View Full Version : Obama's Social Security Administration to Strip Millions of Americans of their Right
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150718/social-security-administration-to-strip-millions-of-americans-of-their-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-15, 13:08
Sooooo, they can't have guns because someone else handles their dealings with the govt? Does that mean that anyone tHat uses Turbo tax or a tax preparer doesn't have 2a rights?
What about people on welfare? They have demonstrated that they can't handle their financial dealings, should we take away their right to vote?
Has anyone with this SSA designation ever been involved with a mass shooting? Watch the numbers closely since any number they give will probably be mostly suicides, not murders.
Taking away rights from citizens, and giving rights to illegal aliens.
sevenhelmet
07-19-15, 15:53
Sounds like a gross overreach to me- I'm surprised this hasn't been challenged in court yet.
Sounds like a gross overreach to me- I'm surprised this hasn't been challenged in court yet.
What would it matter? They would just depart from the plain language of the law and uphold it because it's well intended.
Sounds like a gross overreach to me- I'm surprised this hasn't been challenged in court yet.
Sounds like almost every other unConstitutional overreach upon which the Supreme Court has colluded.
http://www.maritime-reproductions.com/images/1000_titanic_sinking_12x8.jpg
Mr.Anderson
07-19-15, 17:24
cinco,
Sadly I used the exact same analogy as the picture you posted in a verbal discussion the other week.
That picture says it all.
Sooooo, they can't have guns because someone else handles their dealings with the govt? Does that mean that anyone tHat uses Turbo tax or a tax preparer doesn't have 2a rights?
What about people on welfare? They have demonstrated that they can't handle their financial dealings, should we take away their right to vote?
Has anyone with this SSA designation ever been involved with a mass shooting? Watch the numbers closely since any number they give will probably be mostly suicides, not murders.
Taking away rights from citizens, and giving rights to illegal aliens.
Okay now THAT one I could almost warm up to!
What about people on welfare? They have demonstrated that they can't handle their financial dealings, should we take away their right to vote?
Taking away rights from citizens, and giving rights to illegal aliens.
They would never take away the welfare vote, the FSA is a crucial part of their base.
Don't you know, some old lady just shot up the local bingo hall just a few days ago. I bet this would have stopped it.... :rolleyes:
$18 Trillion in debt. Maybe the Federal Government should be disarmed because of financial malfeasance?
Averageman
07-20-15, 11:40
So if a tottering bunch of old Codgers can't handle the money they are given they are to infirm to have firearms?
So, how about the tottering bunch of old Codgers who have managed to get us in our fiscal mess as a Country?
Are they too, to mentally infirm to handle their responsibilities? If so, why do they keep getting re elected?
Doc Safari
07-20-15, 11:42
Meanwhile this same administration wants to restore voting rights to convicts.
SomeOtherGuy
07-20-15, 11:45
If this came from any source other than NRA-ILA I would have just assumed it was bogus. Even from NRA-ILA I'm a little skeptical. But, assuming it's true, it just shows what sort of underhanded, deceptive, sleazy methods of attack the anti's under Obama will use.
The problem with these sort of attacks, and the RKBA side being constantly in a defensive posture, is that it ties up our time and focus that we would rather use on something more useful (whether better political lobbying or going on vacations). The pro-RKBA side needs to find a way to return these twice over so that the anti's are too busy playing defense themselves to do this sort of BS. Ideas?
Another source from yesterday:
Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a "hunch" that they can't manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn't want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver's license!
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-15, 17:08
en·croach·ment
/enˈkrôCHmənt/
noun
noun: encroachment; plural noun: encroachments
1. intrusion on a person's territory, rights, etc.
"You eat an elephant one bite at a time . . ."
caelumatra
07-20-15, 18:55
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a "hunch" that they can't manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn't want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver's license!
That all may be valid but to what end? As someone else mentioned who are these people hurting by having guns? Where do the guns go when these citizens are stripped of their right? If they're collected then there's the rub. If they're handed down to an heir then that's less of an issue. But my original statement remains. Why are resources being wasted on these individuals when with almost complete likelihood they're not going to harm a soul
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a "hunch" that they can't manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn't want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver's license!
But gets to decide what rights we don't want people to have because "reasons"? Even on gun boards people don't really understand that a RIGHT is something that can't be taken or voted away just because some people don't like it.
