It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Administration Finalizes Social Security Gun Ban

page: 2
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
All it says is that the SSA will provide relevant information into the system that States use to do background checks for gun purchases. If your state doesn't disqualify people with mental illnesses from owning firearms you have nothing to worry about. Just another hysterical article trying to hang BS on Obama in his final days. And brietbart as the OP source. Of course.




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
All it says is that the SSA will provide relevant information into the system that States use to do background checks for gun purchases. If your state doesn't disqualify people with mental illnesses from owning firearms you have nothing to worry about. Just another hysterical article trying to hang BS on Obama in his final days. And brietbart as the OP source. Of course.


Reed zee sourzes.




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
i bet this ends up in the hoax bin


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
i bet this ends up in the hoax bin


Why?

Because people are too lazy to trace the sources the article is linked too?



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: JustTheFacts
a reply to: xuenchen

This looks and feels like FAKE NEWS to me.
Please post some sources.
I would like to follow this in the real world.



First, you will have to define what is considered "real news" to you!


I define Breitbart as Fake News.

And now I have to read this damn bill to find out whether Breitbart is being truthful or not.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Thankfully, if you jump through enough hoops while riding a three-legged white rhino, your Second Amendment rights will be restored.


The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

I had to dig a little...

(sorry, the PDF didn't copy/paste too well)



§ 421.160 Granting a request for relief.

(a) We may grant an applicant’s request for relief if the applicant establishes, to our
satisfaction, that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and
reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public
safety, and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

Public interest? Hmm... because the public knows me better than myself, friends and family. The evidence better be accurate and show damning proof that I am incapable of owning a firearm if I am to be judged by a bunch of strangers.


(3) The applicant may obtain written statements from anyone who knows the applicant,
including but not limited to clergy, law enforcement officials, employers, friends, and family
members, as long as the person providing the statement has known the applicant for a sufficient
period, has had recent and frequent contact with the beneficiary, and can attest to the
beneficiary's good reputation. The individual submitting the written statement must describe his
or her relationship with the applicant and provide information concerning the length of time he
or she has known the applicant and the frequency of his or her contact with the applicant. The
applicant must submit at least one statement from an individual who is not related to the
applicant by blood or marriage.

It also appears that the PC/Establishment doctors are going to be the gatekeepers. I wonder if I told them that I don't watch television and get my news from Breitbart, if they would have a problem with that?

(I don't get my news from Breitbart)



(1) A current statement from the applicant’s primary mental health provider submitted
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. We will consider a statement from the applicant’s primary
mental health provider to be current if it is based on a complete mental health assessment that
was conducted during the 90-day period immediately preceding the date we received the
applicant’s request for relief under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.


(1) A current statement from the applicant’s primary mental health provider assessing
the applicant’s current mental health status and mental health status for the 5 years preceding the
date of the request for relief.

We should all start focusing on consistency in our behavior!

God forbid my wacky side flare up in that time frame.


Oh, and...


ETA: Don't forget to send your mental health provider a Christmas card this year. It just might help you in the future!

- Wait, should I be using this emoticon? Will it contribute negatively to my assessment?

edit on 24-12-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Hey that is the risk of living off the goverment.

You want to suckle from the teet of social welfare you have to be subject to its rules.


Dont want to follow the rules? Get your fat lazy arse off welfare and get a job!

I would go further. I would take voting rights away too. Welfare monekys always vote for who gives them more handouts. Unless they contribute to society then take there voice away.
edit on 24-12-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Social Security isnt welfare. People pay into it all their lives.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: misskat1

You are so right.

Social Security was fully paid for by the very people who receive it.

But the Republicans have used their Jedi Mind Trick on the populace for so long, they now actually believe its the same as welfare.

Also, this is a lousy post with disinformation. Why not simply copy and paste the Summary from the SSA website so folks can see what is actually involved?




SUMMARY: These final rules implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We will provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. These changes will allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.


These are very specific circumstances and they qualify for repeal by the individual. To assume from this that Obama is taking away guns from all Social Security or SSI recipients is ridiculous.

Very poor info, OP.

edit on 24-12-2016 by antoinemarionette because: added comment



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
It's just a government deciding what is best for you.

That is never anything to be concerned about.

/sarc



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: misskat1

You are so right.

Social Security was fully paid for by the very people who receive it.

But the Republicans have used their Jedi Mind Trick on the populace for so long, they now actually believe its the same as welfare.

Also, this is a lousy post with misinformation. Why not simply copy and paste the Summary from the SSA website so folks can see what is actually involved?




SUMMARY: These final rules implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We will provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. These changes will allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.




Did you even read what you posted? Or are you one of those who still believe it was true when "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."?

Once the government takes away your rights, REGARDLESS of whether or not you can appeal the decision, unless you are wealthy enough to play the game, NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I believe your's is a very poor interpretation of that text.

For example:



Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee.


