SK FACTCHECK
Twisting Feinstein’s Words on Military Vets
Posted on April 17, 2013
299
Q: Did Sen. Dianne Feinstein say all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns?
A: No. She said veterans should not be exempt from her proposed assault weapons ban, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a concern. She did not say all veterans suffer from PTSD or that all veterans should not own guns.

FULL QUESTION
Did Dianne Feinstein really say all veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns? The quote was supposed to have occurred in a Senate committee meeting.
FULL ANSWER
This claim — which has gone viral — grossly distorts what Feinstein actually said at a March 7 Senate hearing on her legislation, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
At the hearing, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas offered an amendment that would have exempted military veterans from the assault weapons ban. The bill provides very few exceptions for individuals. As we’ve written before, the bill exempts active military members and law enforcement. It also provides an exemption, in some cases, for retired law enforcement officials. The legislation says that if a law enforcement agency sells or transfers a semiautomatic weapon on the prohibited list to an officer upon retirement or if that officer had such a weapon for “official use before such retirement” then the retired officer can keep the weapon if that person is “retired in good standing” and is “not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic weapon.”
Cornyn argued that if retired police officers can keep their weapons, then military veterans should be able, too. He spoke as if all retired police officers are exempt, but they are not. (The committee’s discussion of Cornyn’s amendment can be found at the 1-hour, 32-minute mark of the C-Span video tape of the bill’s markup.)
Feinstein, a California Democrat, noted that there was no exemption for military veterans in the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That ban expired in 2004. She then went on to discuss her concerns for providing an exemption for military veterans.
Feinstein, March 7: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to– if you’re going to do this — find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

First, Feinstein is wrong when she says that post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, “is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War.”
Combat veterans, crime victims, survivors of natural disasters and others who experienced traumatic events have long suffered from symptoms of what we now know as PTSD. According to the National Institutes of Health, PTSD was officially recognized in 1980 “as a disorder with specific symptoms,” and it was added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. A 1990 study found 15 percent of all Vietnam veterans were suffering from PTSD.
But Cornyn and others have misrepresented her remarks. After Feinstein spoke, Cornyn had this exchange with the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont.
Cornyn, March 7: I think it’s a mistake to paint so broadly as to say that any active duty military or veterans can’t use these kinds of weapons or any other lawful weapons for self-defense, and certainly I wouldn’t want to suggest that we think people who served in the military all suffer from some debilitating illness that would prohibit them from being able to defend themselves.

Leahy: That suggestion has not been made by anybody on either side of the aisle here.

Leahy is right. Feinstein did not say that “people in the military all suffer from some debilitating illness,” and she did not say that they “can’t use … any other lawful weapons.” She was clearly talking about a subset of veterans (not all of them) and certain guns (assault weapons prohibited under her bill) when she expressed concerns about a gun seller being able to verify that there is “no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.” (The emphasis is our own.)
Regardless, as The Daily Beast reported three days later, her comments “ignited a firestorm” on the Internet.
The Daily Beast, March 10: Not surprisingly, these comments have ignited a firestorm of angry responses that have spread across social media and the conservative and pro-gun blogosphere.

On the Constitutional Conservatives website, one post said Feinstein “needs to go to prison over this matter—treason! This woman is despicable … They’re just using PTSD and/or mental illness as an excuse to deny veterans their God-given Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.”

Conservative website and bloggers twisted her words to suggest she meant ALL vets. One site, mrconservative.com, posted a blog item on March 9 that gave this interpretation of Feinstein’s remarks: “Translation? All vets suffer from PTSD; PTSD makes them crazy; crazy people can’t get guns.” That post was “liked” by more than 59,000 Facebook users.
The headline of that post was, “Sen. Feinstein Says All Our Veterans Are Mentally Ill And Can’t Own Guns.” All veterans? All guns? No, that’s not what she said.
Feinstein’s concern about the military is not misplaced. It’s well documented that military veterans suffering from PTSD are a danger to themselves and others. The FBI website carries a July 2011 article advising law enforcement how to negotiate with war veterans in crisis situations. In that article, the FBI cites studies that show the increased prevalence of PTSD among military veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.
FBI, July 2011: The prevalence of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for those returning from Iraq may be from 15.6 to 17.1 percent; the figure may be 11.2 percent for those returning from Afghanistan (pre-Iraq troop drawdown). Additional screening and elapsed time since coming home are important factors in recognizing the continued presence of PTSD and mental health problems as a result of wartime experiences. A second screening conducted 3 to 6 months after active-duty military personnel returned showed an increase of reported mental health problems from 11.8 percent to 16.7 percent and for reserve personnel from 12.7 percent to 24.5 percent.

Earlier this year, former Marine Eddie Routh shot and killed retired Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle at a gun range. At the time, Kyle — who wrote “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History” — was helping Routh overcome PTSD. Routh’s mother, Jodi, released a statement that said, “We wish we could thank Chris Kyle for his genuine interest in helping our son overcome his battle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We want others with PTSD to know their struggle is recognized and we hope this tragedy will somehow help in getting greater care for and assistance to those in need.”
Military veterans — or anyone for that matter — suffering from PTSD may or may not be prohibited from purchasing a firearm, under the current background check system. Only those “adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle [their] own affairs” would be denied the right to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed gun dealer under the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
In a January 2012 item, the National Rifle Association debunked another viral rumor that the Veterans Administration was taking away guns based on questions they ask of military veterans.
NRA, Jan. 6, 2012: [A]lthough some VA records are reported to NICS, a record will only be reported if the person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” — in other words, that the person is mentally incompetent.