Cincinnatus
07-20-15, 19:14
It's an old sales technique to ask questions first that the answer will always be , "yes" to. Then, once the person is used to saying yes, you spring your true hook on them.
The totalitarians are this time picking a category few would say, "no" to, one that seems to make sense. But what precedent does this set? Where does it stop?
Soon, they'll say conservatives are all racists, racists are mentally disabled= disarm all conservatives on grounds of mental deficiency. Or, "only the insane would want to own a gun." This is clearly an entrant into something else down the line, a bite, as Mooseknuckle put it, of the elephant.
One little group at a time until there are no big groups left.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
On another note, how many shootings are carried out by social security recipients who have someone as a financial interceder for them? This is as absurd as banning bayonet lugs, and there is more behind the mirrors than meets the eye.
NOTHING that this administration does is meant to further freedom, only curtail it. EVERYTHING this administration does relating to firearms should be opposed because of who wants it, and viewed as the most odious and loathsome of refuse. Utmost suspicion of all policies of this crowd is only the barest minimum of a beginning.
I think we as gun owners must insist upon and adhere to the Periclean principle of NO CONCESSIONS to the enemy of ANY front.
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a "hunch" that they can't manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn't want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver's license!
Ok great. But if bureaucrats are going to past judgement on a person's self-financial management competencies and and then extend that judgement to revoke a person's constitutional right, then a court should be doing the adjudicating with the assistance of quality psychometric assessment provided by a relevant practitioner. Definitely not you.
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-15, 19:23
Ok great. But if bureaucrats are going to past judgement on a person's self-financial management competencies and and then extend that judgement to revoke a person's constitutional right, then a court should be doing the adjudicating.
Or perhaps a "Death Panel" . . .
Well Mr. Smith it would appear that you have out lived your usefulness to The Greater Good, a younger person who has immigrated here to make a better life for himself is eagerly awaiting your domicile. Please go get in the line under the sign that reads Soylent Green . . .
Well at least that's one eventuality that more than one futurist have predicted.
SomeOtherGuy
07-20-15, 19:57
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a "hunch" that they can't manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn't want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver's license!
Some of these people are, maybe, too dumb to own a gun. But there's a lot of problems in your view:
1) I do not see anything where you state that the SSA is legally empowered to "adjudicate a person as a mental defective." That has traditionally been a matter for a state judge in a properly convened state law hearing, and unless on federal territory I don't see it as a federal matter. I know SSA has administrative law judges for certain purposes relating to the SS Act, but that is not the same thing. If you can point me to a statute empowering the SSA to, by itself, "adjudicate a person as a mental defective" with binding effect for all purposes, please state.
2) Historically a person has been adjudicated as a "mental defective" when they are getting into trouble or obviously unable to care for themselves. That isn't necessary for someone to be brought into a SS decision or even hearing of some sort. From how you present it it sounds like a decision is made by a non-judge (if you are an ALJ, so state) under the executive branch. There is no separation of powers in that process, nor is there nearly the same level of due process as in standard court hearings (either state or federal).
3) Losing the right to own guns is a loss of liberty. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that "no person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". As a lawyer who's familiar with the APA and notions (silly as they are) of due process in the context of administrative law decisions, I do not see meaningful due process in a decision by an employee or officer (or even an ALJ, though it's slightly different) of the SS Administration.
A legally valid way of doing this might be for the SS Administration to send the appropriate state agencies a list of people who the SS Administration has determined should have a representative payee, and therefore in its view are mentally deficient, so that the state agencies can determine if they wish to bring incompetency cases against those people and potentially have them deemed a "mental defective" for purposes including ownership of guns, in a manner that actually complies with due process. I don't see that happening or being proposed here.
Finally,
4) I so often see in M4C posts on controversial issues a person, who may be an M4C regular, whose job is with an agency at issue (or related to the one at issue) and goes on to say "yeah, this doesn't really pass the Constitutional smell test, but I know the guys and they're OK so you shouldn't worry about it." This is a tendency in human nature, but it's one to identify and avoid. If you believe in a system of laws and something doesn't work in that system, it doesn't matter if some of the guys involved are saints.
Averageman
07-20-15, 20:24
Lets say as an example, I'm 72, in great health doing just fine in every department and my Son is an accountant or a financial adviser.
