Gun bans coming to some social security recipients

[gun sane]

If the government believes by scanning SS files that a person is mentally incapable of responsible gun ownership, follow due process and call for a competency hearing before a federal judge and present medical evidence why this person's rights should be revoked.  From what I've seen, Obama could do with a guardian himself.

[Hozzie]

If the government believes by scanning SS files that a person is mentally incapable of responsible gun ownership, follow due process and call for a competency hearing before a federal judge and present medical evidence why this person's rights should be revoked.  From what I've seen, Obama could do with a guardian himself.

 

I don't disagree, but in the cases we are talking in the article, I believe that they have already been deemed incompetent to manage their own affairs through a legal process.  If that is not the case, I agree, it needs to have due process, but I think these situations they are referring to have already had that.

[btq96r]

I don't disagree, but in the cases we are talking in the article, I believe that they have already been deemed incompetent to manage their own affairs through a legal process.  If that is not the case, I agree, it needs to have due process, but I think these situations they are referring to have already had that.

 

Not necessarily.  While I agree with you that there are people who are ill with things like dementia brought about by Alzheimer's that shouldn't have a gun, the SS administration wouldn't look at this from a medical perspective, but rather a binary yes/no standard, so the slightest reason could be used against someone.

Edited July 20, 2015 by btq96r

[mikegideon]

The NRA's response...

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150718/social-security-administration-to-strip-millions-of-americans-of-their-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms

[JAB]

I'm not sure how high the violent crime rate is with our senior citizens, but I can't believe it's a big concern. :shake: :shake:

 

Guys, our country is run by fools.

 

Just to throw this out there, it isn't just senior citizens who receive social security.  The guy receiving disability because he is crazier than a soup sandwich and whose goldfish tells him that God wants him to kill people?  Yeah, that guy is receiving social security.  Further, I used to work at an agency that served adults with mental disabilities (mental retardation and so on.)  Many of our clients who were not senior citizens received lifelong social security benefits of one kind or another from a very early age.  When television and movies show you the stereotypical  'happy, if a little goofy retarded person' they don't tell you that mental retardation (more often than not) comes with one or more mental illnesses ranging from being bipolar to violent personality disorders.  I even had one client who I swear was psychotic (he had tried to poison his mother on at least one occasion when she was still living and he lived with her) and another who had multiple personalities.  In all cases, these folks needed other people to manage their affairs - medical, financial and so on.  Now, I am about as much against infringing on the Second Amendment as a person can be but trust me, you do not want those folks owning firearms.  Of course, unless I am mistaken the background check form already has a question about having been adjuticated as mentally incompetent so - as the clients who were severely incapacitated had a conservator, meaning they had been adjuticated as being incompetent - I would think that would already be covered.

 

Now, I am not saying that there isn't the potential for abuse of such measures as Obummer is proposing.  After all, we are talking about the federal government and they will twist and abuse anything and everything to attain their goals.  I am just saying that, on the face of it, there might be some wisdom in restricting firearms access for people who are mentally incompetent to the point that they can't manage their own affairs.  The problem is that it is the government who largely decides who is that incompetent so all they have to do is declare someone to be of that level of incompetence - whether the person really is or not - and then strip them of their Second Amendment rights.

Edited July 20, 2015 by JAB

[Omega]

Just to throw this out there, it isn't just senior citizens who receive social security.  The guy receiving disability because he is crazier than a soup sandwich and whose goldfish tells him that God wants him to kill people?  Yeah, that guy is receiving social security.  Further, I used to work at an agency that served adults with mental disabilities (mental retardation and so on.)  Many of our clients who were not senior citizens received lifelong social security benefits of one kind or another from a very early age.  When television and movies show you the stereotypical  'happy, if a little goofy retarded person' they don't tell you that mental retardation (more often than not) comes with one or more mental illnesses ranging from being bipolar to violent personality disorders.  I even had one client who I swear was psychotic (he had tried to poison his mother on at least one occasion when she was still living and he lived with her) and another who had multiple personalities.  In all cases, these folks needed other people to manage their affairs - medical, financial and so on.  Now, I am about as much against infringing on the Second Amendment as a person can be but trust me, you do not want those folks owning firearms.  Of course, unless I am mistaken the background check form already has a question about having been adjuticated as mentally incompetent so - as the clients who were severely incapacitated had a conservator, meaning they had been adjuticated as being incompetent - I would think that would already be covered.

 

Now, I am not saying that there isn't the potential for abuse of such measures as Obummer is proposing.  After all, we are talking about the federal government and they will twist and abuse anything and everything to attain their goals.  I am just saying that, on the face of it, there might be some wisdom in restricting firearms access for people who are mentally incompetent to the point that they can't manage their own affairs.  The problem is that it is the government who largely decides who is that incompetent so all they have to do is declare someone to be of that level of incompetence - whether the person really is or not - and then strip them of their Second Amendment rights.

I think we can agree on those folks not being allowed to own weapons, but for some VA or SS clerk to check off a box and without any adjudication you are placed on a list is no way to do it.  Some even take the fact that your bills are scheduled and paid electronically  to mean that you can't handle your affairs so should be put on a blacklist.  The Dems are trying their damnest to get our guns in every way possible, and by using what 'seems' to be a good idea gets even some of us to see it as a good thing. 

 

Anyone hear of this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/bill-would-pay-gun-owners-to-turn-assault-weapons-/

 

Just one more way to get their foot in the door.

[Oh Shoot]

....

