Obama targets social security recipients for gun seizure
A couple of folks have sent us a link to the LA Times about the latest attempt by the White House to disarm Americans. Most of us know how they’ve disarmed some veterans that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has determined are unable to manage their financial affairs. The Obama Administration now plans to do the same with Social Security recipients, entering the names of folks who aren’t particularly adept at paying their bills;
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.”
Well, since this crowd considers all gun owners to be dangerous, common sense won’t apply. The standard that the VA used to weed out veterans that they could place a flag on in the NICS background check system would be applied to Social Security recipients;
More than half of the names on the VA list are of people 80 or older, often suffering from dementia, a reasonable criterion for prohibiting gun ownership.
But the category also includes anybody found by a “court, board, commission or other lawful authority” to be lacking “the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” for a wide variety of reasons.
Dementia, I can understand, along with folks who have contemplated suicide, but not people who can’t pay their bills, for Pete’s sake. I’ve heard from folks who tell me that having some bills on “auto-pay” has put them in that category. The example of a veteran whose wife has been put in charge of his financial affairs had his guns taken away by the VA is in the LA Times article.
But, I guess when your end game is to disarm the American People, any excuse will do just fine.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Jonn, there is no way just having bills on auto pay will get you deemed mentally defective/incompetent by the VA.
You have said so yourself on this very topic in the past that every case you have looked at by an individual who has been placed on the NICS list, they had more issues than financial irresponsibility.
I often see paperwork regarding these cases cross my desk, and none of these individuals is just being rated as incompetent… All that I have seen, have a plethora of other issues that should prohibit them from owning or possessing firearms.
I have also seen the flip side of these, where an appeal can be made to have your name removed from that list, as there is no longer any reason it should be(or should have been).
99.99% Of those who get placed on that list for being incapable of handling their own affairs, have been because of their own VA Disability Claims seeking a higher rating based on their inability to deal with daily responsibilities. It is clearly stated in the claim process that if they are granted their claim, that it would result in the loss of their rights to own and bear arms under Federal Law.
Should Social Security be treated the same? No, but Social Security Disability is another story. If you are claiming to Social Security that you are unable to work due to mental illness or chronic alcohol or drug abuse, then you do not have the responsibility/mental faculties to be in possession of firearms. Social Security does not have the same level of protections we as Veterans enjoy. We have the ability to appeal any decision the VA makes, to include being placed on the NICS list.
There are a myriad of reasons why someone who is granted benefits may be unable to be substantially gainfully employed, that has nothing to do with paying their bills, or handling their own funds. In our society, today, there are other ways of paying bills and other financial necessities to be met, since the advent of the internet has changed the way things were. The way I am reading your comment leads me to believe that not only is the ploy to disarm, but to keep claimants from applying for such benefits as SSDI, IU, etc. I find it really curious that VA, for example, would propose incompetency for a vet who had no issue whatsoever in handling funds, including a savings account (funds still there and available to vet), up until being granted IU. So, is that the real issue? You don’t apply, perhaps awarded benefits, then the issue of incompetency is erased? From where I’m sitting, they seem intertwined. It seems to me that many of those that have gone on killing sprees are not necessarily receiving disability benefits. What is the proposal for those? Where is the proposal to become more involved in other areas where firearms are creating havoc in our communities…I can think of the problem of gangs as an example, among others. So, is this relegated mostly to those for whom gov. benefits may be available? Come on…surely, those not on the watch list will still be able to get those guns, just maybe not legally. Just another tactic…
You sure read an awful lot that wasn’t there into that.
Really? Interesting that this is partly what was posted…”99.99% Of those who get placed on that list for being incapable of handling their own affairs, have been because of their own VA Disability Claims seeking a higher rating based on their inability to deal with daily responsibilities. It is clearly stated in the claim process that if they are granted their claim, that it would result in the loss of their rights to own and bear arms under Federal Law.”
Once again, you are making that into something it is not.
Federal Law requires anyone deemed incompetent/mentally defective/a danger to themselves or others/ etc… to be reported to the NCIS.
