Largest Gun Grab In History: Millions on SS Will Lose Their Rights

[rangerrebew]

Obama’s Plan to Take Guns from Seniors and the Disabled


Joshua Krause
 The Daily Sheeple
 July 18th, 2015
 

Like clockwork, gun control advocates always make a big push for their agenda after every mass shooting. The recent shootings in Charleston and Chattanooga are no different. Due to our government’s failure to keep firearms out of the hands of mass shooters, President Obama has since called for tighter background checks. But this time he wants to utilize the information tied to Social Security beneficiaries.

Basically, those who are incapable of managing their own affairs wouldn’t be allowed to buy a firearm. The new policy would use the same strategy employed by the VA to report certain veterans to the background check system. They take note of anyone who has assigned a fiduciary to manage their pension when they’re not competent enough to do it themselves. The biggest problem with this strategy, is how broad it is. Having memory loss or a brain injury would be enough keep you from buying a gun, even though those conditions are not useful for identifying someone who is crazy or malicious. Imagine if you suffered an injury that prevents you from speaking or writing. It would make sense for you to ask someone else to help you out with your financial affairs, but that might also be enough to prevent you from owning a firearm.

In reality, this is probably just another attempt to find a new pathway for gun control. They’re trying to chip away the rights of a demographic that isn’t as visible to the public, so they can set a precedent for taking away the rights of everyone else later on. This is “slippery slope” 101.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obamas-plan-to-take-guns-from-seniors-and-the-disabled_072015

[DCPatriot]

Come one....it's the seasoned citizens over 65 years of age and the disabled [retired] military veterans being singled out because they're the last bastion of Americans that haven't been indoctrinated into the Socialist mindset.

Can't be incubating 'Domestic Terrorists' now, can we?  [/s]   

[MACVSOG68]

Come one....it's the seasoned citizens over 65 years of age and the disabled [retired] military veterans being singled out because they're the last bastion of Americans that haven't been indoctrinated into the Socialist mindset.

Can't be incubating 'Domestic Terrorists' now, can we?  [/s]   

Scary thought how far it could go, but isn't it those of us on the right side of the aisle who want guns kept away from the mentally unstable and criminals?  That does give an opening to the left.

[DCPatriot]

Scary thought how far it could go, but isn't it those of us on the right side of the aisle who want guns kept away from the mentally unstable and criminals?  That does give an opening to the left.

Yeah...also, I thought seniors would be a source for 3rd party purchasers to buy weapons.

After all, who doesn't have an elderly parent or grandparent.

Secondly, I recently read where the so-called "death panels" are going to be a reality, to cut expenses and claims.

When you add motive for "going postal" to the equation...well, it's easier to see where they're coming from.

[MACVSOG68]

Yeah...also, I thought seniors would be a source for 3rd party purchasers to buy weapons.

After all, who doesn't have an elderly parent or grandparent.

Secondly, I recently read where the so-called "death panels" are going to be a reality, to cut expenses and claims.

When you add motive for "going postal" to the equation...well, it's easier to see where they're coming from.

Hell...I'm an elderly grandparent!   

[truth_seeker]

Yet another headline which is not supported by the article text.

 

[DCPatriot]

Yet another headline which is not supported by the article text.

noticed that too, T_S.   

Today, headlines are used to incite [to violence], IMO.

[truth_seeker]

noticed that too, T_S.   

Today, headlines are used to incite [to violence], IMO.

The same person/entity/member posts such articles here, as a matter of style, selection, etc. I don't own this site, but I feel the practice is a negative.

But in the context of competing, in the world on online entertainment and "journalism," "if it bleeds it leads," it is her call.

 

[mountaineer]

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security
Los Angeles Times

By Alan Zarembo   
Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security
July 18, 2015, 4:00 AM

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others..

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."

The move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.

But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue.

"Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe," said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. "They are very different determinations."

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence.

After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability.

The VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.

Upon being notified that he was being reported to the background check system, he gave his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back.

Overman grew up hunting in Wisconsin. After his return from Iraq, he found solace in target shooting. "It's relaxing to me," he said. "It's a break from day-to-day life. It calms me down."

Though his wife had managed their financial affairs since his deployment, Overman said he has never felt like he was a danger to himself or others.

"I didn't know the VA could take away your guns," he said.  ...

Rest of story

[mystery-ak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/


Published July 20, 2015FoxNews.com

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.

The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.

[GourmetDan]

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

Won't take much to change the law such that the simple act of owning a gun will categorize a person as being of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”...

[libertybele]

This is in my opinion the very most important issue we face.  Gun rights.  Without them we will have NO rights. I'm sure many have already seen this, but  Please, please help the NRA in this fight and call, e-mail, write your representatives.

Obama's Social Security Administration to Strip Millions of Americans of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As the L.A. Times reported this morning, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is currently developing a program to strip the Second Amendment Rights of over four million Americans currently receiving SSA benefits through a “representative payee.”  Not only would this amount to the largest gun grab in American history, but according to the published report, would take place without any due process protections for recipients, amounting to a nullification of Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans who don’t pose a threat to themselves or anyone else.