I say to my boy, "Hey Son, I've got my ducks in a row, I'm doing well with the money, I'm in great health, but I want to go out there and live a little in my golden years." So I make arrangements, perhaps not conventional, but they work for us and I go on a world sight seeing and deep sea fishing extravaganza and my Son watches over my investments visa via this method.
So when I come back home 2 1/2 years later will my gun collection have been collected?
You don't have to be an invalid to want someone else to take care of your affairs, in the above instance, that's pretty much the only reason I can see to retire, so why the loss of liberty?
Simply because they are testing the waters to see if they can get it done.
If it works on old people, then how about Vets with PTSD?
So you guys think ol' George, Tom and James let the town looney run around with guns, eh? That is my way of saying that aside from the issue of who gets to decide, I don't want folks with dementia running around with firearms.
I would hope that a dealer, or a private individual would not sell a firearm to someone who they, in good conscious, don't think should have one. (I know, it is a happy place I live in)
Ok great. But if bureaucrats are going to past judgement on a person's self-financial management competencies and and then extend that judgement to revoke a person's constitutional right, then a court should be doing the adjudicating with the assistance of quality psychometric assessment provided by a relevant practitioner. Definitely not you.
Winner. No adjudication in a court of law (not an ALJ assigned to an agency), no stripping people of their rights! What they're trying to do here is nothing short of saying that people who've been deemed to need assistance with their finances, have no right to self-defense. It's absurd on the face of it! :mad:
SomeOtherGuy
07-20-15, 20:59
So you guys think ol' George, Tom and James let the town looney run around with guns, eh? That is my way of saying that aside from the issue of who gets to decide, I don't want folks with dementia running around with firearms.
I would hope that a dealer, or a private individual would not sell a firearm to someone who they, in good conscious, don't think should have one. (I know, it is a happy place I live in)
Probably not. But having seen a few of my wife's relatives go into dementia, it can happen where a well functioning, lucid 80 year old rather quickly becomes a confused, senile and unpredictable 82 year old. And I wouldn't worry about them going out to buy a gun, I'd worry about the one they still own after 50 years (quite possibly purchased before the 1968 GCA). NICS and the focus here does absolutely nothing to address this.
I'm struggling to find any way to view the Social Security approach here as something other than testing the waters for backdoor gun bans by finding ways to disqualify people through misuse of existing laws. Something even dumber will show up shortly - perhaps treating school suspensions as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, for example. No, that doesn't make any sense, but this SS Administration plan doesn't either.
So you guys think ol' George, Tom and James let the town looney run around with guns, eh? That is my way of saying that aside from the issue of who gets to decide, I don't want folks with dementia running around with firearms.
I would hope that a dealer, or a private individual would not sell a firearm to someone who they, in good conscious, don't think should have one. (I know, it is a happy place I live in)
I'm not tracking this. This isn't just about the elderly and dementia. This could also affect the 18 year old whose IQ may be low enough that the assistance of a financial overseer may be warranted, but that doesn't necessarily equate to them not possessing the requisite mental faculties to own a gun responsibly. You can't deprive lesser fortunate individuals of liberty simply because you think less of them.
I'm not being accusatory. Simply speaking in generalities.
If someone is mentally ill, I don't think the ssa can make that determination.
Can retarded people vote? Serious question.
Is there a lot of instances of the elderly using guns to kill innocent people? I don't remember hearing about gangs of elderly citizens sporting illegal guns, shooting up cities. It would be nice if this administration targeted actual criminals instead of legal gun owners. Another foot in the door tactic.
Is there a lot of instances of the elderly using guns to kill innocent people? I don't remember hearing about gangs of elderly citizens sporting illegal guns, shooting up cities. It would be nice if this administration targeted actual criminals instead of legal gun owners. Another foot in the door tactic.
Hoveround rage is real man!
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" lacks clarity, folks?
Doc Safari
07-21-15, 10:37
You guys are missing a very big aspect of this.
A lot of people inherit entire gun collections when their parents pass on. Before that, most of these parents often have health and competence issues. Out of love and respect for their elders, most progeny wait until their parents pass on to actually take possession of the sooner-or-later-to-be-inherited firearms.
This new ruling potentially removes or at least changes the way a lot of firearms are passed to the next generation. Now, an adult child who stands to inherit a firearm collection may have to convince an aged parent to let him/her have the guns "now" instead of waiting until the parent is deceased.
If you've ever dealt with a parent of diminished capacity, you know that often they cannot be made to understand why their beloved possesions have to be liquidated. Older people can also be cantankerous and refuse to cooperate with adult children who they perceive as selfish.
So this ruling causes a whole host of problems, and a lot of adult children will simply end up letting the firearm part of their inheritance be confiscated instead of fighting to keep the guns in the family.
It's just one more way of chipping at gun ownership in this country.
It's just one more way of chipping at gun ownership in this country.
Right.
"...Shall Not Be Infringed..."
It was not written ambiguously.
Next stop.......PTSD.
Mark my words.
Next stop.......PTSD.
Mark my words.
SAFE Act did it first.... So yea, good chance.
This is what bothers me about our nanny state.
A politician says people who behave like X or have condition Y or own property Z are dangerous. Then people suddenly become afraid and wish to ban those people from exercising their rights in order to keep the population safe.
Politicians create lengthy legislation (or pull EOs out of their ass) that deal with pre-crime and have governmental agencies rigorously enforce those laws and EOs. They focus on acts that rarely happen rather than focusing on real problems. They bank on that getting them elected because the potential crime, as unlikely as it is, SOUNDS scary and people want and need protection.
LIVING
FREE
IS
DANGEROUS
So the US government takes money from me for my entire working life in the form of social security contributions, but if I need help getting it back at a time when I probably need the most help having government documents demystified, I have to lost the right to protect what little I have left at that point?
So the US government takes money from me for my entire working life in the form of social security contributions, but if I need help getting it back at a time when I probably need the most help having government documents demystified, I have to lost the right to protect what little I have left at that point?
Welcome to the twilight zone.
It's a polling test of how the people and courts hold up to a blatant infringement. They picked the class least likely to protract a legal battle, and to start shooting people in opposition.
Doc Safari
07-22-15, 15:50
It's a polling test of how the people and courts hold up to a blatant infringement. They picked the class least likely to protract a legal battle, and to start shooting people in opposition.
And you can believe that this is the first step of a national rollout to make ANYONE with some sort of tie to the federal government suddenly added to a prohibited class.
I've already heard speculation that people who work for government contractors may be next on the list (reasoning: can't take a chance on them being terrorists--I guess?).
I knew I'd take some heat for my post in this thread. Yes, I am an Administrative Law Judge. No, I don't adjudicate people as incompetent. That is not my job. I do see the mental health records of people who appear before me. I make findings regarding their ability to work based on, among other things, their mental health. If I think he or she cannot handle their funds (social security check) based upon what I have seen in their records and from the testimony, I recommend a Representative Payee.
All I was trying to say was/is that if someone is so disabled that they meet our mental health listings, they are so depressed, so anxious, so bipolar, so mentally impaired that if they were deprived of a weapon, I am not totally against that idea. You probably don't want a cycling, manic, bipolar person with a loaded gun living next to you. The Second Amendment is important to all of us, but some public health and safety concerns do factor in.
Fire away at me. I respect your opinions. I am just saying that ALJs such as yours truly, and persons at the DDS, make these decisions (the Rep. Payee decision). What happens above and below my pay grade about my my recommendation, I cannot control. However, REST ASSURED that many (most/all???) of the persons who have a such a Rep. Payee are far more impaired than you might suspect.
Outlander Systems
07-22-15, 16:57
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" lacks clarity, folks?
Thank you for being switched on.
It's as simple as can be here, "Rights vs. Priveledges."
The writing on the wall is to the point that it can be seen from geosynchronous orbit.
WAKE. UP.
Roger, out.
I understand completely. I have never said I support the concept of barring any additional class of persons for having guns. I was really just trying to convey that from the people who appear before me and testify in the hearings I hold, I'm troubled by many of them and would not be too offended if they could not own guns.
Do we need more Government intrusion into our lives and more infringements of our rights, NO. However, from my personal and professional experience, I am not too offended if someone with four mental health in patient admissions, three suicide attempts and a history of anti-social behavior does not own a gun.
I'm sure you understand that's a very slippery slope.
I understand completely. I have never said I support the concept of barring any additional class of persons for having guns. I was really just trying to convey that from the people who appear before me and testify in the hearings I hold, I'm troubled by many of them and would not be too offended if they could not own guns.
Do we need more Government intrusion into our lives and more infringements of our rights, NO. However, from my personal and professional experience, I am not too offended if someone with four mental health in patient admissions, three suicide attempts and a history of anti-social behavior does not own a gun.