The VA complies with the Law. If you file a claim with the VA and are deemed incompetent to handle your own affairs, you are being reported.
How do you spin this into an attempt by the government to reduce the number of claims? Stop looking behind the bushes for the boogey man.
Lol…thanks for the laugh! Perhaps the “boogey man” is not hiding and you just missed him.
There is a vast difference between Social Security Disability Income and Social Security Retirement Income.
I did not see anything referring to SSRI as a bar to owning guns. However, if this is not specific enough in published news reports, it can be misunderstood to read that receiving SSRI will bar someone from owning a gun.
As I said elsewhere, it takes a serious amount of proof that someone is incompetent to get a court to declare him incompetent. You have to have a LOT of real evidence for that.
You see, its like this, we don’t want to waste money on senior citizens anymore, so we remove their guns so they can’t defend themselves, they become victims of some son of obozo and we don’t have to pay social security anymore….see how it works?
Looks like more of the scatter gun approach – meddle in multiple ways in ordinary citizens’ lives while ignoring legitimate functions of government.
Jonn, ya gotta watch that “dementia” thing as well. Had a parent in whose file was just such a diagnosis, apparently just because she was old. Sure, I paid the bills, but she always knew where every dime went. Debilitating arthritis is why I wrote the checks not because she lacked mental faculties. (And most of any “confusion” she had was from the pain meds.)
I wonder, will a joint checking account show the government that said senior citizen is “unable” to manage their affairs?
I suppose members of Congress who own guns will lose their weapons too.
They don’t seem to manage our money very well either….
My first thought also.
Excellent point!
Because so many of the stereotypical people that are committing some type of gun violence are SS recipients.
Funny thing is that most of them (freaks that commit atrocities with firearms) look like a weirdo that crawled out of their mom’s basement and not someone that has paid into SS their whole life to have some POS politician figure out how to either screw them out of their money or their rights.
Every time the Libs start some type of gun control, guns and ammo go through the roof. Ammo was just starting to come down in price a little, now I’m sure it will go right back up.
The very fact that this was discussed at all tells you all you need to know if you were ever doubtful about the goal: get the guns, notwithstanding that pesky 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t matter that this doesn’t have a chance to be effected this year, next year, or the year thereafter. The purpose is to begin the enlightenment and re-education process. Always, always, always, the government couches these tyrannical steps in terms of some sort of good, and opponents are branded as selfish and callous ogres. You must hate enfeebled old people if you want them to have guns, just as you must hate freedom and women to be pro-life; just as you are against love itself if you oppose gay marriage. The tactics work or they wouldn’t be employed repeatedly. Some people should not vote, either. That has been twice proved in the last two presidential elections. So, while we’re at it, let the Feds float the idea of stripping ALL rights from oldsters. Why settle for just one?
The death by 1000 cuts. Right on.
Meantime don’t be caught on tape saying that 47% of the population is on the dole.
Adolph would be soooo proud. Next step will likely be a small math test to determine whether any of the recipients of gub monies are competent. New math for example”
2 X 2 = A. 83 1/2
B. 7,392,711
C. 9
Sorry, wrong choice. Take his guns fellows.
In our current economy the number of people paying some bills late (late being defined as what? Less than 30 days past the Due Date? Due date plus 30? Plus 60?) is quite high for a variety of reasons.
Those in need of assistance will also tend to have lower credit scores and a higher incidence of late payments (imagine that, less money makes it harder to pay bills and keep your credit score up).
It hardly makes one incompetent in and of itself. Guess it’s a good thing I don’t need to deal with SS for quite some time yet in that capacity.
I have a huge problem with the way this is being done.
Just like the rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, the right of firearms ownership is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. The SCOTUS has held that the right to firearms ownership is an individual right – as are the rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.
The 14th Amendment says that one’s constitutional rights can only be forfeit via “due process of law”. A bureaucratic guideline that essentially says “all persons who fall into category (x) no longer have this right” does NOT constitute due process of law. Neither IMO does the fiat decision of an appointed bureaucrat serving in an executive branch of government.
