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: 5
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Veterans, Dependents Account for Disproportionate Share of ‘Mental Defective’ Category on Gun Ban List
Apr 15, 2015

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is requesting an explanation for why nearly all of the names on the Justice Department’s gun ban list in the “mental defective” category belong to veterans or their dependents.

“It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them. A veteran or dependent shouldn’t lose their Constitutional rights because they need help with bookkeeping,” Grassley said.
...

www.grassley.senate.gov...




posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Even thou it has been posted several times...


...
Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
...

www.whitehouse.gov...

That link can be found in the op. Right on the first page, right on the first post made by ATS member xuenchen.

How many retired elderly have "financial managers"?... Not because they are mentally disabled, but because "financial managers" can make better plans for the elderly, or anyone else for that matter, to invest and manage their money more wisely?



edit on 27-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
So, why did you post a link which was not to the source of your external quote?

You've posted another link (correctly) which makes a bit more sense. But it doesn't say this:

The VA claims that use of a financial manager is proof, by itself, that the veteran in question is "mentally defective."


What is says that the VA can determine that a vet is not capable of handling his finances. Here is what the new law actually says regarding "mentally defective."

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease:

○ Is a danger to himself, herself or others; or

○ Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.

This includes (1) a person found to be insane by a court in a criminal case, and (2) a person found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 76b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

(2) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority. This includes commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness or commitment for other reasons, such as for drug use. It does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.


A bit later there is this qualification:

Third, `mental defective' also does not include a person whose adjudication or commitment was imposed by a federal department or agency
So it would seem that a judgement by the VA would have no bearing under the law.

The source is the one you provided earlier:
www.regulations.gov...



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit


HAHAHAHA
ROFL!!



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Social security is socialism. People who collect social security are therefore socialists. Do you want America to be over-run by armed socialists? Think about it.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.



So weird how you only ever reappear in your threads to agree with somebody who's agreed with you, and never seem to reappear to actually defend your asinine OPs.


Your avatar and signature depict unwelcome, violent and nefarious mental images (let me roll it to you, it's nothing good). You may find it intimidating, but most see it as disgusting as the character of a squatting bull defecating. All the while, most of your posts are argumentative and your vocabulary is limited to vicious ad hominem attacks. I too ignore your feckless rants. Merry Christmas. The OP has performed an excellent argument that the current socio-facist regime continues to apply fruition of it's promise to fundamentally change The USA. It's obvious that you are in lock step with this regime.
edit on V142016Tuesdayam31America/ChicagoTue, 27 Dec 2016 05:14:12 -06001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Is anyone really surprised? Back to basics...liberals don't care about you or anyone, only their agenda which they shove down everyone's throat. The only difference is that some like being force fed and others don't. So even after loosing, his "partner" candidate loosing, loosing the house, loosing the senate, loosing state level campaigns, etc...what does Obama do?

Quick...lets shove more down their throats since they have ended my ability to do so later. Even after all the proof that the people are sick of it, this "rapist" decides to continue screwing people KNOWING they have said "NO!". Set the terrorists free, set the criminals in prison free, send in ISIS hiding among refugees, etc. This is treason hidden behind executive rules. If any individual had done the same, they would be strung up on live TV.

PS:

rape
[reyp]

noun
1.
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
2.
statutory rape.
3.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Is anyone really surprised? Back to basics...liberals don't care about you or anyone, only their agenda which they shove down everyone's throat.


How is that different from Conservatives?



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
For the lazy people who can't click their mouse a few times...

You mean the vast majority of people on ATS these days. Mind you I'm not sure it's laziness more like "Oh look a post I agree with but I don't want to find out it's BS and thus call my beliefs into question so I will just mindlessly reply without checking".

Although it can amusing to observe the contortions folks go through to defend the BS !



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Social security is socialism. People who collect social security are therefore socialists. Do you want America to be over-run by armed socialists? Think about it.