Please accept my apologies if you feel I was singling you out. My post was more about the system, not the people working within it.
That said, am I wrong to think said person should already be adjudicated mentally incompetent and thus a prohibited person? As an ALJ, if most of these people assigned a Rep. Payee are as bad off as you say, do you feel any obligation to report that to the court which should be making a full mental competency evaluation? Do you have access to the court records of those appearing before you that would indicate whether a mental competency hearing has ever been held for them? Last question, as an ALJ who has to see all these people, do you feel the current state of mental health evaluation and treatment in the U.S. is as compromised and woefully inadequate as many in law enforcement feel it is?
I for one feel the system is badly broken, which is one reason active shooter events are so much more prevalent after the system was gutted in the 80's than before. :(
SomeOtherGuy
07-22-15, 21:26
I knew I'd take some heat for my post in this thread. Yes, I am an Administrative Law Judge. No, I don't adjudicate people as incompetent. That is not my job. I do see the mental health records of people who appear before me. I make findings regarding their ability to work based on, among other things, their mental health. If I think he or she cannot handle their funds (social security check) based upon what I have seen in their records and from the testimony, I recommend a Representative Payee.
All I was trying to say was/is that if someone is so disabled that they meet our mental health listings, they are so depressed, so anxious, so bipolar, so mentally impaired that if they were deprived of a weapon, I am not totally against that idea. You probably don't want a cycling, manic, bipolar person with a loaded gun living next to you. The Second Amendment is important to all of us, but some public health and safety concerns do factor in.
Fire away at me. I respect your opinions. I am just saying that ALJs such as yours truly, and persons at the DDS, make these decisions (the Rep. Payee decision). What happens above and below my pay grade about my my recommendation, I cannot control. However, REST ASSURED that many (most/all???) of the persons who have a such a Rep. Payee are far more impaired than you might suspect.
I would not have a problem if the SSA, either as a blanket process or as an option, made referrals to the applicable state agency (this might be the AG or social services department depending on the state) saying "hey, we think this guy is nuts and suggest you may want to file an incompetency hearing on him," provided that the SSA action has no legal effect outside of the Social Security context, and any deprivation of rights takes place in an appropriate court hearing with full due process.
One of the major reasons I am so opposed to federal anything relating to guns or other fundamental rights is that the federal government, as a whole, has a long track record of finding ways to deny due process, either in a "f you" blunt "we-don't-care" sort of way, or more indirectly. I am not accusing you of anything, I imagine you are a great guy, but there's lots of people, administrations change every 4-8 years, and any power the feds obtain seems to be guaranteed to be abused at least some of the time. For just one example, there is a federal legal process for a convicted criminal to regain their ability to own firearms, but for many years (decades) Congress simply prohibited any expenditure on that process and effectively gutted the law. For an unrelated example, the EPA has stretched the meaning of "waters of the united states" to mean essentially any water not inside a pipe, pushing its putative authority FAR beyond anything that was intended or reasonably encompassed by the statutory language.
Further, since the ALJ is an executive branch officer without a life term, it would not be hard for an administration to stack ALJ appointments to require hostility to firearms ownership as a qualification for appointment/re-appointment. The effect would take place over a number of years, but it could be quite significant after a two term administration.
I don't deal with SS disability cases; the few I've seen from a distance involved people who were basically skills impaired, not mentally impaired. I don't doubt that some cases, and obviously ones that you've seen, have people who are not very functional and shouldn't be owning guns. I'm not arguing that isn't true sometimes. I lack direct involvement to know if it's true at all times, but even if it is, I don't view the form of process for SS disability determinations to be adequate for a broader determination or restriction of rights.
For the record, I don't work with ALJs in my day job and have no grudge against them or against the SS administration. The few ALJs I've met through social interaction have seemed like nice people. I just don't think it's the right context for this sort of determination.
Do we need more Government intrusion into our lives and more infringements of our rights, NO. However, from my personal and professional experience, I am not too offended if someone with four mental health in patient admissions, three suicide attempts and a history of anti-social behavior does not own a gun.
Most regulation begins with good intentions and seeks to address the worst case scenarios such as the one you describe. Then a bureaucracy is established and investigations and enforcement become every bit as competent as what we've seen from CPS complete with a work ethic and entitlement mentality such as what exists with the TSA and DMV.
