69–006 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act, P.L. 103–159, § 103(e)(1)). 

2 38 C.F.R. § 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.’’ 3Department of Veterans Affairs, M21–1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, Section 

III.v.9.B.4.a. 

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

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

4Department of Veterans Affairs, M21–1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, Section 

III.v.9.B.4.c. Federal law at 38 U.S.C. § 5103A requires VA to assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate their claims for benefits. 

firearms prohibition, it is a VA employee—not a judge or magistrate—who determines whether such relief should be granted. 

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

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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 auVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:34 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR033.XXX HR033

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

thority 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 DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:34 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR033.XXX HR033

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

partment 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 

such person is a danger to himself or herself or others. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

1Department 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. 2P.L. 114–255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5501A. 

3P.L. 110–180, January 8, 2008; 121 Stat. 2559. 

4Department 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. § 3.353. 

7The 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). 

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. 

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. 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

8P.L. 114–255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5501A. 

9 H.R. 1181(a). 

10P.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. 11P.L. 114–255, December 13, 2016; 130 Stat. 1307; codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5501A. 

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

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

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 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

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

This requirement ensures veterans with a mental condition that 

may require appointment of a fiduciary are given a fair process beVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:34 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR033.XXX HR033

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

fore 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. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS