A Department of Veterans Affairs official testified at a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing that the agency will not comply with proposed legislation that directs the agency to rescind the names of veterans flagged to lose their gun rights after being found unfit to manage their VA benefits. (Joshua J. Seybert/U.S. Air Force)
WASHINGTON — House lawmakers and the Department of Veterans Affairs appear to be in a standoff on whether the agency should continue to ban veterans from owning guns when they are appointed fiduciaries to manage their benefits.
A VA official said this week at a House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing that the agency will not comply with proposed legislation that directs the agency to notify the attorney general that it acted improperly by seeking to end veterans’ gun rights when they were determined unable to manage their VA benefits.
“We are being requested to go back and tell the [Department of Justice] that the names we reported, we reported in error, which we don’t believe,” Kevin Friel, VA deputy director for pension and fiduciary service, said Wednesday at the hearing.
At issue is legislation called the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act that would direct the VA secretary to issue a formal notice that it acted without authority or court determination that the veterans posed a danger to themselves or others when submitting their names to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The national background check system is a database identifying individuals barred from legally owning or possessing firearms.
Friel and other VA leaders were testifying before the committee’s subpanel on disability assistance and memorial affairs about 18 bills that propose changes in the delivery of benefits for veterans.
But Friel’s statements that the VA would not abide by the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act, if enacted into law, prompted outrage and anger from lawmakers and later a request by Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, the subcommittee chairman, to speak with him one-on-one during a break in the 2 ½-hour hearing.
The legislation would stop the VA from continuing its practice of identifying veterans as “mentally incompetent” and unfit to own or possess firearms in cases where the agency determined that they needed a fiduciary, or outside party, to manage their VA compensation.
The VA also opposed a similar bill called the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act that would stop the agency from identifying veterans to the national background check system when they are appointed fiduciaries, unless there is a court finding the veterans pose a danger to themselves or others.
Friel, upon questioning by lawmakers, repeated several times that the VA would defy the Veterans 2nd Amendment Restoration Act and similar legislation.
Friel said he was following the direction of VA Secretary Denis McDonough in his responses.
“You are putting the VA secretary in a bad position. You sit here and tell us you are not going to comply with the law,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas. “This is a cause for concern.”
Friel responded: “The issue we have is with the [proposed] law. We are being asked to remove everyone who’s being reported.”
Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., also asked Friel whether the VA would follow the terms of the law.
“Is it your position that you will not comply with an act of law passed by Congress?” he asked.
Friel responded: “Yes, sir.”
“That you would not comply?” Rosendale asked, expressing disbelief.
“Yes, sir. It is in our testimony that we would have trouble complying with the law,” Friel said.
He said the VA does not do a background check or review health records for veterans before seeking to take away their gun rights. The determination is based on their need for a fiduciary when seeking VA benefits.
Veterans who require fiduciaries are determined to be “mentally incompetent” and therefore denied gun rights, Friel said.
Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., a retired Navy SEAL, said he believes the VA is overstepping the constitutional rights of veterans for due process.
But Friel said the proactive approach to taking a veteran’s firearms underscores the agency’s concerns about suicide risks among former service members. Most suicides among veterans involve firearms, he said.
But Crane fired back: “Do you have any evidence you can cite that shows veterans are more at risk of firearm suicide if they are simply unable to balance their checkbooks and therefore need a fiduciary to manage their finances?”
Friel said financial stress can lead to depression and hardship.
Rosendale asked Friel whether the VA considered how veterans would respond to being judged by the VA “as mentally incompetent” when they are just having problems managing their finances.
“Do you think referring to veterans who need a fiduciary as ‘mentally incompetent’ fulfills this mission or makes veterans less likely to pursue health care at the VA?” Rosendale asked.
“I do not believe that it sways them in any way because the decision is based on the benefit,” Friel said.
He said under the VA’s interpretation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the agency can legally remove gun rights from veterans requiring a fiduciary based on a determination of “incompetency.”
Rosendale again asked: “So is it your position that you will not comply with an act of law passed by Congress?”
“Yes,” Friel said.
