TAKE ACTION: Comment period: SSA to determine you are prohibited and report to NICS

Obama said this was coming so it should not be a surprise to anyone. This is a 60 day comment period for the rule change. The Social Security Administration wants to determine you cannot own a firearm if it determines you cannot manage your finances to receive your SSA benefits. This is a stacked deck and it takes place in their own administrative offices using their rules and their definitions. Please take the time to at least write that you are against it.

here are the links.

https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=SSA-2016-0011
https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPRM--Implementation%20of%20the%20NICS%20Improvement%20Amendments%20Act%20of%202007%20%28NIAA%29.PDF

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160429/social-security-administration-releases-proposed-rulemaking-on-disability-related-gun-ban

Just a reminder. This removes an individuals right to own firearms indefinitely WITHOUT judicial oversight. This can even be done without a Doctor signing off on it. Currently there is a way to repeal it, but the backlog on appeals is at least 2 years.

Vermiform said:

Just a reminder. This removes an individuals right to own firearms indefinitely WITHOUT judicial oversight. This can even be done without a Doctor signing off on it. Currently there is a way to repeal it, but the backlog on appeals is at least 2 years.

Click to expand...

An absolutely absurd proposal. This is what I wrote.


"This is a blatant abuse of power by a government agency. It violates constitutionally protected rights based on subjective decisions of a government agency with no due process and legal basis."

This government action would, patently, violate violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. This is unbelievable.

It appears this ruling means that if an individual is mentally incompetent as determend by numerious doctors and at least one judge that they would lose their right to purchase a firearm. There are people out there that are not responsible enough to own firearms. If anyone does not agree with this they need to be evaluated. This is not about 2nd A. rights it is about trying to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Blue Diamond said:

It appears this ruling means that if an individual is mentally incompetent as determend by numerious doctors and at least one judge that they would lose their right to purchase a firearm. There are people out there that are not responsible enough to own firearms. If anyone does not agree with this they need to be evaluated. This is not about 2nd A. rights it is about trying to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

Keep reading brother. It also states if a person is designated to not be able their financial affairs, as in has had a fiduciary, then they are added to NICS. In the VA system a doctor is NOT required for this. you are however allowed to appeal a fiduciary, but the backlog is 2 years.

FWIW I've never personally seen this abused, but that still doesn't mean they won't.

Edit forgive spelling/grammar. Hate posting on phone.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Blue Diamond said:

It appears this ruling means that if an individual is mentally incompetent as determend by numerious doctors and at least one judge that they would lose their right to purchase a firearm. There are people out there that are not responsible enough to own firearms. If anyone does not agree with this they need to be evaluated. This is not about 2nd A. rights it is about trying to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this legislation. Would you like to come 'evaluate' me?

DBMJR1 said:

I don't agree with this legislation. Would you like to come 'evaluate' me?

Click to expand...

Don't hold it against anyone for misunderstanding this. On the surface this sounds like a good idea. But like any gun control legislation they introduce, they spin it to sound reasonable until you read the details.

This is ripe for abuse; but, that is not the real issue. The real issue is the door that this opens up for the government. This is the extinguishment of a constitutional right by bureaucratic decision. If this flys, where does it end? There is a reason we are suppose to have "due process" in this country.

TAKE ACTION: Comment period: SSA to determine you are prohibited and report t...

Blue Diamond said:

It appears this ruling means that if an individual is mentally incompetent as determend by numerious doctors and at least one judge that they would lose their right to purchase a firearm. There are people out there that are not responsible enough to own firearms. If anyone does not agree with this they need to be evaluated. This is not about 2nd A. rights it is about trying to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

Blue Diamond,

If you truly believe what you just wrote, you're ignorant. It's people like you that allow these types of laws to be passed. If it does pass, do you actually think if a mentally ill person wants to use a gun to do something stupid that he/she won't be able to get it because of this? NO! Just like criminals will continue to get guns in hand, so will mentally ill people. All this bill will do is allow the government to violate rights and take guns from the good guys.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was my comment:

This circumvents due process to take away an explicit constitutional right. The Social Security Administration or any other executive agency's administrative law apparatus is the improper venue to adjudicate if someone is mentally defective for the purposes of NICS, listing that person as prohibited from keeping and bearing firearms. It is solely within the judicial branch of government that the power to eliminate a constitutional right lies.

This proposed rule change assumes that being mentally defective or incompetent to manage one's financial affairs for handling a benefits program equates to being mentally defective or incompetent to keep and bear firearms safely. It places the burden of proof on the individual to prove this is not the case in an inappropriate venue. The burden of proof needs to remain on the government to prove that the individual is not safe with their individual right to keep and bear arms and that proof needs to remain in a real judicial branch court that keeps the legal standard of proof at the appropriate level for taking an individual's constitutional right away.

The executive office of the government seeks to improperly expand it's power through this rule change at the expense of due process. It is not constitutional, legal or ethical to do so and if not abandoned, it will be met with challenges at all levels.

Blue Diamond said:

It appears this ruling means that if an individual is mentally incompetent as determend by numerious doctors and at least one judge that they would lose their right to purchase a firearm. There are people out there that are not responsible enough to own firearms. If anyone does not agree with this they need to be evaluated. This is not about 2nd A. rights it is about trying to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

There are people who believe these laws benefit the public, or doesn't apply to "me" because I follow the Law. These people don't realize that many government officials have their own agendas. Many of these agendas arent intended to benefit society.

