live there.
These heroes committed their lives in service to the Nation and in
protection of our Constitution. They served with the promise that when
their military career ended, the VA would be there to provide the
benefits they earned and to advocate for their best interests.
Unfortunately, as we all know, too often, the VA fails in this mission.
For 30 years, veterans have had their Second Amendment rights
stripped by the VA simply for the crime of receiving help managing
their benefits. For the past three decades, if the VA assigned a
veteran a fiduciary, a benefit they have rightfully earned, they would
automatically report that veteran to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System as a prohibited person.
This unconstitutional practice blacklisted over a quarter million
veterans from the right to purchase or possess a firearm. This
malicious VA rule treats our veterans as second-class citizens and
deters our heroes from seeking the care they earned in service to their
Nation out of fear their Second Amendment rights will be taken away.
What would my colleagues on the other side, who so flippantly say
veterans can be denied their Second Amendment rights, what would they
say if we were somehow denying their First Amendment rights: their
right to free speech, their right to religion, or their right to
peaceably assemble? They wouldn't stand for it.
They will only stand for it because it denies a right that they
disagree with. That is not what the Constitution is about.
I thank Chairman Bost for introducing this important legislation and
to finally bring an end to this practice. I was proud to cosponsor it.
I am thankful that the Trump administration has already acted to
right this wrong through agency directive.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
Our veterans answered the call when this Nation needed them most.
They fought to defend the very Constitution that guarantees every
American the right to keep and bear arms. I thank every veteran for
their sacrifice. We see them. We honor them, and we have got their
backs.
How do we repay our Nation's heroes? Right now, bureaucratic
overreach allows the VA to strip away a veteran's constitutional right
just because they ask for help managing their benefits. If you use a
fiduciary, the system flags you. It is wrong, and it ends now.
Chairman Bost's commonsense bill stops the VA from automatically
feeding veterans' names into the background check system. It protects
the Second Amendment rights of the men and women who fought for ours.
The radical left loves to say they support the troops until it is time
to actually protect their constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment is not optional, and our veterans have the right
to exercise it fully. No more treating men and women who defended this
country like second-class citizens. We will restore and protect the
constitutional freedoms of our veterans and every American.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1041. Honor our
warriors by restoring their rights. God bless our veterans.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously frustrated with what I have heard here
today. There has been a lot of lipservice to the concept of due process
from my colleagues, which is particularly interesting considering they
do not share this same passion for the application of this right
elsewhere at VA.
If it wasn't already clear that my colleagues are only here to put on
a show, I will remind everyone that even if this bill were to be signed
into law today, it would have no effect whatsoever on the processes and
procedures at VA.
Why you may ask? This is because in its infinite wisdom, the
Department of Justice and VA, have decided to ignore Congress, once
again, and unilaterally interpret the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act so as not to apply to VA.
VA isn't even doing the things the majority is accusing them of doing
anymore, but sadly, my colleagues have decided it is worth continuing
to sow mistruths, distortions, and risk endangering veterans and
civilian lives alike by messaging on the backs of beneficiaries who
need treatment, not weapons.
{time} 1310
Mr. Speaker, we must be steadfast in providing meaningful support to
our veterans, not using them as props for political gain as this bill
does.
As the chairman said, this is not about gun rights. This is not about
gun rights. I would suggest that what this is about is politics.
We must do anything and everything we can to protect the most
vulnerable veterans in the VA system and not inject more risk of harm.
For those reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill, and I
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrats claim that H.R. 1041, as amended, would
harm vulnerable veterans. That is simply false, but just don't take my
word for it. Organizations who represent millions of veterans and their
families support this. In fact, the bill is supported by The American
Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Association of
County Veterans Service Officers, Mission Roll Call, the Black Veterans
Empowerment Council. All of these groups, and countless others,
veterans organizations across this Nation support this piece of
legislation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and many others.
Why? It is because they understand that this is about the rights of the
men and women who stood in the gap to make sure you can keep yours.
This bill is also supported by Second Amendment groups, including:
Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National
Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Importantly, H.R. 1041, as amended, is supported by the civil liberties
groups and organizations who advocate for the elderly and those with
disabilities, including the American Civil Liberties Union, not
necessarily a conservative group, the National Disability Rights
Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Association of
Mature American Citizens Action, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network,
and the Disability Rights, Education & Defense Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, and even Ranking Member
Takano can admit that it is not every day that many of these groups
come united together, especially probably the NRA and the ACLU. Their
support shows how discriminatory the practice that the VA has been
doing for over the last three decades has been by reporting to the next
unit anyone who seeks fiduciary help from the VA.
Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have spoken on the Democrat side
of the aisle would carry other laws that would take away your Second
Amendment right.
[[Page H3691]]
Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the gun law here, though I would. I am
arguing the rights of our veterans for due process, the same as someone
who never raised their hand. Why should someone have their rights
improperly and without due process be taken away because they chose to
stand up for this Nation?
I am going to tell you this wasn't for political purposes. I have
been carrying this bill for a long time. This weekend, you are going to
have to go back to your districts, and you are going to have to talk
about the fact that: I am there for you, my veterans. Thank you. I am
there for you, but I don't think you are worth your constitutional
rights, even though you served to defend them.
Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that has wrongly occurred in this
Nation for way too long. I thank the administration for getting it
straightened out. We are not saying that someone that is a veteran and
is a danger to themselves or a danger to other people can't go through
the process like everybody else and say, okay, we do need to go ahead
and look over their ability to have that Second Amendment right. That
is why we have the NICS list. But whenever the NICS list is
overburdened, matter of fact, with our veterans at the percentage that
it is, something is wrong. Something is wrong. This bill has been a
longtime coming.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from many of
those organizations that I mentioned previously: The American Legion,
National Disability Rights Network, National Rifle Association of
America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Civil Liberties
Union.
The American Legion,
Office of the National Commander,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2025.
Hon. Mike Bost,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bost: On behalf of the American Legion 1.5
million dues paying members, I write to express our full
support for H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection
Act, as amended.
This legislation is a necessary step toward restoring the
constitutional rights of countless veterans who, despite
having honorably served our nation, have been unjustly denied
their Second Amendment rights. For far too long, veterans who
required the assistance of a fiduciary for managing VA
benefits--often due to physical or age-related issues--were
reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) without any due process or judicial review.
These individuals were wrongfully categorized as mentally
defective, not based on a court ruling, but simply on
administrative decisions by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
H.R. 1041 corrects this miscarriage of justice by
prohibiting the VA from transmitting personally identifiable
information to the Department of Justice for inclusion in
NICS unless a judge or magistrate has determined the
individual to be a danger to themselves or others. This
preserves the fundamental principle of due process--an
essential safeguard for any constitutional right, especially
one as central as the right to keep and bear arms.
The bill rightly recognizes that being assigned a fiduciary
does not equate to being a danger to oneself or others and
therefore should not serve as grounds to restrict firearm
ownership. Importantly, this legislation requires the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Attorney General
that the basis for all prior reporting of veterans to NICS
solely due to fiduciary status does not apply or no longer
applies. This notification will, in turn, trigger the FBI to
update the NICS database accordingly ensuring that those who
were wrongfully reported will be removed. It is critical to
note that veterans who are on the NICS list for other
legitimate legal reasons, such as a state court finding
dangerousness, will remain unaffected by this correction.
This bill does not jeopardize public safety. Instead, it
upholds the balance between protecting communities and
respecting the rights of those who served our country with
courage and sacrifice. The assumption that a veteran is
incapable or dangerous simply because they require fiduciary
assistance is not only unfounded--it is deeply disrespectful
and discriminatory.
We urge members of Congress to support and pass the
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act to ensure that no
veteran is stripped of their rights without a fair and
impartial judicial process.
For God and Country,
James A. LaCoursiere,
National Commander.
____
National Disability Rights Network,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2025.
Hon. Mike Bost,
Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Bost: The National Disability Rights Network
(NDRN) thanks you for introducing, and supports passage of,
H.R. 1041, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act. This
legislation would permanently end the Veterans
Administration's (VA) practice of sending a veteran's name
that has a fiduciary to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS list) without due process.
