[House Report 115-33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                      {       115-33

======================================================================



 
                 VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 10, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Roe of Tennessee, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1181]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1181) 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Subcommittee Consideration.......................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     4
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     5
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits.............................     5
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     5
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     6
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     6
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     6
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     6
Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs.....................     6
Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking................................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............     7
Dissenting Views.................................................     9

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1181, the ``Veterans Second Amendment Protection 
Act,'' was introduced by Representative David P. Roe, M.D., of 
Tennessee, Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on 
February 16, 2017. This bill would protect veterans' Second 
Amendment rights by prohibiting the Secretary from sending the 
name of an individual to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
for inclusion on the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System, unless there has been a specific determination by a 
judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority that such 
individual is a danger to himself or others.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    If there is evidence that a veteran is unable to manage his 
or her veterans' benefits, the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
(VA) may appoint a fiduciary. Before appointing a fiduciary, VA 
provides notice to the veteran that the Department proposes to 
determine that the beneficiary is incompetent and may need a 
fiduciary. Additionally, VA notifies the veteran that he or she 
has the right to request a hearing. If the veteran does choose 
to have a hearing, a VA employee presides over the proceedings.
    However, the hearing only reviews evidence that would 
inform a judgment about whether a beneficiary is capable of 
managing his or her VA benefit payments. The hearing does not 
address whether a beneficiary presents a danger to himself/
herself or others, or whether the beneficiary should be 
prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or operating a firearm.
    Although it may be appropriate for VA to appoint a 
fiduciary to help certain veterans with their finances, the 
decision has serious unintended consequences for the veteran. 
The Brady Act requires federal agencies, upon the request of 
the Attorney General, to submit to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) information on persons prohibited from 
purchasing a firearm.\1\ The Attorney General made such request 
of VA in 1998. In response, VA has provided the FBI with 
information about VA beneficiaries who are determined to be 
mentally incompetent because they are unable to manage their 
financial affairs pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 3.353.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act, P.L. 
103-159, Sec. 103(e)(1)).
    \2\38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.353 provides that ``a person is mentally 
incompetent person is one who because of injury or disease lacks the 
mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, 
including disbursement of funds without limitation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, after a finding of incompetency, VA sends the 
beneficiary's name to the FBI to be added to the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).\3\ Thus, the 
veteran, who may simply need assistance managing his or her 
finances, is prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. 
Although VA does allow beneficiaries to apply to the Department 
for relief from the firearms prohibition, it is a VA employee--
not a judge or magistrate--who determines whether such relief 
should be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Department of Veterans Affairs, M21-1 Adjudication Procedures 
Manual, Section III.v.9.B.4.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notes that VA's decision to report a 
beneficiary to the FBI for inclusion on NICS is not considered 
a decision on a benefit provided by law. Therefore, VA does not 
have a duty to assist the beneficiary with any request for 
relief. As such, the burden of proof is on the beneficiary 
requesting relief, and if the veteran fails to provide clear 
and convincing evidence that he or she is not prone to 
violence, VA will deny the request for relief.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Department of Veterans Affairs, M21-1 Adjudication Procedures 
Manual, Section III.v.9.B.4.c. Federal law at 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A 
requires VA to assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to 
substantiate their claims for benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Veterans, who were willing to lay down their lives to 
protect our constitutional rights, should not be deprived of 
their Second Amendment rights without a proceeding before a 
judicial authority. A hearing before a judge or magistrate 
would ensure that the veteran's due process rights are 
protected before any action is taken that would deprive him or 
her of fundamental constitutional rights.
    Unfortunately, VA's decision to report the names of 
veterans to the FBI reinforces the erroneous perception that 
people with mental disabilities are to be feared. VA's goal 
should be to make veterans whole and encourage them to return 
to their former activities, including those that may involve a 
firearm, such as hunting and shooting. Instead, VA is 
reinforcing the stereotype that those who suffer from mental 
disabilities are by nature, dangerous and may be violent. Even 
worse, VA's policy may discourage some veterans from seeking VA 
services, such as healthcare or mental health counseling, 
because they are concerned that they would lose their Second 
Amendment rights.
    Furthermore, the Department has not provided any evidence 
that individuals who need help managing their finances are more 
likely than the general population to be a danger to themselves 
or others. Therefore, there is no justification for denying 
veterans and VA beneficiaries of their right to due process, 
before they are deprived of the rights guaranteed by the Second 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    Additionally, some recreational therapy programs have 
discovered that hunting trips can be therapeutic for veterans 
with physical and psychological disabilities. For example, a 
recreational therapy program at the VA Grand Junction Medical 
Center in Colorado has been organizing shooting and hunting 
trips for veterans who suffer from physical and mental 
disabilities.
    Accordingly, H.R. 1181 would clarify that in any case 
arising out of VA's administration of benefits under title 38 
of the United States Code, a VA beneficiary who is deemed 
unable to manage his or her finances shall not be considered 
adjudicated as a mental defective under the Gun Control Act of 
1968 (P.L. 90-618) without the order or finding of a judge, 
magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent 
jurisdiction that such individual is a danger to himself or 
herself or others.
    H.R. 1181 is supported by The American Legion; the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars of the United States; AMVETS, also known as the 
American Veterans; and, the National Rifle Association.

