going after your guns through social security

[3MTA3]

There is no question that someone who is a danger to his/her self or others should have their access to firearms restricted until they have had treatment. The question is who determines this and for what reason.

I am very suspicious of SSI being used this way. SSI is an earned entitlement (I for one have already put more into it that I will ever get out of it) and should not have any strings attached, especially by an increasingly authoritarian government.

 

[NSDQ]

There is no question that someone who is a danger to his/her self or others should have their access to firearms restricted until they have had treatment. The question is who determines this and for what reason.

I am very suspicious of SSI being used this way. SSI is an earned entitlement (I for one have already put more into it that I will ever get out of it) and should not have any strings attached, especially by an increasingly authoritarian government.

If the reason for you to be collecting SSI falls inline with the same criteria of incompetency, that would simply make sense to me that you should be restricted firearms. From everything I've read about this proposed law, social security wouldn't be with held but rather the criteria in which your claim/filing would be restrict gun ownership. The issue of contention would be how to deal with grey area. What specifically crosses the line and deems you incapable. I'm more inclined that this should be handled by courts not a federal agency.

 

[Kid@Heart]

It really depends on what is specifically written in the Law. For instance my girlfriends mom collects social security for her Alzheimer's. She needs to be taken care of and monitored almost 24/7. She will turn on a stove walk into another room and forget it's even on. She almost burnt down the house. She is deemed mentally incompetent but she can legally buy a firearm. There is NO REASON why she she be able to buy a firearm or even drive a car.

Issues should be handled on a case by case basis. Mental incompetency has always handled by the courts. In general a lot of evidence has to be handed to a Judge before they even consider entertaining the idea of taking someones rights away. This of course is handled specifically by each State differently.

I've work with a fellow veteran who suffers from TBI and massive depression. He's been clinically diagnosed with violent mental problems. This includes random fits of rage. He beat his ex girlfriends dog and beat her to an inch of her life. He collects SSI and there is no way that he should have a firearm until he's completed treatment. Myself and 2 other veterans tried to tackle subdue him after he beat an entire house in with a baseball bat for 30 minutes after he found out his girlfriend wanted to leave him.

If you collect social security for above reasons like these, I see no specific problems with restricting gun access to these individuals. The state has already deemed them unfit this is simply creating a link.

In general courts just don't randomly decide to deem people unfit on a regular basis. They are incredibly hard to prove. BUT if you collect social security and fall under the categories for being mentally unfit - that seems to fall inline with background checks not allowing people who are deemed mentally unwell.

I really take exception to the entire premise of your statements.

This proposal has nothing to do with following due process or instituting new legislation. It has nothing to do with suspending the right to purchase or own a firearm if you are incompetent, a felon or violently insane. It is about the millions of people having their retirement finances managed by an investment firm being arbitrarily denied their right to purchase a firearm. Without a new law, this administration will add all of those folks to the list of people to be denied during the background check process. They won't know until it happens.

Have you ever been to a financial adviser like Edward Jones? Check.
Have you had your retirement check direct deposited to your account? Check.
Is your Social Security payment direct deposited to your account? Check.
Do you have payments automatically withdrawn from your account? Check.
No BGC Approval for you...

Nowhere in the article do they mention "Due Process", "Court", "Judge" or "Hearing".

 

[Caveman Jim]

Why not start with the Welfare entitlement system, I'll bet it nabs many more than SSI!!!

 

[NSDQ]

I really take exception to the entire premise of your statements.

This proposal has nothing to do with following due process or instituting new legislation. It has nothing to do with suspending the right to purchase or own a firearm if you are incompetent, a felon or violently insane. It is about the millions of people having their retirement finances managed by an investment firm being arbitrarily denied their right to purchase a firearm. Without a new law, this administration will add all of those folks to the list of people to be denied during the background check process. They won't know until it happens.

Have you ever been to a financial adviser like Edward Jones? Check.
Have you had your retirement check direct deposited to your account? Check.
Is your Social Security payment direct deposited to your account? Check.
Do you have payments automatically withdrawn from your account? Check.
No BGC Approval for you...

Nowhere in the article do they mention "Due Process", "Court", "Judge" or "Hearing".

No place in the article did they also say that those weren't part of the process. I'll suspend by opinions until I see whats proposed. However I'm a firm believer that a good majority of gun related violence and crimes are related to mental illness. If you're collecting SSI for multiple personality disorder and violent schizophrenia, you shouldn't have access to firearms. To get social security like SSI for mental illnesses you are required see a psychologist, and go through multiple bouts of mental evaluation. Or in some cases this is part of a state process because you are a interned as a mental patient.

In no way am I arbitrarily agreeing with a blanketed disarming of social security beneficiaries but rather those whose fall under the same criteria for mental incapacity.

 

[NSDQ]

Why not start with the Welfare entitlement system, I'll bet it nabs many more than SSI!!!

Federal Budget from 2014.

Federal military and civilian employee retirement and disability
5.33%

Food and nutrition assistance
4.08%

Earned income and child tax credits
3.23%

Supplemental Security Income
2.19%

Housing assistance
1.89%

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
0.67%

Child care, foster care, and adoption support
0.63%

Railroad retirement and additional income security
0.16%

 

[oknow]

Why not start with the Welfare entitlement system, I'll bet it nabs many more than SSI!!!

too many obozo voters there

 

[oknow]

they don't care about law breakers

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/19/americas-youngest-convicted-murder-to-be-released/21211201/

so f him and his EO's / laws

 

[Kid@Heart]

No place in the article did they also say that those weren't part of the process. I'll suspend by opinions until I see whats proposed. However I'm a firm believer that a good majority of gun related violence and crimes are related to mental illness. If you're collecting SSI for multiple personality disorder and violent schizophrenia, you shouldn't have access to firearms. To get social security like SSI for mental illnesses you are required see a psychologist, and go through multiple bouts of mental evaluation. Or in some cases this is part of a state process because you are a interned as a mental patient.

In no way am I arbitrarily agreeing with a blanketed disarming of social security beneficiaries but rather those whose fall under the same criteria for mental incapacity.

I don't believe that at all.

I do believe the "High-Profile" shootings are in many cases committed by individuals that should have been identified and treated before they went completely off the rails. These incidents are not the majority of incidents. As a matter of fact, more persons are killed by the police in one year than have been killed by all of the "mass shooting" incidents, ever.

The majority of gun related violence is related to criminal activity, gangs and drugs.

Perhaps you can enlighten me- When was the last Gun-Free Zone shot up by a Senior Citizen???

 

[Caveman Jim]

Federal Budget from 2014.

Federal military and civilian employee retirement and disability
5.33%

Food and nutrition assistance
4.08%

Earned income and child tax credits
3.23%

Supplemental Security Income
2.19%

Housing assistance
1.89%

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
0.67%

Child care, foster care, and adoption support
0.63%

Railroad retirement and additional income security
0.16%

What are you insenuating with those statistics?

 

[NSDQ]

I don't believe that at all.

I do believe the "High-Profile" shootings are in many cases committed by individuals that should have been identified and treated before they went completely off the rails. These incidents are not the majority of incidents. As a matter of fact, more persons are killed by the police in one year than have been killed by all of the "mass shooting" incidents, ever.

The majority of gun related violence is related to criminal activity, gangs and drugs.

Perhaps you can enlighten me- When was the last Gun-Free Zone shot up by a Senior Citizen???

Well I disagree with you. A majority of these mass shootings were from very mentally unstable people. And a majority of gun violence is suicide.. again falling under mental health. I think over 50 percent of shootings are self inflicted. The system as it stands -- you can be collecting social security for mental insanity but still are legally able to buy a firearm. There is a gap.

 

[slimmer13]

Well I disagree with you. A majority of these mass shootings were from very mentally unstable people. And a majority of gun violence is suicide.. again falling under mental health. I think over 50 percent of shootings are self inflicted. The system as it stands -- you can be collecting social security for mental insanity but still are legally able to buy a firearm. There is a gap.

Thanks for posting on here. It's nice to have some insight to the thought process of freedom haters.

Know your enemy

 

[NSDQ]

Thanks for posting on here. It's nice to have some insight to the thought process of freedom haters.

Know your enemy

Hating freedom is equated to thinking that people who qualify for SSI for mental incapacitation should have access to firearms? In some states you can actually be in a mental institution for serious mental health problems but still legally have access to a firearm due to a disconnect between states and reporting. That isn't hating freedom thats just enforcing the mental health aspect for every background check.

 

[slimmer13]

Hating freedom is equated to thinking that people who qualify for SSI for mental incapacitation should have access to firearms? In some states you can actually be in a mental institution for serious mental health problems but still legally have access to a firearm due to a disconnect between states and reporting. That isn't hating freedom thats just enforcing the mental health aspect for every background check.

You want to expand prohibited persons without due process. You want transactions between private citizens to be funneled through the Gov. You even want to tell people what they can wear.

I get it.....or you're a troll

 

[RicInOR]

This question has to come down to fundamentals.

Do we have a right granted to us by Providence, to own guns?
Or, is that a privilege?
Or, is that right granted only to the able bodied? (Being of sound mind and judgement)

If you are no longer of sound mind, but have a Providential right, then no one can take it from you. There are those who believe you do not even have a Providential right to life.

My fear is with the other side, restoration. If you have to give up something, how do you get it back. Ask a felon how they get their gun rights restored.

Like a temporary medical power of attorney, if you are going to have some treatment which will impair you, that is you will no longer be of sound mind, then you need to make arrangements on what to do with your firearms. But what happens in an unplanned event - like following an accident? Should your living will address your FA?


I believe we have a God granted right to life. And a derivative of that is the right to self defense. I believe I am right that our founding fathers saw the beast of tyranny and wanted to explicitly state we have a right to firearms, if we are of sound mind and body. That is not God given, but derived from the right of self defense.


The way I read the idea is that the Social Security administration will be required, like the VA is required, to report those who have been determined to not be in their sound mind. The arguments and concerns following that are about the slippery slope. Who gets to determine you can't have a FA? Some paper work clerk?
What constitutes your not being in a sound mind? Not being able to do math (can't balance a check book)? Going to see a councilor for depression?
If we require the VA to report, why not also require the Social Security administration? Why not require your doctor?

 

[Kid@Heart]

Well I disagree with you. A majority of these mass shootings were from very mentally unstable people. And a majority of gun violence is suicide.. again falling under mental health. I think over 50 percent of shootings are self inflicted. The system as it stands -- you can be collecting social security for mental insanity but still are legally able to buy a firearm. There is a gap.

So, now you throw in the "Mass Shooting" term to try to justify your point. The guy in Chattanooga wasn't crazy. He was a committed zealot. But that is a subject for a different thread.

The original topic was about going after guns through Social Security, not about some obscure what-if scenario. You will always be able to create a false set of conditions out of thin air to support a point of view that continues to shift.

I am far more concerned with a system that will restrict or remove Rights without any kind of due process. The regulatory overreach of our government is astonishing, if you just take the time to look and listen. This is a prime example.

To your point about folks receiving disability payments for mental illness- Of course they should have their gun rights reviewed by the judicial system. But, aging is not a crime. Almost everyone will sign up for Social Security or Medicare when they get old enough. You and I have paid into it our entire working careers. Collecting on that promise should not disqualify you from your Rights.

 

[NSDQ]

This question has to come down to fundamentals.

Do we have a right granted to us by Providence, to own guns?
Or, is that a privilege?
Or, is that right granted only to the able bodied? (Being of sound mind and judgement)

If you are no longer of sound mind, but have a Providential right, then no one can take it from you. There are those who believe you do not even have a Providential right to life.

My fear is with the other side, restoration. If you have to give up something, how do you get it back. Ask a felon how they get their gun rights restored.

Like a temporary medical power of attorney, if you are going to have some treatment which will impair you, that is you will no longer be of sound mind, then you need to make arrangements on what to do with your firearms. But what happens in an unplanned event - like following an accident? Should your living will address your FA?


I believe we have a God granted right to life. And a derivative of that is the right to self defense. I believe I am right that our founding fathers saw the beast of tyranny and wanted to explicitly state we have a right to firearms, if we are of sound mind and body. That is not God given, but derived from the right of self defense.


The way I read the idea is that the Social Security administration will be required, like the VA is required, to report those who have been determined to not be in their sound mind. The arguments and concerns following that are about the slippery slope. Who gets to determine you can't have a FA? Some paper work clerk?
What constitutes your not being in a sound mind? Not being able to do math (can't balance a check book)? Going to see a councilor for depression?
If we require the VA to report, why not also require the Social Security administration? Why not require your doctor?

I agree its a slippery slope. But take for instance the Virginia tech shooter. A judge had deemed him unfit to legally purchase a firearm by the state however it was never reported to the federal government. Cho ended up buying a gun through a legal dealer without a hitch. The NRA has actually advocated a mental health database for almost a decade. Typically the courts decide if you are incapacitated. It seems logical to me if you are collecting SSI for mental incapacitation - this should be sent to states and vice versa if you are deemed mentality unfit by the state it should be sent up to the federal level. This information should flow back and forth. The decision on you being mentally unfit is based on the courts.

I know MANY Veterans who have TBI or PTSD related injuries and just because they collect VA benefits for PTSD doesn't deem the unfit to own firearms. There are some in the very small minority that I would consider violent or dangerous. Some examples would be the veteran that killed the beloved American Sniper Chris Kyle. The process in which someone is deemed mentally unfit is a LENGTHLY process. Judges typically don't side with committing people unless there is sufficient evidence.

 

[tiggers97]

I think something similar already happened in Oregon, thru the VA. Now he wants to 'share' that model with the general population.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january092014/vet-gun-rights-tk.php

 

[deen_ad]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

I don't mind adding them to the list of prohibited persons BUT ONLY IF they are individually adjudicated in court as already prescribed by law. That would stop the wholesale gun grab being proposed.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
NRA Recruiter
Defender of Freedom Award
Washington Arms Collector Member
Vancouver Rifle & Pistol Club member
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"