Next thing you know a war veteran who comes in for "counseling" to help him readjust loses some of his rights. So while it may have some pitfalls, I think we need to actually wait until those on social security actually do something to qualify themselves as a "prohibited person" on an individual and case by case basis just like every other US citizen who has rights.
And that is NOT what is currently getting ready to happen.
I'm sure you understand that's a very slippery slope.
I certainly do. When was the last time Washington D.C. did anything that gave us more freedom or increased our rights???? Seems like its been about 240 years or so.
Some other points or responses:
1. I learned about this proposal about the same time as all of you did. Believe me, I had never before considered that Social Security should have any involvement in such activity. Just because I work for SSA does not mean I buy into everything the Administration proposes or does.
2. Stacking appointments, as SomeOtherGuy mentioned above is not far fetched. I have seen the hiring process swing wildly over 10 years. Each shift reflects a different philosophy by the current administration, pushing the background of the selected Judges into various groups. However, the agency does not do a outstanding job of protecting ALJs when there are threats against us (a trend which is on the rise). So, many more Judges are pro-gun than you might think. Also, while we do not have life time appointments, we also have pretty good job security and many work into their late 70s or 80s. So, it tends to be a rather entrenched group.
3. I think the idea of referring persons to another agency for further review is fine. Let someone specifically trained make a further review. I'd rather not make that decision anyway - I have enough to do.
You probably don't want a cycling, manic, bipolar person with a loaded gun living next to you. The Second Amendment is important to all of us, but some public health and safety concerns do factor in.
Fire away at me. I respect your opinions.
You're right, if the person is too dangerous to be out on the streets, I want them locked up. Not a single politician would, or could, support that sort of initiative though because we are now "enlightened" and know that all the crazies that we released from the mental hospitals in the 80's and 90's can be treated with medicine, and if we just keep an eye on them, they will be no trouble at all. Except the government can't even keep an eye on them, and never could to begin with.... We have children dying at the hands of abusive parents, who the system KNOWS about for years. We have bond jumpers, illegal aliens, sanctuary cities and all manner of other things that no sane person could ever believe could be managed by a 200, or 2,000, or 20,000 person agency. How could the government EVER possibly look after 4,000,000 dangerous individuals with no leash, no tracking, and no responsibility to check-in??
Freedom is a scary thing.
"....shall not be infringed....". The ambiguity comes from the gray matter between public servants' and politicians' ears.
ramairthree
07-23-15, 10:37
Yes. In more barbaric times taxpayer money was wasted to keep people that were too mentally or psychologically deficient and or dangerous locked up in institutions.
Our enlightened society, being more fair and caring, no probably ends up spending a factor of ten to a hundred time more on these individuals each year as they are in and out of ERs, jails, messing up schools, wasting benefits on drugs, etc.
I certainly do. When was the last time Washington D.C. did anything that gave us more freedom or increased our rights???? Seems like its been about 240 years or so.
Some other points or responses:
1. I learned about this proposal about the same time as all of you did. Believe me, I had never before considered that Social Security should have any involvement in such activity. Just because I work for SSA does not mean I buy into everything the Administration proposes or does.
2. Stacking appointments, as SomeOtherGuy mentioned above is not far fetched. I have seen the hiring process swing wildly over 10 years. Each shift reflects a different philosophy by the current administration, pushing the background of the selected Judges into various groups. However, the agency does not do a outstanding job of protecting ALJs when there are threats against us (a trend which is on the rise). So, many more Judges are pro-gun than you might think. Also, while we do not have life time appointments, we also have pretty good job security and many work into their late 70s or 80s. So, it tends to be a rather entrenched group.
3. I think the idea of referring persons to another agency for further review is fine. Let someone specifically trained make a further review. I'd rather not make that decision anyway - I have enough to do.
For the record, I don't believe everyone with behavioral disorders should be locked up as some would believe, present company not excluded. Nor do I believe there is collusion with "big pharma" to keep everyone "pilled up." Some of the same people that would place a stigma on the mentally ill also believe there should be no stigma associated with PTSD. It isn't hard to see how we can't predict when someone will snap. Especially if they have never expressed intent to anyone or have not been treated for extreme disorders.
However, I do believe there are much better ways than what are being practiced to keep psychos off the streets and from buying guns.