This new program appears to have been instigated by the SSA in response to a memorandum issued by Obama in January of 2013 which directed all federal agency executives to “improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” This memorandum required all agency heads to submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a plan for “sharing all relevant Federal records” for submission to the NICS.


Are you a prohibited person? A new, unconstitutional Social Security Administration program will add over 4 million Americans to the prohibited persons list without due process. Contact your lawmakers today. Ask if you're one of the 4 million.

Evidently, Obama’s SSA bureaucrats read “all relevant Federal records” to mean all Social Security recipients who have a “representative payee” assigned to their accounts to help them manage their payments and receipts. Obviously, many individuals swept up in this egregious case of bureaucratic over-reach would not otherwise be prohibited from owning, possessing, or acquiring firearms under federal law.

The federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to those “adjudicated as a mental defective,” among others. The term “adjudication,” however, refers to a determination made after a judicial-type process that includes various due process protections. In no case does the federal law describe or contemplate the type of prohibition by bureaucratic fiat exercised by the SSA in developing its guidelines for those with “representative payees” assigned to their accounts.

But SSA is not alone in this directive. The memorandum names several agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and “such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.” Potentially, bureaucrats in all these agencies could be working hard to identify and forward “all relevant Federal records,” to the NICS pursuant to the Obama mandate.

In total, this program could easily grow to include many more millions of Americans who have any connection to the Federal government through the various agencies named in the memorandum.

Unfortunately, this fits a pattern of abuse within the Obama Administration which is clearly hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment in any way possible. As we reported previously (here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has already implemented a similar program to designate veterans as “prohibited persons”  when they have a fiduciary assigned to administer their VA benefits. Like the SSA program described above, the VA procedures are also devoid of significant due process protections or any requirement that the beneficiary be found a danger to self or others. According to the L.A Times article, 177,000 vets have been swept into NICS with the bureaucratic short-cut.

The implications of this policy are too far reaching to fathom at present. Social Security is one of the more prolific and relied upon Federal programs in American history. That Obama’s directive could so easily be implemented within the SSA suggests that bureaucrats could effectively cloak such a program in any agency within the growing leviathan that is the federal government.

Please call or write your members of congress and demand that Obama’s attempts to implement the largest gun grab in American history be stopped in its tracks.  You can contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives at 202-225-3121. You can write your lawmakers by using our "Write Your Lawmakers" tool below.

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

[DCPatriot]

Another bullsh*t misleading headline.

They're speaking about seniors who are not able to conduct their own affairs....not lucid folks like us.  {{{ducks}}}

[libertybele]

Another bullsh*t misleading headline.

They're speaking about seniors who are not able to conduct their own affairs....not lucid folks like us.  {{{ducks}}}

I fully understand that.  But there are seniors who do plan ahead and name someone to take care of their affiairs BEFORE they are not able to conduct their own affairs.  Secondly, seniors still have the right to bear arms period. Those seniors who are generally incapacitated to that degree are in nursing homes ... last time I checked patients can't be armed in nursing homes.  This is nothing more than Obama arbitrarily amending the Second Amendment as he sees fit and testing the waters.  In addition, this isn't just limited to the Social Security Administration -- it incorporates various other "federal" agencies.  IF Barry is given some latitude he will seize the moment and issue an E.O. on the Second Amendment.  Then what?  The average Joe will not be able to keep arms -- basically making us defenseless against our own government.  He is whittling away at the Second Amendment period. NO. No and hell No!  We cannot give Barry anymore power to destroy this country then he has already been given.

Sorry...I don't see the headline misleading at all.  I see it as a very much needed means to warn gun owners regarding a potentially threatening infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

[ABX]

I fully understand that.  But there are seniors who do plan ahead and name someone to take care of their affiairs BEFORE they are not able to conduct their own affairs. 

Completely accurate. Having a “representative payee” has nothing do do with someone's mental state. My grandfather is a good example. He has an accountant and my dad as representative payees to help manage his estate, not because he is not lucid, but because he doesn't want to deal with managing his estate during his retirement.  My grandmother (maternal side) has something similar w/ my parents although she doesn't have an estate like my grandfather, because she can't drive, it simplifies my parents taking care of her business, but mentally she is lucid and keeps a shotgun next to her bed.

[libertybele]

Completely accurate. Having a “representative payee” has nothing do do with someone's mental state. My grandfather is a good example. He has an accountant and my dad as representative payees to help manage his estate, not because he is not lucid, but because he doesn't want to deal with managing his estate during his retirement.  My grandmother (maternal side) has something similar w/ my parents although she doesn't have an estate like my grandfather, because she can't drive, it simplifies my parents taking care of her business, but mentally she is lucid and keeps a shotgun next to her bed.

The "65" and older population has soared in the past decade...I am willing to bet that they probably posses a large amount of guns. Secondly, those on social security aren't in the age bracket that is doing the mass school shootings and random killings.

Keep in mind, that this just isn't limited to the Social Security Administration, but other federal agencies as well.

He has tried to make it that doctors have to report a gun in the home with young children...now this.  Barry will target every group that he can get his hands on to make it to where the 2nd Amendment is null and void.

