Over 4 Million Social Security Recipients Could Lose Gun Rights If They Can’t Balance a Checkbook

10
Share

dictator obama
In April, Obama’s DOJ pushed to deprive veterans of their gun rights if they required things as menial as bookkeeping services. In June, Obama pushed to ban gun-possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are believed incapable of handling their own finances.

The ban would include a multitude of issues such as “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

The ban pertaining to Social Security beneficiaries is now tucked into the “mental health” aspects of Obama’s executive gun control.

According to the White House executive order preview:

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

Information on beneficiaries who meet the criteria of mental impairment–demonstrated in part by an inability to manage their own benefits–will be added to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) so that the beneficiaries cannot buy a gun.

These people are being deprived of due process. It is an end run around the Second Amendment.

This could be as simple as people receiving bookkeeping help. They will all be lumped in together as the VA currently does.

The standard for mentally defective by both the VA and social security is not a consistent standard – it’s a catchall and many categories do not rise to the level of banning gun ownership.

The plan could require the Social Security Administration to report those recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, by the same process used to prevent guns from being sold to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

This could affect 4.2 million social security recipients who merely have problems balancing their checkbook.

About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees” and they would all be subject to gun confiscation.

Gun rights activists, mental health experts, advocates for the disabled and others are critical of the plan, the LA Times reported this past summer.

Handling one’s financial affairs does not correlate to irresponsible gun ownership.

If Social Security recipients lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs for any reason and to any degree, they could lose their guns.

Americans who receive Social Security benefits could all have to choose between their government benefits and their guns.

Bearing Arms calls it “extortion” which “will deny gun rights to the largest possible segment of Americans possible by executive fiat, with little recourse for those affected.”

What Obama is doing is picking off the Second Amendment with vulnerable group after vulnerable group so there will be less resistance, if any.

George Mason, who co-authored the second amendment, said at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System has a mentally defective category that is almost completely filled with veterans – 99.3% to be exact. The names are supplied by the VA from a list of veterans who required bookkeeping services.

All federal agencies are required to report names of individuals who are dangers to themselves or others to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s “mental defective” category — a status that prevents them from owning or possessing guns – but the VA is the agency supplying more than 99% of the names,

We can now add social security disability recipients to the list.

You can read more about the VA on this link. You can read about the social security situation on this link.

Share

10 COMMENTS

  1. The ban would include a multitude of issues such as “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.” Well the good news is the president, having the first 2 issues (subnormal intelligence and incompetency) won’t be owning a firearm.

  2. You really want someone with mental deficiencies to be able to shoot at someone? It takes coordination and normal brain function to determine whether and where to fire a weapon. I doubt they will have the logic to safely store or clean guns either. However I have not heard any of what this article claims, only that severely mentally ill or those ruled mentally incompetent won’t pass the background check.

    • I want fairness. Putting everyone in a one-size-fits-all government straight jacket is wrong. The wording says – a “condition” – way too vague. Even the LA Times had problems with it. It’s what they do now to vets.

    • Intelligence has not a whole lot to do with violence. I have known people with very low IQ and still had manners and civility with respect for life.

      • Agreed wholeheartedly. I myself have Asperger’s Syndrome (a high functioning level of autism), and have been raised by my parents to appreciate life, and to know that every action has a consequence. Religion also plays a role in how I think about my actions. I have no doubt in my mind that I would burn in hell for the rest of eternity if I raised my weapon and killed someone unjustifiably. Unjustifiably defined as if kill someone who is not threatening my life or anyone else’s. By watching some of the gun enthusiasts and defense professionals, I’ve learned to not go looking for trouble. To not be confrontational. That if I can remove myself from what I clearly see as a bad, physically harmful situation, to take the route of escape and only use my weapon as a last resort when all options to flee or defuse the situation have failed. Once you squeeze the trigger, and that round leaves the bore, you can’t take it back.

  3. Well great….. Now law abiding citizens that’s never hurt themselves or anyone else on ssi and social security decided that someone else should care for their money won’t be able to defend themselves…. This is crap so what are people supposed to do let sum armed people rape beat or kill them or their families and have no way to defend themselves….. Wow this is crazy….. Maybe Obama can send these people guards to protect them or maybe they should all move in with Obama since he will have protection for the rest of his life…

Comments are closed.