If someone is so dangerous, that we force them to turn over their firearms, or face the threat of force to come and take them, those people should not be out and about. They are either dangerous, or they are not.
So either go all in, or all out. Pick one, and stick to it. Right now you've got these mentally unstable people walking and driving around, supposedly under the supervision of some government lackey.
They snap. The government says, "We knew they were crazy, but didn't know when they would actually go off the deep end. Sorry." That's unacceptable.
So if these pensioners are sooooooooooo dangerous that they must have theirs guns removed, then they are dangerous enough to be incarcerated. Commit to it, or don't. No half way....
Cincinnatus
07-23-15, 13:49
If someone is so dangerous, that we force them to turn over their firearms, or face the threat of force to come and take them, those people should not be out and about. They are either dangerous, or they are not.
So either go all in, or all out. Pick one, and stick to it. Right now you've got these mentally unstable people walking and driving around, supposedly under the supervision of some government lackey.
They snap. The government says, "We knew they were crazy, but didn't know when they would actually go off the deep end. Sorry." That's unacceptable.
So if these pensioners are sooooooooooo dangerous that they must have theirs guns removed, then they are dangerous enough to be incarcerated. Commit to it, or don't. No half way....
This 100%.
ramairthree
07-23-15, 13:54
I think there is some confusion over who some people are of the opinion should be locked up.
My take, the government wants a reason to effortless take firearms from senior citizens who have trouble balancing their checkbook or finding their car in the parking lot at the grocery store.
I also suspect anyone with some anxiety, sleep problems, etc from ptsd they would love to do the same.
The end goal is taking away guns, not safety.
Safety cannot be the issue because they are totally cool with the non-compliant schizophrenic on the the street who cannot distinguish between the guy asking if he is alright from a demon trying to steal his soul so he stabs him to death. That is way less threatening to the government than an affluent senior citizen with mild dementia or veteran with some anger issues at work who have a nice full gun safe and are sick of their freedoms being eroded.
Point being missed.....
They are stating it is for safety. If it's safety, then those people are either dangerous enough to incarcerate, or they are not. If not, they should be left alone, and their rights left unmolested.
Let's get to it.
The libs can either commit to it, and face the challenge, or they can continue to sound like idiots attacking little old men and women because they won't face real dangers.
Why don't they go round up every gang member in Chicago, and start there?
If someone is so dangerous, that we force them to turn over their firearms, or face the threat of force to come and take them, those people should not be out and about. They are either dangerous, or they are not.
So either go all in, or all out. Pick one, and stick to it. Right now you've got these mentally unstable people walking and driving around, supposedly under the supervision of some government lackey.
They snap. The government says, "We knew they were crazy, but didn't know when they would actually go off the deep end. Sorry." That's unacceptable.
So if these pensioners are sooooooooooo dangerous that they must have theirs guns removed, then they are dangerous enough to be incarcerated. Commit to it, or don't. No half way....
They are stating it is for safety. If it's safety, then those people are either dangerous enough to incarcerate, or they are not. If not, they should be left alone, and their rights left unmolested.
Let's get to it.
The libs can either commit to it, and face the challenge, or they can continue to sound like idiots attacking little old men and women because they won't face real dangers.
Why don't they do round up every gang member in Chicago, and start there.
Wish I could put all of that on a memo and staple it to the heads of every member of Congress.
Point being missed.....
They are stating it is for safety. If it's safety, then those people are either dangerous enough to incarcerate, or they are not. If not, they should be left alone, and their rights left unmolested.
Let's get to it.
The libs can either commit to it, and face the challenge, or they can continue to sound like idiots attacking little old men and women because they won't face real dangers.
Why don't they do round up every gang member in Chicago, and start there.
Death of a thousand cuts.
It isn't about who is actually dangerous in society. It's about scaring the public that someone might be dangerous. Not targeting real sources of crime.
I know what it's about, and I'm calling them out on it.
The social security pensioner is either such a danger they need all their rights removed, or they are not.
I'd be more worried they got in a car and drove the highways at 98yrs old than if they had 25 guns in a safe or hidden throughout their houses.
Here's a kicker to add: what about a 100% disabled veteran who suffers from TBI/PTSD issues who then applies for SSI? I'd fair to say they're not incapable of handling their own finances nor that they're incapable of safely owning firearms. But I'd also say that they'd be targeted with this agenda.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.