Debate over federal legislation designed to protect veterans from having their gun rights infringed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs simply for having someone help them with their finances is getting contentious.

A U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday focused on the “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,” which would reverse the policy for reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS)  when a veteran has appointed a financial fiduciary to handle his or her monetary affairs. The VA deems a veteran appointing a fiduciary to be mentally incompetent, barring them from purchasing a firearm as a result.

Veteran supporters and pro-gun advocates believe the VA reporting such an occurrence to NICS makes veterans in need of help less likely to ask for fear they’ll be denied their Second Amendment rights.

VA officials, however, vehemently disagree. And at the hearing, one said that if Congress should pass such a law, the VA would not comply with it.

According to a report at freebasenews.com, VA Deputy Undersecretary Glenn Powers testified that his department opposes the act. Additionally, he said the VA already provides a sufficient method for beneficiaries who have been reported to NICS to “petition for relief.”

“VA did not err in reporting, and if passed into law VA could not comply,” Powers said.

Of course, “petitioning for relief” after one has lost their gun rights isn’t what the Second Amendment is all about. “Shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean “Infringe and then see if you can get your rights back.” It’s akin to unconstitutional “red-flag” laws that allow the government to confiscate weapons because of possibly baseless accusations, then make the gun owner go to court and prove they deserve to have their firearms returned.

Speaking of such laws, Powers also said the VA would oppose a forthcoming bill that would bar the VA from joining in support of “red-flag” laws, also called extreme risk protective orders (ERPOs). Powers said that legislation “places the security and safety of veterans their families and communities at risk and ultimately prevents VA from providing appropriate care for some of our most vulnerable veterans.”

Of course, the VA undersecretary’s declaration that the agency would not follow a law if legally passed by Congress didn’t set well with supporters in the House, including Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Montana.

“Well, I’m glad everybody hears that on the record—that the VA is going to refuse to comply regardless of what we actually pass here,” Rep. Rosendale said.