Sen. Burr: Legislation doesn't exempt veterans from Brady Act

Just as the public expects elected officials to read the text of bills before they pass judgment on them, your editorial board should do the same. Yet it is clear that you did not read S. 669, the "Veterans' Second Amendment Protection Act," before you published your editorial "Guns and the mentally ill" (Nov. 16).

Here's the text of my bill in its entirety: "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."

Allow me to share with you some facts about my legislation now that you've had the opportunity to read it.

Nothing in my bill exempts veterans from the Brady Act, nor does it seek to provide guns to the mentally ill. Rather, it requires a judicial process to be used as a condition for satisfying the Brady requirements. Veterans -- those who fought in defense of our freedoms -- are the only recipients of federal benefits who are automatically deprived of a constitutional right solely because they've been appointed a fiduciary, regardless of the reason.

Second, you wrote that it is an exercise in "common sense" to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Even a quick reading of my bill would indicate that the process it proposes would require the very thing you and I find entirely sensible before a constitutional right is abridged: a finding of dangerousness by a judge, rather than an assumption by a bureaucrat. I would hope you would agree that due process is just plain "common sense."

Third, you wrote that most states ban gun sales to those with mental disabilities. True, but were you also aware that most states require some kind of judicial authority to render that judgment? My legislation proposes a similar judicial rendering in the case of veterans.

Fourth, you wrote that it would be madness to ignore the fact that some individuals pose a risk to themselves or others. I agree, and had you read the bill you would have seen it is the centerpiece of the rational process my legislation would put in place.

Fifth, you wrote that it is "bizarre" that I'm standing behind my legislation. I do stand by my bill, just as the full Veterans' Affairs Committee did last Congress, and just as a unanimous committee panel did again this Congress. Furthermore, the bill enjoys the support of numerous veterans' organizations.

Sixth, in an ironic (and I am sure unintentional) endorsement of my legislation you wrote, "Although an inability to manage one's finances is far from a perfect measure of dangerousness, it's not an especially capricious standard either." My bill attempts to improve the existing process, which, by your own admission, is "far from perfect."

The bill described by your editorial is far different than the bill I introduced. I am more than willing to engage in an honest debate on my legislation; perhaps it is too much to expect that an editorial board would engage in such a debate and read the plain legislative text of my bill.

One has to wonder whether the paper would have run this editorial if the Social Security Administration used the same standard as the VA to deprive all seniors who need a fiduciary of their Second Amendment rights. The answer is probably not. They might even defend the Second Amendment rights of seniors with the same enthusiasm with which they exercise their own First Amendment rights.

By: Sen. Richard Burr, The Baltimore Sun

Guns In Parks Back On Metro Council Agenda

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Metro Council members will once again debate the controversial topic of guns in parks.

Tuesday night, Councilman Sam Coleman introduced legislation that would allow guns in nine rural Metro parks.

Last August, the full council voted 22 to 18 to opt out of a Tennessee state law and ban guns in parks.

Coleman feels guns should be allowed in parks that are in rural parts of Metro Nashville/Davidson County.

"They are isolated areas. They are away from the inner-city, around children and people that are recreating at concerts. It just makes sense to have that protection if you are a gun carrying permit holder," said Coleman.

In October, Coleman asked the Metro Parks Department to compile a list of parks it deemed rural or isolated.

Park administrators came back to council with the list of nine parks that included Alvin Beaman Park and Greenway on Little Marrowbone Road, Bells Bend Park and Greenway on Old Hickory Boulevard, Cane Ridge Park on Battle Road, Couch Tract on Old Hickory Boulevard, Cecil Rhea Crawford Park on Cane Ridge Road, Hamilton Creek Park on Bell Road, Morgan Road Property on Morgan Road, Peeler Park on Neelys Bend Road and Vulcano Tract on Culbertson Road.

"If you are a gun carrying permit holder it makes sense to be able to carry your gun in those particular parks," said Coleman.

The full council passed the new bill on first reading without debate. It comes up for a second reading at the next council meeting.

By: Chris Cannon, News Channel 5 Nashville

Editiorial: Guns Should Be Sold with Child-Safety Locks

Part of the joy during a holiday season involves family and friends gathering together. Something we may be thankful for this Thanksgiving is the health and well-being of our children. During this holiday season, and every day, child safety should be a number one consideration.

According to a national survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that one in three homes has firearms. This right to bear arms, while guaranteed by the Second Amendment, comes with important responsibilities for gun ownership.

Although current federal law requires that all handgun purchases include the option of either a lock box or a locking device, a group of concerned citizens for child safety support legislation that requires all handgun purchases include specifically a child safety trigger lock for the gun.

Massachusetts and Hawaii have already demonstrated, through legislation requiring all handgun purchases to include child-proofing features such as trigger locks, that accidental child death rates can decrease. Children are naturally curious, and gun owners should be aware that this curiosity is brought out even more during the holiday season as children search the house for presents and toys.

In a 2006 study, 22 percent of children of gun-owning parents admitted that they had handled their parents’ firearm at some point without the knowledge of the parent. This fact should be brought to light when considering whether or not one should keep handguns stored with a safety lock.

The goal of the group of concerned citizens is to get the community to start talking about passing legislation requiring guns be sold with a child safety trigger lock and that gun owners will take into account child curiosity and safety when deciding whether or not to keep a child safety lock on their guns.

By: Leslie Sadeghi, Kniox News