House Votes on Bill to Divest or Ban TikTok; Biden Administration Criticized for “Veteran Gun Ban”
In a recent House vote, lawmakers deliberated on a bill that would divest or ban TikTok, the popular social media platform. The outcome of the vote remains to be seen, but it has sparked a contentious debate among politicians and the public alike.
Meanwhile, a Department of Veterans Affairs policy, which has been dubbed a “veteran gun ban” by Second Amendment advocates, is unlikely to receive funding in the new spending bill. This decision has drawn criticism from the Biden administration, which supports the broader omnibus bill but opposes this specific provision. The administration has vowed to find alternative ways to prevent firearms from reaching individuals who are deemed unfit to possess them.
Currently, the VA shares the names of veterans who are deemed unable to manage their VA financial benefits with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This measure aims to prevent individuals with mental health issues or financial difficulties from obtaining firearms. However, critics argue that this policy is unconstitutional and infringes on the Second Amendment rights of veterans.
Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA), strongly criticized the VA’s actions, stating that the agency’s de-armament process violates the Constitution and should never have been implemented. Johnston emphasized that the veterans affected by this policy are not individuals with adjudicated cases or severe mental health issues but rather individuals who may require assistance with their finances or face health challenges.
The GOA has lobbied Congress to defund this policy in the short term and has urged its supporters to contact their representatives to repeal what they view as a veteran gun ban. According to the GOA, this policy has already disarmed approximately 250,000 Americans.
Proponents of the policy argue that it is necessary to prevent veteran suicides. However, Johnston contends that it actually discourages veterans from seeking mental health counseling, as they fear facing consequences related to their firearm ownership. He argues that this policy stigmatizes mental health issues and contributes to the problem of veteran suicide rather than alleviating it.
The White House has endorsed the larger omnibus bill but criticized the provision regarding veterans and firearms. In a statement of administration policy, the White House expressed its commitment to exploring all possible avenues to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. However, it also acknowledged the need to balance this objective with the protection of the rights of individuals who should not be prohibited from owning firearms under federal law.
The VA has not directly commented on the criticism but referred to the White House statement for further clarification.
The policy in question is part of the Brady Act, which established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. When the Veterans Benefits Administration determines that a VA beneficiary is unable to manage their financial affairs due to injury, disease, or age-related illness, this information is disclosed to NICS. The VA then assesses whether a fiduciary should be appointed to manage the beneficiary’s benefits. The VA also claims to have an administrative relief procedure in place to evaluate the desire of the beneficiary to own firearms while ensuring the safety of the veteran and their family members.
The debate surrounding this policy highlights the ongoing tension between gun rights and mental health concerns. Critics argue that the policy infringes on the Second Amendment rights of veterans, while supporters maintain that it is necessary to prevent potential harm and suicides. As discussions unfold, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will address this issue and whether alternative solutions can be found to maintain a balance between public safety and individual rights.
