[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26249-26250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF VETERANS

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an 
issue I have been working on for 2 years--namely, ending the arbitrary 
process through which our own government takes away the second 
amendment rights of veterans. Let me briefly describe what I mean about 
this issue.
  As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits 
the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted 
felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have 
been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' Furthermore, the Gun 
Control Act prohibits possession of firearms by any of these classified 
individuals. Needless to say, it is a serious matter. Criminal 
prosecution is an option against those who violate the law.
  The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to 
maintain a database of these individuals. We call this the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. The Brady law and the 
NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or 
to themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun owners reference to the 
NICS screen customers--again, it goes without saying it is a serious 
matter to have one's name on NICS.
  Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their 
right to buy arms and bear arms is taken away, especially when criminal 
prosecution is involved. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain 
veterans, their spouses, their dependent children, their dependent 
parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999--now 10 
years--the Veterans' Administration has sent the names of 116,000 of 
its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion under the NICS list. Again, 
the NICS list means those 116,000 individuals can never purchase a 
firearm. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were 
determined to be criminals or a danger to themselves or, for that fact, 
a danger to others; they were listed in NICS because they couldn't 
manage their own financial affairs. We should not take away a 
constitutional right because someone can't balance their checkbook on 
time.
  VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine 
one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance, 
such as VA disability payments, pension benefits, and other benefits. 
For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have a 
credit problem. The VA focuses on whether benefits paid by the VA will 
be spent in a manner for which they were intended to be spent. If you 
held that threshold to every veteran, you would probably assign a 
fiduciary to all of them because we don't know in fact where the 
payments go or what they were intended for.
  Nothing involved in the appointment of a fiduciary even gets to the 
question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others 
or whether the person should or should not own a firearm. Yet that is 
exactly what happens when the VA appoints a fiduciary to one of our 
Nation's veterans.
  Let me put a human face on the issue, if I can. I want to read 
excerpts from a letter I received from Jennifer Briest. I have her 
approval to read it. Jennifer is the wife of Corey Briest. Corey served 
in Iraq. He was a paramedic. He was severely injured in an IED 
explosion in 2004, which caused severe burns, damage to his lungs, and 
severe traumatic brain injury after shrapnel entered his skull. Corey 
has spent the last 5 years recovering from his injuries. Jennifer 
reports that he is walking, talking, and enjoying life at home with his 
two children.
  Now it gets really sad. Because of his head injury, Corey still 
requires help with certain things. The VA said he needed help managing 
his disability compensation payments, and they named Jennifer, his 
spouse, as his fiduciary. That is where I would like to

[[Page 26250]]

read from her letter. Again, I quote from her letter:

       On May 19, 2009, we had our annual fiduciary meeting with 
     the VA field examiner. At the end of the meeting our field 
     examiner said he needed to read a statement to us. He read 
     the Brady bill statement and then stated that Corey can't 
     own, possess, use, be around, et cetera, any firearms. He 
     then went on to say that anyone in our household can't own a 
     gun while living in this household.
       I asked him about Corey going on adaptive hunting trips and 
     he said that he couldn't. Corey stated that he had a gun that 
     was handed down from his grandfather and that Corey was going 
     to hand it down to his son and the field examiner told him 
     that he couldn't have it. He stated to Corey that if he did 
     own a gun or be around a gun that he would be threatened with 
     imprisonment.
       The way that field examiner talked to Corey about this 
     issue was not appropriate. The field examiner said that I 
     could challenge it and handed me a blank sheet of paper with 
     a VA heading. I asked the field examiner for the statement he 
     read to me, but he said that he had to ask his boss [if he 
     could actually provide a copy of that statement]. After two 
     weeks of me e-mailing him, I finally got the attached papers 
     in the mail. I think the VA is taking this way out of concept 
     and I would greatly appreciate your support.