If they attempted to confiscate firearms today there would be an uproar. So the government tries soften the blow, by gradually removing our gun rights. today, its the carrots on your plate, tomorrow its your ass hole.

So If I claim bankruptcy, I lose the right defend my family. A lay-offed employee who loses his home cannot own a pistol? every person is an individual, how will all medical professionals have the same definition of competent? Will I have a fair appeal hearing before a quack says im mental?

scary

Rainsdrops have u even read what this is about? Or are u capable of reading? This has nothing what-so-ever to do with someone claiming bankruptsy or getting laid off. This has to deal with individuals that have applied to the government voluntarily with lots of documentation by doctors stating this individual is mentally ill and confirmed by said government with its own doctors and a judge through a formal hearing and who receives monthly compensation because this individual cannot work or deal with life in general.

Rainsdrops said:

There are people who believe these laws benefit the public, or doesn't apply to "me" because I follow the Law. These people don't realize that many government officials have their own agendas. Many of these agendas arent intended to benefit society.

If they attempted to confiscate firearms today there would be an uproar. So the government tries soften the blow, by gradually removing our gun rights. today, its the carrots on your plate, tomorrow its your ass hole.

So If I claim bankruptcy, I lose the right defend my family. A lay-offed employee who loses his home cannot own a pistol? every person is an individual, how will all medical professionals have the same definition of competent? Will I have a fair appeal hearing before a quack says im mental?

scary

Click to expand...

Blue Diamond said:

Rainsdrops have u even read what this is about? Or are u capable of reading? This has nothing what-so-ever to do with someone claiming bankruptsy or getting laid off. This has to deal with individuals that have applied to the government voluntarily with lots of documentation by doctors stating this individual is mentally ill and confirmed by said government with its own doctors and a judge through a formal hearing and who receives monthly compensation because this individual cannot work or deal with life in general.

Click to expand...

Blue, I think you just don't understand that every little step "they" are taking to stop people from owning guns, is helping them in their overall agenda. This does have the appearance that it can and will be used as a means to take away guns from law abiding people, not just the mentally ill. It doesn't sound like it will hard to add people to the list as they see fit.

US Infidel said:

Blue, I think you just don't understand that every little step "they" are taking to stop people from owning guns, is helping them in their overall agenda. This does have the appearance that it can and will be used as a means to take away guns from law abiding people, not just the mentally ill. It doesn't sound like it will hard to add people to the list as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Once it becomes a rule, amending it to expand the category for denial of gun rights is a much simpler process - or at least easier to sneak through a change without people noticing.

I read the entire proposal prior to starting this thread and I will claim to post from an informed standpoint. This proposal is taking the process of an executive branch agency to determine if someone can manage their own affairs for the purposes of receiving and using the benefits from that agency, and using it to determine if that person should be determined to be prohibited from keeping and bearing firearms. It is an expansion of the administrative function for the purposes of handling benefits by marrying it with the ATF's regulation determining someone is prohibited from firearms if they are determined to "Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs".

This is an administrative process that is conducted at the most, in front of an administrative law judge (ALJ). An ALJ is not a judicial branch judge and the level of proof they apply in an administrative hearing is not typically the same as the level of proof in a judicial branch court. The rule proposal wants to report this directly to NICS without a real judicial branch hearing. This is how due process is circumvented in this proposal.

I am well aware of the mental and/or age related disabilities that typically require a representative payee. For the most part, yes, those disabilities are congruent with not being able to keep and bear arms safely. It is not too hard to conceive of someone with a disability in which they can't manage their financial affairs but is not a danger to themselves or others if they keep and/or bear firearms. Here is the grey area in which there is a problem with this rule change.

For the easy cases, it is not much more work for SSA to pass on their file to a judicial branch court to review the case and a real court prohibit someone from keeping and bearing firearms. For the grey area cases, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that incompetence of managing ones financial affairs equates to being prohibited from owning firearms. Why not let this rule change require SSA to report to a real court for a real court hearing on this matter?

Ultimately, we might need to challenge the ATF regulation that prohibits a person if they "Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs". If they want to equate it to other administrative agency functions that are similar but are for a different purpose, it needs to be expressly narrowed.

I look forward to hearing from anyone's opinions on my assertions.

Blue is just crazy...... PERIOD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blue is not crazy. I might be the only one on this forum that can see past the end of his nose. These legally mentally retarded individuals that u want to preserve their 2nd amendment rights are the ones that are going in the theaters and schools and doing mass killings and killing innocent citizens by robbing, that will at some time be the undoing of the second A. Everytime these indivual do some crazy crap it affects all of us
BAD.

BeardedPatriot38 said:

Blue is just crazy...... PERIOD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

if your looking past your nose, who will determine what is / will be the guide lines for declaring a person mentally handicap? What about Hippa?

the "Incapable" category 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.

Quote: 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." Rosen also said some [people] may avoid seeking help for mental health problems out of fear that they would be required to give up their guns.

Gun Control only applies to law abiding citizens.

Bump. Comment period still open.

Fact pattern exercise: What if someone suffers a stroke that renders that person unable to do math including activities of daily living involving math. That person cannot distinguish between ten dollars and a thousand dollars, how much money should be in his/her accounts or how much to pay for goods and services. That person was an accountant so he/she justifiably now collects disability from SSA. This person has been found to need a representative payee as he/she is unable to manage his/her affairs for the purposes of SSA disability payments.

The person suffers from no other disabilities resulting from the stroke and is safe in keeping and bearing firearms. The person actually finds therapeutic benefits from going shooting. Should this person be automatically reported to NICS as prohibited?