NDRN has long advocated for the inclusion of necessary
protections and due process in any system (like guardianship
or conservatorship) taking away that individual's rights and
decision-making authority. We have also fought to counter the
stigmatizing belief that just because an individual has a
disability requires the removal of all that individual's
rights, decision-making authority, and due process
protections.
There is no evidence that individuals that require someone
to help with their financial matters have a propensity to gun
violence or will harm themselves or others. In fact, this
requirement to submit an individual's name to the NICS list
could have the perverse effect of stopping an individual from
seeking the care and support they may need because they do
not want to have their name placed on the NICS list.
This legislation is timely and stands for the important
belief of not viewing an individual with a disability through
a lens of blanket assumptions about disabilities, but that
they must be viewed as an individual and given the due
process rights we all support. This bill also would take a
crucial step in addressing the stigmatizing and unsupported
belief that there is a connection between an individual that
has a fiduciary and gun violence.
Again, thank you for your work on this issue and we support
the passage of this legislation from the Veterans Committee
and look forward to enacting this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Marlene Sallo,
Executive Director.
____
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for
Legislative Action,
Fairfax, Virginia, May 18, 2026.
Chairman Mike Bost,
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bost: On behalf of the millions of NRA
members nationwide, I write today to support H.R. 1041, the
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, and urge a resounding
``yes'' vote for its swift passage.
This important legislation would reverse a decades-long
practice that has been used by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to violate the constitutionally protected Second
Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of veterans--all
without a shred of due process. From 1998 until recently, VA
had been reporting the names of veterans who have been
assigned a fiduciary to help manage their benefits to the FBI
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS),
thereby ending their legal right to own or possess a firearm.
NRA-ILA was proud to support your effort to end this
practice in H.R. 4366, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2024, when language was included to prohibit VA from using
appropriated funds to submit names to NICS simply for having
an assigned fiduciary. And NRA-ILA has been gratified to see
that prohibition remain in place in subsequent appropriations
bills, including the Military Construction and Department of
Veterans Affairs bill the U.S. House passed last week. While
we applaud your critical oversight over VA's NICS reporting
practices, we understand that a permanent fix, such as that
offered by the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, is
necessary to close this shameful chapter in VA history, once
and for all. Once passed, this legislation will mark a key
turning point in rebuilding trust and confidence between VA
and the veterans it serves.
We thank you for your continued attention to this crucial
issue and all you do for our great nation's veterans.
Sincerely,
John Commerford,
Executive Director, NRA-ILA.
____
Vietnam Veterans of America,
Silver Spring, MD, April 15, 2025.
Hon. Mike Bost,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Bost: I am writing to express my strong support
for the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which seeks to
amend Title 38 of the United States Code to prohibit the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain
information to the Department of Justice for use by the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Our main reason for supporting this legislation is to
ensure a level of fairness for veterans concerning the
current VA fiduciary process, particularly as it relates to
the reporting of veterans to NICS without due process.
Veterans, who have dedicated their lives to serving our
country, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The
existing process can lead to unjust consequences where
veterans may lose their Second Amendment rights based solely
on a determination made by the Secretary without judicial
oversight.
This legislation is a critical step in protecting the
rights of veterans. It ensures that before any personal
information is transmitted that could impact their ability to
exercise their rights, there is a requirement for judicial
determination that they pose a danger to themselves or
others. This not only upholds the principles of due process
but also prevents potential misuse of sensitive information
that could unfairly label
[[Page H3692]]
veterans as threats without proper evidence or evaluation.
By passing the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, we
send a clear message that our nation values the rights and
well-being of our veterans. It is essential that we provide
them with the protection they deserve, especially when it
comes to their civil liberties without eliminating the
protection of veterans and the community.
Thank you for considering my views on this important
matter. I urge all members to support the Veterans 2nd
Amendment Protection Act to ensure fairness for all veterans
in our country.
Sincerely,
Jack McManus,
National President.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
National Political Advocacy Department,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2026.
