Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

USA: SSA Rules - Will Block Some from Purchasing Guns

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by RicInOR, May 5, 2016.

  1. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    4,707
    This is a RULE not a LAW. The Congress gave the Social Security Administration the power to create rules.

    They are going to report to the FBI those who receive payment for Mental Health reasons.
    This is expected to go into the Federal Register for public review and comment this week (today).

    I know it was discussed in the past here on NWFA

    http://thehill.com/regulation/pendi...o-block-the-mentally-ill-from-purchasing-guns

     
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
  2. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    4,707
  3. Hawaiian

    Hawaiian Tigard Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Was any research done on the number of these individuals that have committed a crime using a firearm? Or is it like much of the anti's gun control initiatives, a solution looking for a problem?
     
    pokerace likes this.
  4. slimer13

    slimer13 Deer Park Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    3,197
    It's a thinly veiled attempt to march forward the agenda of disqualifying as many people as possible from gun ownership.

    There already is a process to get someone who is mentally ill prohibited. It involves working it's way through the court system and it is difficult to accomplish as it absolutely should be.
     
    mjbskwim and Brutus57 like this.
  5. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    I posted a anonymously a comment (see below) on the regulations.gov website regarding this proposed rule. While I am not ignorant of the powers that be, and their agenda, I personally am compelled to be vocal. Many regimes succeed in their oppression because people don't speak up. I don't have any delusion that my statements will change much, but as a personal issue of integrity, I choose to take such risks.

    "I believe this proposed rule will unconstitutionally revoke civil rights without due process. The categorical revocation of a fundamental right based solely on circumstantial conditions, without a trial, violates the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution, whereas a person must be accused of a crime, and is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There are ample lawful avenues to prohibit people who are a danger to themselves or others, which adhere to the principles of Jurisprudence.

    Statistically, people with mental illness are less likely to be criminally violent than the population at large. While there are high profile incidents of criminal violence due to mental illness, it is not supported by research that the prohibition of firearm ownership to people receiving disability benefits would have affected any such high profile incidents, or would in the future. The proposed rule would only serve to further alienate and penalize persons in need of assistance, and would create a class of persons who would not seek assistance for fear of the loss of civil rights.

    Additionally, this proposed rule wrongfully puts the Social Security Administration in the role of a judicial and executive agency, which would not only further burden it, but expand its powers beyond its agency.

    Again, there are myriad lawful means of keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders, that are lawfully and commonly in use. This proposed rule would only cause unlawful hardship, through the unlawful revocation of rights without due process, by an agency not intended for any such function, while establishing an awful precedent for the erosion of civil liberties without just cause.

    Thank you for your consideration."

    I realize I am not a lawyer, and there may be technical issues that aren't adequately addressed or not correctly applied in my comment, but it's the best I can do. Like I say, I have to say something and I believe my point holds enough water.

    And to be thorough, the proposed rule includes the following qualification for revocation: . . . and receipt of benefits through a representative payee."
    This doesn't make it less onerous, but it wasn't stated above by the OP. It's important to me to be accurateo_O

    The comment period is listed as Due: Jul 5th. If you're inclined to say something, that's the deadline. And you can post anonymously, for what it's worth.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
    Stomper, Brutus57 and CamoDeafie like this.
  6. OutlawHoss

    OutlawHoss Klamath-Siskyou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    As of the last time I look (some 3 or 4 days ago) there are more than 250 comments posted, all of them against as I could see, this proposed rule change. I don't know what is a typical response to proposed rules, but that seems like quite a response since it's only been open for comment for 2 weeks (?).