Bottom line: it should take at a minimum a formal court hearing before a judge before ANY specific individual constitutional right is forfeit. This proposed policy – and the similar one the VA is using today – doesn’t offer that. In my book, that makes both illegitimate as hell.
Due to the legal nature of VA Claims, there is protection for the Veteran built in through the appeals process.
There is no such protection for Social Security Recipients(in appeals), though I do believe still that those collecting Social Security disability for mental illness or chronic alcohol/drug abuse should be reported to NICS as mentally defective. Their claims are adjudicated in a legal proceeding, before a Social Security Judge. They have therefore had their 14th Amendment Rights satisfied (in my humble opinion).
To target people who are otherwise collecting Social Security for retirement, and were not previously collecting SS Disability for the above mentioned items then they should be left the hell alone unless a Judge has determined they are no longer competent enough to handle their affairs.
Sorry, but that’s not adequate.
You’re talking about forfeit of a fundamental right specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution – just like the freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.
Police are in general not allowed to conduct warrantless searches of private residences on a whim, or because of “policy”. A hearing before a judge (to present a case for and request a search warrant) is in general required prior to a lawful search of an individual’s home without the consent of the individual. This is because the 5th Amendment guarantees an individual the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Depriving someone of ANY fundamental right should require at least that much. The current VA policy – and the proposed SocSec policy – do an extrajudicial end run around the Constitution to cause an individual to forfeit his/her right to own firearms without any due process of law whatsoever – simply because it’s “policy”.
One should NOT have to ask to have a right unlawfully taken from them without due process “restored”. Rather, the Government has the burden of proving, via due process, that the right should be forfeit. Unless and until that burden has been met, the right should remain operative.
Bottom line: a mental competency hearing should be required. Period. If the person is found to be mentally incompetent or a danger to self/others, then yes: bar firearms ownership. But the government should have to make that case – INDIVIDUALLY. It should NOT be allowed to have a “blanket policy” to that effect.
One size does NOT fit all.
The cases are made individually, and as ExPh2 pointed out it is a lengthy process.
This is not something that happens overnight, outside any judicial review.
Do not forget, in both cases it is at behest of an individual before either SSA or VA that they be granted disability based on their inability to maintain their personal affairs, and or are so mentally incompetent due to defect or disease(chronic addiction) that they can no longer work.
I would have a great deal of trouble with it being done outside of legal avenues, but in this case it would not be. They receive due process, and it is accomplished via their own initiation of the claims process.
You need to do an Internet search on the legal term “strict scrutiny”. Federal courts have consistently held that strict scrutiny is applicable for any law or action by government that denies a specific right guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Strict scrutiny requires that a court consider the denial of rights prior to their denial if possible, or as quickly afterwards as possible- not weeks after the fact. This is why an accused/arrested criminal receives an arraignment and bail hearing quickly after arrest; deprivation of liberty receives strict scrutiny, as it’s prohibited by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment.
Further: this document from the VA appears to indicate that in general VA decisions are administrative actions; they are not legal rulings from a court of law. Mental capacity and insanity determinations made by the VA fall in this category.
An administrative decision by a government employee simply does not constitute due process that meets the strict scrutiny standard. Thus, such decisions do not constitute sufficient due process for the denial of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.
Bottom line: what the VA is doing here – and what it’s proposed that the SSA will do – does not constitute legal due process with respect to denial of a basic right enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It does not pass the strict scrutiny standard, nor does it offer procedural due process appropriate for the denial of a fundamental right.