                                Hearings

    There were no Subcommittee or full Committee hearings held 
on H.R. 1181.

                       Subcommittee Consideration

    There was no Subcommittee consideration of H.R. 1181.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 8, 2017, the full Committee met in open markup 
session, a quorum being present, and ordered H.R. 1181 reported 
favorably to the House of Representatives by voice vote. During 
consideration of the bill, the following amendment was 
considered:

          An amendment offered by Ms. Elizabeth Esty of 
        Connecticut that would strike all after the enacting 
        clause and, instead, require the U.S. Government 
        Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study, issue a 
        report, and make recommendations on the operation of 
        the NICS list with respect for veterans. Such study 
        would include an analysis of VA's procedures for 
        submitting names to NICS; an assessment of how VA's 
        current practices will be impacted by the changes in 
        the fiduciary appointment process mandated by the 21st 
        Century Cures Act; a breakdown by all service-connected 
        disabilities of veterans whose names have been reported 
        to the NICS list; and, the number of veterans who have 
        committed suicide using firearms, even though such 
        veterans were prohibited from possessing firearms. The 
        amendment was defeated by voice vote.

    A motion by Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado to 
report H.R. 1181 favorably to the House of Representatives was 
agreed to by voice vote.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no recorded votes were taken on 
amendments or in connection with ordering H.R. 1181, reported 
to the House.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are to protect veterans' Second Amendment 
rights by prohibiting the Secretary of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs from sending the name of an individual to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion on the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, without the finding 
or order of a judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 
such individual is a danger to himself or herself or others.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                  Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits

    H.R. 1181 does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate on H.R. 
1181 prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
for H.R. 1181 provided by the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 10, 2017.
Hon. Phil Roe, M.D.,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1181, the Veterans 
2nd Amendment Protection Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. 
Wright.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1181--Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

    H.R. 1181 would modify an existing requirement that certain 
individuals determined to be mentally incompetent by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) be prohibited from 
purchasing or possessing legal firearms. CBO expects that 
implementing H.R. 1181 would have no significant budgetary 
effect.
    Under current law, when VA deems individuals to be mentally 
incapacitated, mentally incompetent, experiencing an extended 
loss of consciousness, or otherwise unable to manage their own 
affairs, the department is required to provide that information 
to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Such individuals are then 
added to the list of those prohibited from purchasing or 
possessing firearms. Under H.R. 1181, a judicial authority 
would have to determine that veterans are dangerous before VA 
would be required to report them to DOJ. CBO expects that such 
a requirement would have an insignificant effect on VA's 
workload.
    Enacting H.R. 1181 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1181 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 1181 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Dwayne M. 
Wright. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates regarding H.R. 1181, prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act would be created by H.R. 
1181.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Article I, section 8 of the United States 
Constitution, H.R. 1181 is authorized by Congress' power to 
``provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the 
United States.''

