The reason why some gun owners support the Leahy-McCarthy measure is they think the bill will make it easier for many Americans to regain their rights -- such as military veterans who have been illegitimately denied a firearm. What they don't realize is that this is a pie-in-the-sky promise.

Veterans will have to find a pro-gun shrink that will certify that said veteran is not a danger to himself or others. (Question: Would you ever certify that someone you don't know could NEVER be a danger to himself or others?) They will then have to hire a good attorney, take the government to court and hope they can force the FBI to delete their names from the NICS system.

It must be stressed that thousands of veterans have already been illegally banned from owning guns without being convicted of anything. Not only that, thousands more will have their names placed on the Brady list of banned buyers if this legislation passes. It is beside the point that they might be able to get their rights restored. They never should have lost them in the first place. Further, they will be forced to spend a lot of money to regain their gun rights -- rights which were unconstitutionally stripped by the Leahy-McCarthy bill.

We've already seen that at the state level, getting your guns back -- after being decreed a supposed danger to society -- is easier said than done. Consider what is ALREADY happening in California. University of San Francisco professor W. Michael Becker -- a licensed psychologist and attorney -- points out how in the Golden State, a gun owner can easily lose his guns if he's deemed to be a danger to himself and others. And while state law allows the gun owner to get his guns back (after he's no longer considered a danger), the retrieval process is by NO MEANS automatic.

Becker says:

It might be argued, that because there is the option of a hearing, the [California] law provides a reasoned avenue for that person to regain possession.... But there is a problem with the hearing itself. In order for the seized weapons to be returned, it is not the government which must show that the person is a danger to himself or others, but rather a judge (yes, only a judge, no jury) must be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the person will NOT be a danger to himself or others. What has happened to the "presumed" innocent (or in this case competent) until proven otherwise?... This is a dire reversal of our typical constitutional rights.