Hondo. I see how you reached the conclusion that you did and I also see where in the process your analysis took a detour. You wrote that, “Federal courts have consistently held that strict scrutiny is applicable for any law or action by government that denies a specific right guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” You then applied that to the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of a right to bear arms. The problem—the detour– is that strict scrutiny is not the only standard applied to determining the constitutionality of a law or government policy that impinges on a right and, in fact, the strict scrutiny test was not used either in the Heller decision nor the McDonald decision. In neither case did the majority employ or identify a specific standard of review, yet the Heller majority explicitly recognized that the 2nd Amendment to be a fundamental right accruing to the individual citizen. Whether strict scrutiny should have been applied, or even could have been applied, is open for debate. Put another way, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and all laws that impinge upon fundamental rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard when their constitutionality is challenged, then that standard would necessarily have been used by the majority in determining the constitutionality of the D.C. and Chicago laws. But it wasn’t.
rb325th…Your point is clear to me, but may not be as clear to those who are on the DV list. As you correctly stated, one in receipt of a VA disability check can take action on his own behalf to have an administrative payee handle his financial affairs. To add a brutally honest comment, some recipients do that intentionally just because that adds another $350 plus or minus to their monthly check. Trouble is, they all find out too late what freedoms are sold for that extra $ every month.
I have news for politicians about competence.
It takes a hell of a lot of evidence to prove that someone is mentally incompetent, AND requires a hearing, maybe several. There has to be real evidence, not just ‘say so’.
Maybe they ought to come for any and all firearms owned by Al Sharpton? He’s ONLY indebted to the IRS for a measly $4.5 Million!!
So, let me see if I understand this.
If I make a fortune (knock on wood), the common sense approach is to protect it from financial predators by putting it into a trust that legally prevents their access to it. Putting something into a trust doesn’t mean that I don’t manage it myself, but that ‘marks’ me somehow.
And then when I reach a certain age, I’m automatically deemed incompetent because ageism….
Or let’s say I decide to take an extended vacation, maybe 6 months, and go spend some time in New Zealand, a simply lovely place to visit. So to keep the home fires burning, I ask the gas company to temporarily turn off the gas, the phone company to turn off the phone and put my credit cards and the power company on autopay WHILE I’M GONE. That’s just common sense and has nothing to do with incompetence, but it’s another check in one of those little boxes.
Hmm. I should move to another planet where I’m allowed to live in peace and quiet without some fucking asshole checking my file against the clock.
The high point of this for me is that the people who want to do these things to US, the aged but not infirm, will be subjected to the same scrutiny themselves. I don’t think they will like it.
Oh, in regard to autopayments: all banks that offer online bill payment also offer that if the payments are the same every month. It is a convenience for very busy people. It is not a sign of senility to use it.
Can I holler AGEISM at these idiots?
Except for things that very (like my electric bill) all of my bills are set on autopay for my convienience. Why write a check for my morgage every month when it can be taken directly out of my bank account on the same day every month.
“But, I guess when your end game is to disarm the American People, any excuse will do just fine.”
Nailed it.
Oh. I don’t use ‘auto pay,’ either. I don’t use any service where they can make the mistake and I get to pay the service fee for it.
Look at the bright side…this could be used to ensure any member of the DRC never gets near anything that goes BANG ever.
I think some are missing something larger than the right to bear arms.
If they can administratively declare you disarmed, they can also remove any other rights, like voting, religion, property, even life itself.
That is one ginormous camel behind that nose under the tent flap.
Exactly. The people doing this want serfs, not citizens.
That requires enforcement, 11B, which proposes a much larger problem.
The federal government will soon start telling certain people where they’re going to live, under the guise of creating more “diversity” in neighborhoods outside of the
ghettoinner city. No one can complain, because it’s done for the “right reasons”.Enjoying paranoid fantasies, are you? You think that someone will knock on your door and tell you that you are no longer allowed to live in your own home, the one you bought and paid for, because (pick a reason)?
I think your statement needs some explanation. I can cook up a piece of speculative fiction on that idea, but you do seem to think that people will not object and will simply line up like robots.
Well, I disagree with you completely.
I partially agree with you Ex-PH2, but under that “Program”, would Fed Bureaucrats suddenly have the authority to buy a vacant house next door or down the street and let the thugs move in fresh from some public housing hellhole?
Program? Bureaucrats? Well, you’re about 15 years behind, API.
