The Brady Campaign is using the Fort Hood incident to muster support for their opposition to a new bill (The “Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act”) which would make it easier for veterans deemed by the VA to be
1) “mentally incapacitated,” 2) “mentally incompetent,” or 3) “experiencing an extended loss of consciousness” to retain possession of their firearms.
Quote:
|
`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.'.
|
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2547:
The BC argument is that
Quote:
Current federal law and VA procedures ensure that only seriously mentally ill persons are barred from gun possession:
• Significant Medical Evidence Required – Evidence must be “clear, convincing and leave[] no doubt as to the person’s incompetency” or based on specific medical findings and show that the person “lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs.”
• High Burden of Proof – “Where reasonable doubt arises … such doubt will be resolved in favor of competency.”
• Due Process Protected – A person declared incompetent must receive notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
• Gun Possession Allowed if Competency Restored – Any person who regains competency may again possess firearms.
|
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/...fact-sheet.pdf
Though I am no fan of the Brady Bunch, the bill seems to me to undermine the VA, to increase bureaucracy, to complicate the law, and to put a burden on the courts. All of which may be completely justified if the end result is a genuine improvement in civil rights. Of that, however, I am unconvinced.
I am guessing that this bill was prompted by a real-world situation in which someone actually should have had their right to keep arms restored, but didn't. But that's just a guess. I'm sure some of you know much more about this than I. So, explain to me exactly why the Bradys have got this one wrong.