VOTE YES FOR THE VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT (H.R. 1041)
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union, we urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 1041,
the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, as amended, when
it comes to the House floor for a vote. We support this
legislation because it ends a government practice that
discriminates against, stigmatizes, and harms veterans with
mental disabilities. For this reason, we will score this
vote.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigns a fiduciary
to veterans who are unable to manage their VA benefits. The
VA does so upon a showing of clear and convincing medical
evidence that the veteran, because of injury or disease,
lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her
own affairs. It was, until recently, the Department's
practice to report all veterans who have been determined to
be ``mentally incompetent,'' pursuant to this process, to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
This referral makes it unlawful for the veteran to possess a
firearm. While the VA has paused this process of referrals
voluntarily, it retains authority to resume referrals at any
time.
The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would prohibit
the automatic referral of veterans with fiduciaries unless
there has been a separate judicial finding or order that the
veteran is ``a danger to themselves or others.'' It would
also require the Attorney General to remove the veterans
currently on the NICS who were placed there by the VA solely
because they were assigned a fiduciary.
We urge Members to vote for this legislation because it
combats the false and misguided, but unfortunately pervasive,
belief that people with mental disabilities, a vast and
diverse group of citizens, are violent and therefore should
not own a firearm. There is simply no data to support a
connection between a propensity towards gun violence and
needing help to manage one's VA benefits because of
disability. Opponents of the bill report that the most common
disabilities among veterans assigned a fiduciary are post-
traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury,
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and dementia. But these
conditions are not evidence of dangerousness to self or
others, and they should not be used as the sole basis for
denying veterans a constitutional right.
The few research studies cited to support the placement of
veterans with fiduciaries on NICS are too speculative to
support widespread curtailment of rights. Indeed, one study
acknowledges that previous studies on this issue did not
examine veterans with fiduciaries and did not directly assess
the issue in question: the risk that a veteran with a
fiduciary would misuse a firearm.
Instead of acknowledging this lack of evidence, some have
concluded that the fiduciary process serves as an adequate
proxy for a determination of dangerousness. We strongly
disagree and urge you to reject this assertion. It is
discriminatory to assume that veterans with mental illness or
other disabilities who need help managing their benefits are
a danger to themselves and others. Every veteran has the
right to be judged on her individual capabilities, not the
characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes
attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which
they belong. A disability must not constitute grounds for the
automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including
gun ownership.
Additionally, relying on assumptions rooted in harmful
stereotypes does not advance the safety goals--for veterans
themselves, their loved ones, and the general public--we all
share. Indeed, it is possible that a substantial number of
veterans who were not assigned a fiduciary are a danger to
themselves or others and those who do have a fiduciary are,
in fact, not a danger to themselves or others.
We recognize the grave concerns members of Congress, and
many others, have expressed about both the impact of gun
violence in our communities and the imperative to reduce
access to some firearms. But the policy at issue here is the
wrong approach. It scapegoats and stereotypes veterans with
disabilities who need help with their VA benefits without
evidence that they are a danger to themselves or others. Gun
violence prevention should not be advanced by perpetuating
discrimination against people with disabilities.
There are few, if any, issues with more universal support
than providing our veterans with the tools and resources they
need to minimize the risk of self-harm and prevent suicide.
Their courage and sacrifice deserve nothing less. Congress
should continue its attention to that urgent task, but with
tailored solutions that directly address the problem rather
than discriminatory proxies.
We urge Members to vote for this legislation.
Sincerely,
Mike Zamore,
National Director of Policy & Government Affairs.
Vania Levielle,
Senior Legislative Counsel.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, my message to all Members is really clear:
Support this bill. Support the constitutional rights of those people
who fought for those constitutional rights for you.
As I said, this has gone on long enough. I think that a person who
knows and understands this issue will stand up for their veterans and
support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Haridopolos). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Morrison of Minnesota moves to recommit the bill H.R.
1041 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Morrison is as follows:
Ms. Morrison moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1041 to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end (before the long title amendment) the
following:
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 5501B of title 38, United States Code, as added by
section 2, section 5501C of such title, as added by section
3, and section 5501D of such title, as added by section 4,
shall take effect on the date on which the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs submits to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives
certification in writing that the implementation of such
sections will not lead an increase in the rate of death by
suicide using a firearm among beneficiaries for whom the
Secretary pays benefits to a fiduciary for the use and
benefit of the beneficiary under section 5502 of title 38,
United States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________