A real trailblazer.




posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wrong. Wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin unpacking this nonsense. So instead of proving you wrong, which can be easily done with a google search, I'd instead like to plead with the owners and moderators of this site to please do something to address the right wing takeover of ATS. The site is becoming unbearable to your average visitor. And no it's not because I'm a Hillary supporter but because 99% of the stuff posted here is just unequivocally false, or so slanted to the point that there's nothing intelligible to gain from this site any longer. Thankfully the few and far between space and science posts are still engaging, but unless ATS wants to become another Breitbart or infowars, please do something, anything to bring the old ATS back.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you familiar with the term 'representative payee'? Or the fact that mentally disabled people collect SSI too? This isn't about old people who can't manage their funds. It's about people who are mentally incapacitated who need help managing their funds. Deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you familiar with the term 'representative payee'? Or the fact that mentally disabled people collect SSI too? This isn't about old people who can't manage their funds. It's about people who are mentally incapacitated who need help managing their funds. Deny ignorance.


And we should add people on food stamps, public assistance by this logic. And if we can move enough jobs with livable wages out of the country we could confiscate all self defense arms from those laid off.

edit on 28-12-2016 by Doctor Smith because: more brilliance



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: scauma

I think you are beating your head against a brick wall, scauma.

I had a post completely nuked just before the election. Not removed because it was in violation of any rule, it wasn't replaced with a place holder warning me that I was doing something wrong. I did not receive a message from an admin informing me of the action. It just unceremoniously disappeared.

The only thing that could possibly have offended anyone was that it told the truth about the Clinton eMail scandal, quoting directly from the FBI files to the point that the email server she SHOULD have used was hacked and lost over 350,000 emails, while her personal server was never hacked and did not lose one single email. Not One. As far as classified material goes, the server that she SHOULD have used had EXACTLY the same security 'clearance' as the Clinton private server, i.e. NONE. The classified posts were made by professionals in the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies by MANUALLY copying the information from the secure systems to the non-secure systems because the secure systems DO NOT communicate with non-secure systems. Period. And that information is ALL IN THE FBI REPORT.

One must assume that the truth is not what the administration of ATS is on about any more.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
So now the feds pull something unsavory and when we call them on it its supposed to be "Fake News" and we're making a dig deal about something that never happened. Just like with the feds passing that new Ministry Of Truth" law over the Christmas Holiday.
But... a local was in the news for firing his shotgun inside has house. He was trying to shoot little clowns that were terrorizing him. The police disarmed him( nice that they didn't shoot him) and didn't find any little clowns. He said he saw them on his neighbors roof but the police couldn't see them. The did find an empty vodka bottle in his pocket and he hadn't been to sleep in 24 hours. He was in his early 30s.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Unless my reading of the actual information and not the opinion piece is totally wrong, unless you're receiving SS benefits because of a mental deficiency, you can still get a gun.

It's not, as the OP implies today and implied before, as simple as "if you get a SS check you can't get a gun." Being adjudicated as mentally deficient is already a prohibiting instance for purchasing a firearm.

Correct.

This is an extension that the DOJ determined must be made to comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

For all of the people criticizing Obama about this, note that this is to comply with regulations that happened before he was even elected.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Obama Administration has evidently finalized its milestone goal to limit guns to Social Security recipients.

The whole thing is based on whether or not a person needs assistance with handling their finances, which leads into a possible mental incapacity situation !!

They started this agenda last year sometime, and now it is apparently a "final rule".

Imagine the bureaucratic mess this will require !!


Obama Administration Finalizes Social Security Gun Ban

On Monday the Obama administration finalized a Social Security gun ban that could prevent “tens of thousands” of law-abiding elderly citizens from purchasing guns for self-defense. .................

Despite public outcry, the rules have now been finalized. The NRA-ILA reports:

Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.


 


ETA: two links to gov agencies.....

SSA


Federal Register


The DOJ deemed it must comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, regulations that existed before Obama was even elected.

Maybe you should gripe about Bush for those regulations existing.

Also, do explain how "the whole thing is based on whether or not a person needs assistance with handling their finances, which leads into a possible mental incapacity situation," because I do not see this from my reading of the action.

Yes, there is mention of finances, but it doesn't apply to taking away guns:

We acknowledge that we are not proposing to identify and report for inclusion in the NICS those individuals for whom we have appointed a representative payee after a finding of disability at step five of our sequential evaluation process.




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join