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1181 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act.

              Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision 
of H.R. 1181 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                   Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking

    Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, 115th Cong. (2017), 
the Committee estimates that H.R. 1181 contains no directed 
rule making that would require the Secretary to prescribe 
regulations.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 cites the short title of H.R. 1181, to be the 
``Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act.''

Section 2. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
        mentally incompetent for certain purposes

    Section 2(a) would amend chapter 55 of title 38, U.S.C., by 
preventing a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed 
mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of 
consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental 
defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of 
title 18, U.S.C., 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.
    Section 2(b) would provide a clerical amendment.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           CHAPTER 55--MINORS, INCOMPETENTS, AND OTHER WARDS


Sec.
5501. Commitment actions.
     * * * * * * *
5501B. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
          mentally incompetent for certain purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5501B. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
                    mentally incompetent for certain purposes

  Notwithstanding any determination made by the Secretary under 
section 5501A of this title, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We have serious concerns over H.R. 1181. We believe this 
legislation, in practice, would instantly remove all 
individuals previously determined to be mentally incompetent by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary from the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), 
making it easier, not harder, for those veterans in crisis to 
obtain firearms. Many of those who will be removed from the 
NICS database include veterans with serious mental illnesses 
and who are at increased risk of committing suicide by 
firearm.\1\ Additionally, the bill seeks to jettison the 
carefully crafted bipartisan compromise in the 21st Century 
Cures Act\2\ enacted in December 2016 that codified VA 
implementation of the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendments 
Act of 2007 (NIAA).\3\ Instead, H.R. 1181 would require the VA 
to take a veteran to court to get a determination under a 
standard that would be in effect nearly impossible to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Suicide Prevention, 
Suicide Among Veterans and Other Americans 2001-2014, August 3, 2016. 
Available at http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/
2016suicidedatareport.pdf.
    \2\P.L. 114-255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 
U.S.C. Sec. 5501A.
    \3\P.L. 110-180, January 8, 2008; 121 Stat. 2559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A VA study last year confirmed that 20 veterans and 
military service members commit suicide every day.\4\ According 
to the VA, 66 percent of suicides committed by veterans are by 
firearms.\5\ Under current law and regulations, the name of a 
veteran determined by the VA to be ``mentally incompetent'' and 
appointed a fiduciary by the VA to manage the veteran's VA 
monetary benefits\6\ is provided to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation for inclusion in the NICS.\7\ For a veteran in 
crisis or suffering with a mental health condition or suffering 
from suicidal ideation, this practice can save a life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Suicide Prevention, 
Suicide Among Veterans and Other Americans 2001-2014, August 3, 2016. 
Available at http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/
2016suicidedatareport.pdf.
    \5\VA Suicide Prevention Program, Facts About Veteran Suicide, 
July, 2016. Available at https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/
factsheets/Suicide_Prevention_FactSheet_New_VA_
Stats070616_1400.pdf.
    \6\38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.353.
    \7\The authority for the VA to refer the names of beneficiaries 
determined to be incompetent to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS is 
described in Department of Veterans Affairs, M21-1 Adjudication 
Procedures Manual, Section III.v.9.B.4.a., http://
www.knowva.ebenefits.va.gov/system/templates/selfservice/va_ss/
#!portal/554400000001018/topic/554400000004049/M21-1-Adjudication-
Procedures-Manual. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives (ATF), also noted in its final rule implementing the NICS 
under the Brady Act that the inclusion of ``mentally incompetent'' in 
the definition of ``mental defective'' was wholly consistent with the 
legislative history of the 1968 Gun Control Act (Federal Register, vol. 
61, no. 174, September 6, 1996, p. 47095) and that VA correctly 
interpreted the ATF's definition of ``adjudicated as a mental 
defective'' to include persons determined to be ``mentally 
incompetent'' and appointed a fiduciary by the VA (Federal Register, 
vol. 62, no. 124, June 27, 1997, p. 34634).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just last December, in the wake of tragic shootings at 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia 
Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia in 2007, Sandy Hook Elementary 
School in Newtown, Connecticut in April 2013, and mass 
shootings in San Bernardino, CA in December 2015 and Orlando, 
FL in June 2016, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, 
which carefully refined, in a bipartisan and bicameral effort, 
legislation to prevent veterans who pose a danger to themselves 
and others from obtaining firearms. The 21st Century Cures Act 
established a fair process to ensure due process for veterans 
deemed ``mentally incompetent'' by the VA and appointed a 
fiduciary. It allows veterans to present evidence from a mental 
health professional and be represented by counsel at 
incompetency hearings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\P.L. 114-255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 
U.S.C. Sec. 5501A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just three months after the passage of the 21st Century 
Cures Act, H.R. 1181 would yet again change the standard by 
requiring the VA to obtain a court determination that the 
veteran is a danger to self or others before the VA could 
provide the name of the veteran to the NICS. The language in 
H.R. 1181(a) states:

          ``[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 17(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.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\H.R. 1181(a).

    This appears to apply both prospectively and retroactively, 
as the VA Secretary's previous adjudication of a veteran's 
mental incompetence in compliance with the NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007\10\ would no longer apply. This would 
immediately remove over 174,000 records, allowing easy access 
to firearms for many individuals in crisis and suffering from 
serious mental illnesses like dementia, schizophrenia, and 
long-term severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\P.L. 103-159, Section 103(e). To strengthen the Attorney 
General's authority to secure from any department or agency of the U.S. 
government information on persons who are prohibited from possessing or 
receiving a firearm under federal or state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With enactment of the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, 
the VA may not make a determination on the mental capacity of a 
veteran unless the veteran is provided:

          ``(1) Notice of the proposed adverse determination 
        and the supporting evidence.
          (2) An opportunity to request a hearing.
          (3) An opportunity to present evidence, including an 
        opinion from a medical professional or other person, on 
        the capacity of the beneficiary to manage monetary 
        benefits paid to or for the beneficiary by the 
        Secretary under this title.
          (4) An opportunity to be represented at no expense to 
        the Government (including by counsel) at any such 
        hearing and to bring a medical professional or other 
        person to provide relevant testimony at any such 
        hearing.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\P.L. 114-255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 
U.S.C. Sec. 5501A.

    This requirement ensures veterans with a mental condition 
that may require appointment of a fiduciary are given a fair 
process before that determination is made, and before their 
names are sent to NICS. Additionally, this process does not 
remove a veteran's ability to appeal the VA's referral of his 
or her name to NICS, even after being appointed a fiduciary.
    The issue of veterans' suicide is too important to rush 
through this bill without a hearing or proper time to consider 
its full implications. We agree that the current practice of 
information sharing between the VA and NICS may be over 
inclusive and that alternatives should be explored that would 
more appropriately balance veterans' Second Amendment rights 
with ensuring that veterans who pose a danger to themselves or 
to others do not have access to firearms. However, this bill is 
not the solution. This bill was not considered through regular 
order and was rushed to a full committee markup. This gave us 
only 48 hours to review the legislation. This bill has not 
received a legislative hearing and has not been marked up in 
Subcommittee. No discussion, research, or investigation has 
occurred on the issue subsequent to passage of the 21st Century 
Cures Act.
    This is why we supported an amendment during the full 
Committee markup that we believe would have given us an 
opportunity to better study the impact of the 21st Century 
Cures Act and the VA's existing practices for submitting 
records of veterans to NICS. The Government Accountability 
Office would conduct a study to give us better data and 
information to craft legislation that achieves both goals of 
protecting veterans in crisis and protecting veterans' Second 
Amendment rights.

                                   Elizabeth H. Esty.
                                   Scott H. Peters.
                                   Mark Takano.
                                   Julia Brownley.
                                   Kathleen M. Rice.
                                   Ann M. Kuster.

                                  [all]