Anyone hear of this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/bill-would-pay-gun-owners-to-turn-assault-weapons-/

 

Hey, give me enough financial incentive, I'll turn all my "assault weapons" in. And start over with the profits. :)

 

- OS

[Sam1]

I must be missing something.  I didn't read anywhere that he wants to prevent everyone on SS from being able to own guns.  It specifically states that this is only for people who have been legally deemed incapable of managing their own affairs.  While I am certainly against coming up with arbitrary reasons to prevent people from owning guns, some of you sound like hypocrites.   I believe most reasonable people and a majority of gun owners feel that those with documented mental illness should not own or possess weapons.  I suppose we can argue if there is a difference between mental illness and the ability to manage your own affairs, but I don't personally see an issue.

 

I can't say I disagree with it.  If people aren't mentally capable of taking care of their own affairs, they shouldn't to me be possessing a gun either in my opinion.  If the NRA had come up with the idea of using known information such as this to prevent those who most likely aren't mentally capable from possessing guns, most would be saying "see, what a good idea by the NRA!"

 

I am the first to admit, I don't think everyone should or is capable of having a gun.  This to me seems reasonable.  I am not debating that he doesn't want to push it further where I don't agree, but in this case, I am ok with the idea.  Now, they should in no way be able to just confiscate them, they should go to family members or something.  That is one thing I would have an issue with.

 

Flame away  :hat:

 

This is from the SSA website:

 

 

 

You have a payee because we have decided that you need help in managing your money.

 

And that now means:

 

 

 

We have decided that you can no longer own a gun.  It doesn't matter than I'm a union employee sitting in an office that has no medical experience, no understanding constitutional rights or... oh wait I'll be back in 15 minutes, it's time for break.

[E4 No More]

Like just about everything, the Devil is in the details. :shrug:

[Hozzie]

Sam and SWJewell, I agree with both of you.  I guess my point is that if proper steps would be followed I am not completely against this, but it can't be just because someone decided this for you.  It must include due process.

[gregintenn]

 

 

Anyone hear of this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/bill-would-pay-gun-owners-to-turn-assault-weapons-/

 

Just one more way to get their foot in the door.

Would that be $2000 per rifle? :devil: How many would I be allowed to turn each tax year?

[Oh Shoot]

Would that be $2000 per rifle? :devil: How many would I be allowed to turn each tax year?

 

That was my point. I could turn them in, then upgrade!

 

- OS

[Ugly]

But it's tax dollars.

Might as well get on the food stamps. Appreciate it :)

[Sam1]

Sam and SWJewell, I agree with both of you.  I guess my point is that if proper steps would be followed I am not completely against this, but it can't be just because someone decided this for you.  It must include due process.

 

Unfortunately it's just 'up to them' and you can appeal (to them) if you don't like their decision.  Wonder how that will turn out?

[Oh Shoot]

Btw, here's some NRA news on the issue.

 

Senator Cornyn (Rep. Texas) has introduced a bill to "halt NICS abuses against veterans and SS recipients".

 

https://www.nraila.org/email/grassroots-alerts/2015/vol-22-no-31-08072015/

 

- OS

Edited August 9, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

It is like I have went to sleep and woke up in some sort of bizarre alternate universe. And in this bizarre universe veterans are considered terrorists, those that suck off the government teat are revered, victims are persecuted and our government is run by the largest socialist oligarchy the world has ever seen.
 
We shall see a time when our country becomes tyrannical, I believe we are already there because the government uses its power to harm, subjugate, imprison and enslave its citizens and especially those who overtly question the government. The poor are enslaved with the welfare system and the working class are enslaved by the ever increasing taxes they MUST pay or be imprisoned yet most in power are safe from that. Think about this, everything that might make someone happy is regulated by our government. This goes against our most basic principle in which every man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The citizens of this country are no longer guaranteed those things because our tyrannical government is taking it away with every law passed that does not apply to those in power.
 
I honestly believe our country, as it was envisioned, is long gone. We lost our republic over 100 years ago to socialism and it has been slowly going tyrannical ever since. And the proof that the government we have is tyrannical is that most laws do not apply to those in power or government and that those in government are punishing those who are critical of the government. Additionally, we have seen law after law broke by those in power with nothing done but a citizen breaking the same exact law will be found guilty and punished heavily. How is that any different than many of the countries we have invaded in the last 25 years in the name of "democracy"? More and more laws are being passed to control the peasants and not to improve their quality of life or protect them. Those in government, from the very bottom to the very top, are corrupt and do not care how their actions affect the country or its citizens so long as they can continue to exert control over and enslave the citizens of this once great country.
 
Why is it every time a representative gets elected their wealth goes up in such a dramatic way? Why would anyone spend $55 million dollars to get a seat that only pays ~$200K? It is because they want more power, control, and money through cronyism and insider trading type tactics though government contracts.
 
The federal government's most important job is to protect its citizens from harm but what happens when it is the federal government doing most of the harm? What our government does now is ensure those in in control gain more power and control over its citizens and if you resist the government will punish you by taking away your life, liberty or your happiness.

I agree with most of what you said, but just added some to the red part above. :up:

[Oh Shoot]

I agree with most of what you said, but just added some to the red part above. :up:

 

Yep, information is power and wealth.

 

Any of us could do it if we had insider pre-knowledge of big company changes, zoning especially affecting real estate, pending FDA authorization of a new drug, whatever. There are a thousand ways one could safely invest money for big scores if you knew certain things beforehand that the general public doesn't, especially when some of them depend on legislation that you're already a part of formulating.

 

- OS

[Ugly]

The gun ban list is made up of 99.3% veterans, perhaps they want to add seasoned citizens to even out the #'s

http://conservativetribune.com/99-percent-on-gun-ban-list/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed