Obama Administration Finalizes Social Security Gun Ban

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
Well that gives my pops even more reason to mount the 50cal on his hoveround👍

O M F G ! Hilarious!

a reply to: xuenchen

Progressives always push as far as they can, then back off and take a little. Just a bit! Then make it a law and keep on pushing the boundaries.

Look at the last 20 years. We went from it being OK for a Vet to own a gun to deciding that a lot of them have PTSD (mental disorder of course) so although it was OK for them to have a full auto when in the service, we can't trust them with a handgun now because (mental disorder).

I was diagnosed with PTSD a full 20 years after my discharge, by a doctor I never met at a VA hospital I'd never been to. It took me 10 years to sort out. Now I'm probably a domestic terrorist for fighting it.

Now it's just a little more push... just another mental disorder.

Soon it will just expand to include just a little more mental disorders, as defined by the SPLC or someone.

You know... like when they said that if you were Native American, a Vet or a Ron Paul supporter you were a domestic terrorist.

Slow and steady wins their race.

a reply to: misskat1

Wrong. Even people who are beneath you, in your opinion, have the same rights as you do.

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 disinformation. Why not simply copy and paste the Summary from the SSA website so folks can see what is actually involved?

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.

It is never easy or cheap to appeal government decisions. This is a comment from:

www.regulations.gov...

As reported in the April 2016 issue of Gun News, the Veterans Administration has been working with the FBI , banning the possession of firearms by more than 257,000 veterans who use a bookkeeper to manage benefits. (6) The VA claims that use of a financial manager is proof, by itself, that the veteran in question is "mentally defective." Getting help with money management is no sign that a person is unsafe with guns: a few years ago, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service revealed that he paid a team of lawyers and accountants to do his personal income taxes. Obama himself probably does likewise.

Out of the first 177,000 veterans and their survivors to be put on the FBI's NICS gun ban registry, only 298 appealed, and just 53 people out of 177,000 escaped the net. (7)The mentally ill are the latest targets for disarmament. This year, at the end of April, the Social Security Administration proposed a rule (8) that will, if implemented, take away gun rights from millions of its disability recipients whose primary disability is related to mental health . (9) For purposes of this rule, such common symptoms as anxiety, abnormal sleep/appetite, inflated self esteem, or decreased energy, combined with alleged difficulty in managing money, are sufficient to disqualify a person from possessing firearms . (9) As the NRA-ILA notes, "At no point in the actual 'adjudication' is the individual's propensity for violence a necessary consideration."

Anyone thinking this is only for the seriously mentally ill need to research further.

We can put our own veterans and senior citizens on a gun ban registry but we can't track refugees who enter this country with no vetting what so ever.

Here are parts of a letter from Senators

thehill.com... Tim Devaney - 03/23/16

"Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights,” the senators wrote.

"At no time in the process does the VA determine a veteran to be a danger to them self or others, a key determinant for whether someone is a 'mental defective,’ precluding the right to own firearms,” they added.

In a separate letter to Senate appropriators, Grassley requested lawmakers block the VA from continuing this practice in the upcoming budget negotiations.

Grassley also complained about the practice in another letter sent last year to the Justice Department. Republicans hope the congressional inquiries will pressure the VA to stop the practice.

The VA noted in a statement to The Hill that it is legally required to report veterans who are "mentally incompetent" to the FBI, which then decides whether to prohibit these former soldiers from owning guns.

How to eat a whale.

en.wikipedia.org... with all this anti second amendment stuff going around perhaps its time to dust off old FDR's plans for adding a new supreme court justice for every one that is 70 years and six months or older ,fdr shot for 15 of them and did not manage to pull it off.Would be a smart move on trumps part to completely stack the supreme court with pro second amendment justices . With 4 current Scotus ages above the 70.5 year age cap proposed by FDR that would take it to 13 with 2 more reaching the theoretical age cap during his first term which would be 15.... giving the pro second amendment crowd a nice overwhelming majority if it could get through house/senate . probably wont happen but it is an option
www.thegreenpapers.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh boy that's some real forward thinking.

What did dude get kicked off the golf course?
All of a sudden he's got an idea to try and legitimize his reign of terror- by terrorizing our elderly?

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
Double tap on the mouse👋

Better him than me renter.

I've got an ancient diagnosis which was adjudicated to
my disadvantage, over twenty years ago. It had little to
do with clinical fact, and everything conversely with politics.
The authors of the railroading knew it.

Times have changed. With two out of three people that
even touched the paperwork being called out (in that
previous time frame) on their own felonies--- it became
apparent to even a mental deficient the paperwork was
not only dirty, but the people that touched it way back
whenever.

To make a long story short: I reinstated my FOID after half
a lifetime because I didn't earn NOR deserve it... but
because there was no good reason to protest it.

PS If I paid for the tax stamp and asked the troopers nice,
I could get a select fire M4 or an AR11 medium-bore.
Still can't drive... go figure the irony of public safety.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh boy that's some real forward thinking.

What did dude get kicked off the golf course?
All of a sudden he's got an idea to try and legitimize his reign of terror- by terrorizing our elderly?

The Breitbart article links a few things and then makes some jaw-dropping leaps of logic to come up with 'senior citizen gun ban' and 'senior citizens buying guns'. The statement about seniors being gun positive is also a bit off.

What's happening: They are banning anyone who has dementia from buying guns. The definition of "dementia" does not include "people like the folks on ATS" -- it's "people who have gone downhill so badly that they can't even pay their bills or take care of everyday stuff and need a Designated Person assigned by the courts to handle them for this person."

Earlier in the thread someone asked if this was Fake News. Breitbart's op-ed writers have a bad habit of not reading closely and of tying together unrelated things.

Should you be skeptical, use the links in the Breitbart article and then go look up the original documents.

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.

Yes. Read the sources. Federal Law imposes some restrictions on individuals with certain impairments. Some SSA beneficiaries have those impairments. Federal Law requires the SSA to provide this information.

These rules are implementing Federal Law that was created by Congress.

The money shot is: "CONGRESS passed the law and requires the SSA to implement it".

How on earth is this "OBAMA taking away guns from Senior Citizens"???

It is in fact CONGRESS taking away guns from incompetent people. Period.

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: crazyewok

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

My mistake. I thought it was.

a reply to: rickymouse


It was veterans that stopped the pipeline, a lot of them would be on social security, and would be considered dangerous now.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obama is pulling a Hitler here , Crash and Burn the Country because we have Not Lived up to his Expectations . I Predict he will be Nothing but a Footnote in American History once he Finally Leaves Office .

"Federal Law imposes some restrictions on individuals with certain impairments. Some SSA beneficiaries have those impairments. Federal Law requires the SSA to provide this information.

These rules are implementing Federal Law that was created by Congress.

It is in fact CONGRESS taking away guns from incompetent people. Period."

Thank you for that clarification, rnaa. So you mean its Congress that passes laws, not Obama? Wow!

a reply to: xuenchen
investmentwatchblog.com...

In a recent CNN interview, Obama admitted that his failure to enact gun control was the “one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated.” As he should be frustrated. Gun Owners of America Communications Director Erich Pratt is calling on the:
freedomoutpost.com...…un-treaty/

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: xuenchen
investmentwatchblog.com...

In a recent CNN interview, Obama admitted that his failure to enact gun control was the “one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated.” As he should be frustrated. Gun Owners of America Communications Director Erich Pratt is calling on the:
freedomoutpost.com...…un-treaty/

Yup.

a reply to: xuenchen
wow cif he feels this strongly then i say strip him of his secret service detail on jan 1 because he too is retiring what need would he have for armed troops watching his back.

If we actually had a benevolent government, I'd be okay with this law should it only target individuals who have a mental illness. But, we don't.

originally posted by: misskat1
Im a gun toting granny, but I do know some social security people who have to have help with their finances because they really arent capable of taking care of it themselves. They are not elderly, but they are dumb as a rock and semi retarded. Believe me they dont need guns. Im not for more regulations. But these people dont have common sense.

The issue is that it doesn't target those people who are not mentally stable enough to own firearms. It targets anyone that a civil servant decides needs to have their finances managed - often whether they need it or not.

If you get money from the VA, but your partner handles the household bills each month, guess what? You've just demonstrated to the VA that you're not competent to manage your own finances. Fiduciary appointed, 2A rights lost.

The following link talks about the fiduciary system in more detail. It's clearly... shall we say biased... but it appears to be a bias born out of frustration with a broken system, rather than political or ideological bias.

www.vawatchdog.org...