  Well, in case any of my colleagues think the government would never 
prosecute someone like Corey Briest for possession of a firearm, being 
around a firearm, I wish to read to my colleagues excerpts from a VA 
directive that went out to all VA regional offices on September 29, 
this year, on this very issue.
  The directive is meant to inform fiduciary field examiners of their 
obligation if they were to witness a violation of the Brady Act. I am 
going to quote from this VA memorandum to their field examiners.

       Field Examiners or other VA employees who encounter 
     beneficiaries believed to be in violation of the Brady Act 
     are required to notify the Fiduciary Activity Manager as soon 
     as safely possible. At no time should the employee place him/
     herself in danger. The Fiduciary Activity Manager at the VA 
     regional office of jurisdiction must immediately report the 
     alleged violation to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and 
     Firearms at 1-800-ATF-GUNS.

  That is straight out of the Department of Veterans Affairs memorandum 
to their field examiners. For 2 years I have gone through this in the 
VA Committee. I have tried to plead with my colleagues that this is a 
breach of the second amendment of our country's veterans, that no 
veteran who has had their name reported of the 116,000, have ever been 
judged by a court to have a mental deficiency. In most cases, this is 
because there is a fiduciary needed to make sure they stay up to date. 
But there is not an incapacity on their part that has been judged to be 
a flaw in their judgment. Quite frankly, I find it offensive. I find 
the language of this directive offensive because the premise seems to 
be that our veterans are dangerous.
  But as I mentioned, there is nothing about the current process that 
even gets to the question of an individual as dangerous. The current 
process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under 
these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns 
fiduciaries to help beneficiaries every single day. Yet it does not 
send their name to the NICS list.
  We have a policy on the books that discriminates against individuals 
because they wore our Nation's uniform, because they fought on behalf 
of this country. I find it unacceptable and it must end.
  I have a bill, S. 669, that would prohibit the VA from continuing 
this arbitrary and unfair practice. It would require a judge, a 
magistrate, or another judicial authority to determine that a VA 
beneficiary is a danger to themselves or to others before their name 
could be sent to the NICS list.
  Twice the Veterans Affairs Committee approved this bipartisan 
legislation to afford veterans with due process before their second 
amendment right was snatched away from them. But twice the bill 
languished on the Senate floor. S. 669 was approved unanimously by the 
committee back in May. But it has gone nowhere. And the question is: 
Can veterans wait any longer or should veterans wait any longer?
  I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous 
people. I am here to ask you, to plead with you, that we treat veterans 
fairly and that their rights are protected like every other citizen.
  Many of our veteran organizations and other groups agree with me. The 
Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act has the support of the 
American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, the Military 
Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the 
National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America.
  I plead with my colleagues: Ask for S. 669 to be brought to the 
floor. Do not sit back and say this is an obscure thing that the VA 
sometimes engages in and sometimes does not. Again, September 29, 2009, 
1 month ago, this directive goes out: Subject: Reporting violations of 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

       This letter provides guidance to our field personnel who 
     may encounter violations--

  Violations by a veteran who served his country, is not a danger to 
himself or to anybody else, but has been deemed to need fiduciary help 
even if it is a spouse and a second amendment right was yanked from his 
hands, and now the VA says to their field examiners: Report it because 
we will prosecute these individuals.
  I am not exactly sure how to respond to Jennifer Briest. That letter 
she sent me about: Corey continues to make progress after an IED 
explosion December 4, 2005.
  How do you say to a kid who served his country, who is raising a 
family: One, we had to turn you in so you can never own a gun. And, 
two, that gun your father handed down to you, Corey, you have to get 
rid of it. You cannot hand it down to your child, because even if you 
handed it down today to your son living in your home, they cannot have 
that gun, because the Veterans Administration says you cannot.
  But if a fiduciary was assigned to Corey's father or to his mother, 
the Social Security Administration does not send that in to the NICS 
list to deprive them of their second amendment right. This is the most 
unfair thing I have seen this country do. It is time we end this 
practice. It is time we respect our veterans. It is time we treat them 
fairly. It is time we uphold the Constitution of this United States.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________