So a person receiving SSI through a representative and who has a disability as well as mental impairment MAY be required to give up firearms.

How many of you on ATS would qualify, under those circumstances?
edit on 24-12-2016 by antoinemarionette because: grammar



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: jtma508
All it says is that the SSA will provide relevant information into the system that States use to do background checks for gun purchases. If your state doesn't disqualify people with mental illnesses from owning firearms you have nothing to worry about. Just another hysterical article trying to hang BS on Obama in his final days. And brietbart as the OP source. Of course.


Reed zee sourzes.





I did. Apparently you and others didn't, otherwise you would've noticed this part:

First, there must be a determination by a “lawful authority.” Second, the adjudication must concern (as relevant to our programs) an individual’s inability to manage his or her own affairs. Third, the adjudication regarding the inability to manage an individual’s affairs must be based on “marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.”


Ergo, simply not being able to balance your checkbook isn't cause. Not being able to balance your checkbook because you're schizophrenic is cause.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Holy hyperbole Batman. As per usual, blowing something entirely out of proportion for the purpose of fear mongering. "Tens of thousands" of law abiding people with physical and mental disabilities, yeah? Just picking on the disabled...because gun control.

How many people here have found themselves in heavy traffic, sharing the road with an elderly person driving erratically, and whispered to themselves, "Why did they give this person a drivers license???" It is a fact that the average person loses cognizance, fine motor skills, depth perception, visual acuity, reflex response, and many other processes exponentially as they age.

It is also a fact that those things directly affect their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. In short, if you are elderly and know that at least two of the above applies to you, and you get behind the wheel of a car anyway, you are deliberately placing both yourself and other drivers at risk.

If someone is so impaired that they are unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, why would it then seem like a good idea to give them a firearm? Poor vision, slow reaction time, poor depth perception, diminished motor skills and situational awareness...those are all important when operating a firearm too.

Mental impairment should not even need to be explained or qualified. Anyone who has such severe mental instability that they cannot go through their daily life without assistance or supervision has no business being in possession of a loaded weapon, period. Ever seen a bipolar person having a psychotic break while holding a loaded firearm? I have, and both of us are lucky to be alive today. That is a stone cold fact.

Those are the types of situations they are referring to when they talk about impairment. People who are impaired to a degree of such severity that they are a threat to the safety of themselves and/or others. Which is made crystal clear in the document, should anyone care to actually look.

The financial aspect is also multifaceted. Here in Texas, if an elderly person is incapacitated to the point where a legal power of attorney is in place to make decisions on their behalf, whomever their caretaker is not only has control over their finances, they can also receive money from the state to offset costs.

Keeping it simple again; a hypothetical scenario. Say you (any of you) decide to move your disabled, mentally impaired grandma into your home and care for her yourself rather than put her in a facility. You've got power of attorney, so you oversee her care and her finances. Remember, your grandma is so impaired that she cannot make decisions for herself anymore. She can't sign checks, or pay bills, or even be trusted with her own medication.

So...why would your grandma need to purchase a firearm? She doesn't know what her own name is anymore, but she says she wants a gun...and you're going to go out and get her one? Really, think about that.

She cannot be trusted with a pen and a checkbook, yet preventing her from purchasing a weapon is somehow violating her rights? She has been legally declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.

The only logical conclusion is that her money is being used by someone else, and that someone wants a gun...or, that someone is actually stupid enough to give her a gun. Either way, it doesn't need to happen.

Once you remove the deliberate spin and actually read the language, it's pretty clear that they're not talking about keeping all elderly people and disabled people from purchasing guns. They are very specific about it.

Of course, we are talking about our government, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine this turning full on Orwellian with the quickness, should they have the opportunity. But there are actually real, live American citizens who absolutely should not be in possession of a firearm. That is irrefutable. And tens of thousands of them does not sound unreasonable. Mental illness is rampant in this country.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

It's not even that.


5 (3) have a primary diagnosis code in our records that is based on a mental impairment; 26 (4) have attained age 18, but have not yet attained full retirement age;


So it's not even directed at old people, nor does it presume to take away old people's guns simply because they're old.

ETA - also, in the OP it's claimed that this rule seeks to 'limit guns to old people' or words to that effect. I'm sure we all know what the OP actually meant, but given what the OP is trying to imply, I find the typo pretty hilarious.
edit on 24-12-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
So you think that mentally handicapped people that could be a threat to themselves or other people should own guns? Wow..

This is a lot of outrage over common sense.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I'm nuts. I've got guns. I have yet to shoot anyone, although I won't deny the thought has crossed my mind more than once while driving in the city.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Don't worry about it people. These are older folks and the famous Death Panels will off them before they're able to buy any firearms.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well that gives my pops even more reason to mount the 50cal on his hoveround👍



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Double tap on the mouse👋
edit on 24-12-2016 by hillbilly4rent because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join