At the VA, a person can only be found incompetent after a lengthy process that includes the opportunity for a hearing and appeal. Just telling a nurse you feel “stressed” (as the email claims) wouldn’t be enough. And the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007 not only makes clear that any “adjudication” without those procedures won’t result in the loss of gun rights, but also provides a way for those who have been found incompetent to get the finding reversed.

At the hearing, Feinstein appeared to be talking about those veterans who may be suffering from PTSD but not adjudicated as such when she expressed concern about the ability of gun dealers to verify “that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.” She also expressed a willingness to negotiate a compromise that would address Cornyn’s concern that her bill was too broadly written by excluding all military veterans.
What she did not do is say all military veterans are mentally ill and should be prohibited from owning guns.
– Eugene Kiely
Sources

U.S. Senate. “S. 150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” (as introduced 24 Jan 2013.)
Farley, Robert. “Proposed Weapons Ban Exempts Government Officials?” FactCheck.org. 4 Feb 2013.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Pub. L. 103-322. 13 Sep 1994.
Farley, Robert. “Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?” FactCheck.org. 1 Feb 2013.
National Institute of Mental Health. “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” Undated, accessed 17 Apr 2013.
National Institutes of Health. “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” Undated, accessed 17 Apr 2013.
The National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “PTSD Research Quarterly.” Fall 1990.
Reno, Jamie. “Dianne Feinstein Ignites Debate About Veterans With PTSD and Guns.” The Daily Beast. 10 Mar 2013.
“Sen. Feinstein Says All Our Veterans Are Mentally Ill And Can’t Own Guns.” mrconservative.com. 9 Mar 2013.
Asken, Michael J. et al. “Police Negotiations with War Veterans: Seeing Through the Residual Fog of War.” FBI. Jul 2011.
Fernandez, Manny. “Ex-Sniper Extended Hand to Troubled Marine Accused in His Death.” New York Times. 4 Feb 2013.
Hallman, Tristan. ” ‘Incredibly heartbroken’ family of accused killer issues statement on SEAL sniper’s death.” Dallas Morning News. 26 Feb 2013.
FBI. “National Instant Criminal Background Check System fact sheet.” Undated, accessed 17 Apr 2013.
Categories:Ask FactCheck
People:Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn
Issues:

To those who worry about the loss of image of the US, most countries have populations who want to emigrate - and where do they want to emigrate to? Why its the good ol' USA.

Soros has dropped out of political contributions - hasnot given anything for the past four years.. The Koch's and many others like Ailes, are spending several billion to achieve their agenda. Note the GOP rhetoric demonizing Soros repeatedly as if his $4 billion personal fortune (not being spent politically currently) overwhelms the $80 billion owned by the Koch's.

If near by you might get the right lens cap (and other stuff) from a Goodwill. They are being deluged with film camera things in this digital age and are selling these things cheaply.

Remember - this is the same network that fired Dan Rather for daring to comment (a true fact) that George Bush went AWOL during his time of service. Sort of an equal opportunity network.

Full disclosure: I am an MD. Kickbacks? Not true. Referrals keep you in the chain of referrals but no $ exchange hands. Medicine is controlled not by the docs but $7 and $8 figure insurance execs. Docs are very low on that food chain. The other major expense: Pharmaceuticals - at a cost 3-4 times that of other countries. The generous US citizens are subsidizing drug costs everywhere else (Aren't we nice?). It is true that all in the US are seen whether or not they personally can pay - but the total cost for this free care is less than 8% of the total health budget - this is a straw dog that allows insurance companies and others to ratchet up their prices.

Don't forget, GWB went AWOL for one year.

His art is as pathetic as his presidency. But at least he is only killing canvasses and not people and countries.

Mr. Payne - it would be useful to stick to the facts. Currently, despite reprehensible treatment of Palestinians, the US still can rely on Israel and clearly cannot on the rest of the countries in that region. That is a fact. If Israel disappeared tomorrow, we would lose all that necessary political contact.

A little history: The USA had only one reliable ally in the Middle East during the cold war - Israel. When the cold war ended, the Palestinians no longer had the Soviets as a revenue source. They also lost Kuwait as a source when Kuwait found the Palestinians they were hiring supported Iraq. Meanwhile the Islamists in Palestine gradually threw out the 1/3 of their citizens who were Christian (now down to less than 5%). That started the Intifada with full scale attacks on Israel - so the barriers went up and the Palestinians who worked in Israel no longer had jobs. Israel still is a major military developer of weaponry for the US - high tech stuff and other hardware (try getting that help from the Arab countries). So the US supplies them with aid - mostly for military hardware which they buy from the US (we get that money back and jobs are created - hooray). With Putin on the march we still need a reliable ally in that troubled part of the world. Hopefully this provides some perspective.

I am glad that you indicate that such figures need analysis. There is a tendency to see things in black and white and the actual numbers are fuzzy and nuanced.

I agree but the death toll annually for both sides is about 10-20 per year. I just wanted that number in perspective to the death toll in other countries as an index of concern.

The money is directed from the Feds to the States to do what they want with it. Once the State get the cash, the Feds have little control. Most of the direction comes from acts of Congress. And guess which states have the most power in Congress right now?

The bottom line is that the States that complain the most about government spending are the ones that get the most of it. The 'blue' states are subsidizing the red states. It is logical however as the red states (except UTAH) are the highest in all indexes of social discord such as alcoholism, divorce, abortions, crime, murder, wife beating along with the highest recipients of food stamps.

If one Palestinian is shot, that is front page news while if an Israeli is shot that is buried in the back. Meanwhile in Syria over 100,000 dead (who cares), in Central African Republic over 150,000 dead (who cares), in Sudan 50,000 dead (who cares), and soon we will start having a death toll from the Ukraine. There seems to be a major difference in perspective here. Note also that the USA gives $3 billion to Egypt each year.