[truth_seeker]

So why don't we have members here that are 65 and above, give their own experience with Obama's government taking away their guns.

Those below age 65, but looking after the affairs of an elderly person, weigh in too.

I want to hear the facts, not mere emotional venting.

(Feel free to give examples of first hand experience with death panels, too)

[EdinVA]

This is nothing more than Obama arbitrarily amending the Second Amendment as he sees fit and testing the waters.  In addition, this isn't just limited to the Social Security Administration -- it incorporates various other "federal" agencies.  IF Barry is given some latitude he will seize the moment and issue an E.O. on the Second Amendment.  Then what?  The average Joe will not be able to keep arms -- basically making us defenseless against our own government.  He is whittling away at the Second Amendment period. NO. No and hell No!  We cannot give Barry anymore power to destroy this country then he has already been given.

Sorry...I don't see the headline misleading at all.  I see it as a very much needed means to warn gun owners regarding a potentially threatening infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

Exactly!  A crack in the wall in which to place the wedge and pound away.
And when he does issue the E. O. on the second amendment, our REPUBLICAN congress will just sit on their thumbs and cry.
And just who gets to define "mental state"?

[ABX]

(Feel free to give examples of first hand experience with death panels, too)

Coworker's father is a perfect example of this. He went in for a minor heart stint and ended up catching a staph infection from the surgery. All approvals for antibiotics, pain medicine, and sleeping pills had to go through a medicare advisory board before being issue to him. One bad night, he couldn't get pain and sleeping medication until the next morning because when then doctor put in the request, it couldn't be approved through the layers of bureaucracy until the next day. This kept going on and on, his infection became worse, and he died 3 months later, never having left the hospital. All because government bureaucrats had to put themselves in the middle of doctors and patients to give financial approval before anything was issued.

[libertybele]

So why don't we have members here that are 65 and above, give their own experience with Obama's government taking away their guns.

Those below age 65, but looking after the affairs of an elderly person, weigh in too.

I want to hear the facts, not mere emotional venting.

(Feel free to give examples of first hand experience with death panels, too)

The fact is that this infringement of gun rights on this particular group  - 65 and older is in the process ... perhaps you didn't read the first several paragraphs?  We are not talking this process affecting a few hundred but over 4 MILLION.  I'm not quite understanding your'e lack of concern? Perhaps your comfortable with Barry imposing restrictions as he sees fit on your 2nd amendment rights.  I'm not.  I'm not comfortable with Barry imposing restrictions on any of our rights ... especially since we have a do nothing Congress!  What is even more alarming is this hasn't made news on the more liberals news sources.  Basically, the SSA and other agencies will be allowed to determine who has rights under the 2nd amendment and who does not.  This is a Constitutional right period.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is currently developing a program to strip the Second Amendment Rights of over four million Americans currently receiving SSA benefits through a “representative payee.”  Not only would this amount to the largest gun grab in American history, but according to the published report, would take place without any due process protections for recipients, amounting to a nullification of Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans who don’t pose a threat to themselves or anyone else.

This new program appears to have been instigated by the SSA in response to a memorandum issued by Obama in January of 2013 which directed all federal agency executives to “improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” This memorandum required all agency heads to submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a plan for “sharing all relevant Federal records” for submission to the NICS.

[famousdayandyear]

And just who gets to define "mental state"?

Simple.  Healthcare.gov
Just a couple lines of code using an IF/THEN statement:

If [AGE] > 65
THEN [confiscation.exe]

Obama does not have to report, explain, or justify any action.
And we'll pay billions to write the code, and trillions to investigate who wrote it.

[EdinVA]

Simple.  Healthcare.gov
Just a couple lines of code using an IF/THEN statement:

If [AGE] > 65
THEN [confiscation.exe]

Obama does not have to report, explain, or justify any action.
And we'll pay billions to write the code, and trillions to investigate who wrote it.

And meanwhile at the republican controlled congress, they will still be yelling at Trump.

[olde north church]

Anytime would be good.

[Free Vulcan]

It'd deny due process based on some overgeneralized govt assumption that may or may not hold true. Mental deficiency is a case by case basis, not some broad unproven accusation that is a half step from a simple bigoted slur.

[libertybele]

It'd deny due process based on some overgeneralized govt assumption that may or may not hold true. Mental deficiency is a case by case basis, not some broad unproven accusation that is a half step from a simple bigoted slur.

It's not even a matter of mental deficiency having to be proven, but the mere fact that a senior assigns a "representative payee" ... would be stripped of their gun  rights.  Seniors could have set things up in their wills/trusts years before they turned 65....millions would still be affected.

To me the most alarming fact is that a government agency(s) is being allowed to decide who can and cannot possess a firearm...that agency is being allowed to override Constitutional rights. The further implications for a government agency(s) to override other Constitutional rights is huge.  Anyone receiving any kind of government aide, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, federally backed mortgages, etc., etc., could be mandated to give up whatever right the government sees fit. 

IF this is allowed to go through...our rights could be dismantled one by one.  Does anyone really trust that Barry won't completely destroy our rights under the Constitution??  Congress sure as hell hasn't stopped him so far. Without this right folks, we will have NO rights.