At the end of the 20th century (which was just a few years ago) the Mayor (Daley) of the City of Chicago evicted residents from all the project housing complexes and demolished the buildings. The worst of those hellholes was Cabrini Green.
The idea was to put the residents into the rest of Chicago’s neighborhoods and create mixed income neighborhoods.
Now those other neighborhoods are becoming as crime-ridden as the projects were.
It’s called ‘subsidized housing.’ Apartments are first — it happens here now — but there are plans underway to work with realtors and banks to cover the costs of home buying and property taxes. ‘Diversity’ is the name of the game. White neighborhoods will NOT be allowed to stay that way, and no, the people who live there won’t be given a choice.
Subsidized or Section 8 housing has been around for almost 50 years. Slumlords have taken advantage of it from welfare recipients for at least that long. The real problem lies in the fact that people who have quiet, peaceful, crime-free neighborhoods are now finding themselves in the exact opposite because the boiling pots that used to hold all those people have been destroyed.
Neighborhood blight is a creeping fungus that can be prevented, but all the neighbors have to pay attention.
Except that the silly plan has already been discussed among the loons in DC, and publicly reported. No, not just by the loons on the right.
In the middle of a few things here, but will go digging for whatever it was I read in the past week or so later. If I remember it that long. 😉
I’d rather see a bill that prohibits anyone who can’t manage to pay their taxes from serving in any legislative or cabinet position, as well as a lifetime ban from Whitehouse access. That would clean up a lot of messes.
Indeed we might avoid having a secretary of the treasury who was unaware that federal taxes were unavoidable for all US Citizens…not just payroll slaves.
It also reduces the exposure of a certain race-baiting “reverend”
SS
Oh the irony…
May I please make a comment here. Long-time lurker, first-time commenter, Navy veteran. I worked for the SSA for 30 years. I handled countless Representative Payee (RP) cases and Disability claims. There is a major difference between court-determined mental incompetency and incapability to handle one’s check. Most RP’s are appointed due to incapability – mental illness, physical incapability, drug addiction/alcolholism. RP’s may be appointed to any recipient of income: disability, retirement, SSI, etc. Every recipient has the right to appeal the appointment of a RP, up to and including a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Most RP recommendations come from the state disability service based on both medical evidence and/or lay evidence. The SSA representative in the local office does not have to accept that recommendation. I have, many times, declined to appoint a RP and I based my decision on my own observations.
This administrations attempt to further control guns in this manner is absolutely wrong and I oppose their use of the SSA to accomplish this.
Just wondering. Does the VA rent out armed bodyguards? I sure could use one. Capital Ave. NE in Battle Creek tends to get a little rough after dark.
I had to reread the article. So, I have to stop paying bills through my online bill pay because it shows that I can’t handle my finances. I should also VOID the DURABLE and FINANCIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I GAVE MY KIDS, because it means that I can’t make my own medical and financial decisions. WHAT A CROCK OF BULLSHIT. I wrote up the Medical Durable Power of attorney, if I’m not able to speak for myself, my KIDS KNOW WHAT I WANT. I did the financial and anywhere my signature needs to be signed power of attorney so if I accidentally die, they can raid my accounts and safety deposit box. I just read this to my kids. “Fuck em, you bought everything at gun shows, except for the little one’s .22”. What’s next? Taking your guns because you have brown hair and eyed…
It doesn’t say ‘stop using online bill payments’, but the implication is that if you have preparations in place for a life-changing event, EVEN THOUGHT THOSE PREPS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW, you could be considered incompetent.
Now, any good attorney will tell you that, at the very least, that is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. We are supposed to think ahead and take care of this kind of thing, on the off chance that it is necessary.
We get this stuff in ads on TV all the time, so this idea that we should NOT do that kind of preparation which is being promoted to us, is the ultimate in mind-boggling stupidity.
Just remember, this is not legislation, it is NOT in effect now, and it is really, really STUPID, just like all the other ‘bright ideas’ that come out of the dimwitted recesses of bodaprez’s shrunken brain cells.
Let it generate a lot of anger in the general populace. Meantime, go on with your life, and keep your kids aware.