Social security gun ban is coming :(

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPRM--I ... 07%20(NIAA).PD

Those too disabled to work must be too disabled to own guns.

I also don't understand how they can't do this in the very proposal under who can do adjudication it says no federal government agency. But Obama don't give a s**t about laws, rights or disabled people.

There are fives factors and all have to be met.

1. The individual filed his or her claim with SSA based on disability.
2. The disability "meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the 'Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments' set forth in SSA rules".
3. The individual has “a primary diagnosis code in [SSA’s] records based on a mental impairment.”
4. The individual’s age is at least 18 years old but has not yet attained full retirement age.
5. The individual's payments are to be made through a representative payee based on a determination that he or she is incapable of managing them as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.

"If all five of these factors are met, the individual would be reported to NICS as a “mental defective” and banned (presumably for life) from receiving or possessing firearms".

source:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016042 ... ed-gun-ban

Read the actual proposal and get back to me. I read all 45 pages.

It used to be that it was really difficult to be ruled a Mental Defective, usually you had to screw up really bad and really obviously, then a judge had to make the final ruling. It sounds like they have really lowered the bar, and want to make blanket determinations of mental defectiveness. My big worry is with all medical records now computerized that they will simply search for drugs people take, and if you're taking an antipsychotic, blam you're a mental defective and the cops are breaking down your door and "accidentally" killing you.

You know, the tightening noose of gun control is really a shame as far as holding on to firearms with sentimental or historical value is concerned. Outside of that, it doesn't have too much of an impact though. In areas like mine, there are lots of guns in circulation that are either unregistered (usually because they're antiques that have been in a family since long before gun registration was even conceived of) or are registered to deceased people.

There's also the fact that a lot of people possess the skills and tools necessary to manufacture new firearms after they're banned. You know, the hardest part of building an open bolt submachinegun is getting it registered with the ATF so it can legally be used by licensed individuals. Other than that, it's simpler than you might initially think. The same is true of mortars and 40mm grenade launchers. Home-made firearms that don't fall under article II (or don't meet the standards to be considered "class III" weapons) don't even have to be registered, but they also can't legally be transferred to another person.

If you're worried about impending gun confiscation, I highly recommend you save some of the many plans available for free on the internet just to give you a little peace of mind. I'd even be happy to send you some pieces from my own personal library. Gun control laws will never keep people from having guns or ammunition. However, they have succeeded in destroying irreplaceable pieces of history that should have been put on display for future generations.

By the way, this is not legal advice and I'm not endorsing anything criminal.

There's no registration in the California and New York sense in Oregon. None less they do know who owns what guns.

It seems, then, that the U.S. Social Security Administration might get its regulations adopted. But, watch for the NRA, SAF and (maybe) ACLU, among other advocacy groups like ASAN, to jump at the chance to take another all-expenses-paid tour of the federal court system (let's remember that U.S. Supreme Court rules require that Court opinions which receive a split-vote don't set national precedent, but do affirm the most recent subordinate federal court (district or appelate) opinion; which is all that is needed to stop regulations through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia). If the federal courts fail to correct the matter, the Republican-led Congress will likely act to correct the matter; not because Republican members of the Congress care much about protecting the constitutional rights of disabled individuals, but, because their campaign contributors (see above) will suddenly become their conscience. My belief is that the congressional Republicans will attach a corrective amendment to a budget bill or other legislation that all government leaders consider to be a must pass bill. Yes, there will be some hate-filled rhetoric about mentally disabled Americans in the next two months (and thereafter), but, at this point in the game, it appears that these regulations won't easily be adopted. Chalk it up as another likely failed attempt by the Executive Branch agencies.

The court system is lost. With the death of Scalia the court is now liberals do turned to the dark side. Any judge chosen will be anti gun. Left will see to that. But even before with Scalia they refused to see any cases regarding guns.

Only hope is to get enough people to mail email or call the Sss and comment on the proposal saying he'll no. We beat them on the 5.56 ban. However lots of people will say f**k disabled people, they're all just crazies waiting to do some mass shooting, lock them up. No one cared when th va took the vets gun rights.

The link in the OP is broken.

It is:

https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPRM--I ... IAA%29.PDF

This is representative of why I am not keen to have an official diagnosis registered with the state. With ACAA, the division between medical provider knowledge and state knowledge is getting very blurry.

At legistlative and social whim, the restrictions can move beyond guns and on to even more fundamental rights such as driving or fair legal treatment.

Yeah, state LE probably keep a database on those who go through the 24 hr. background check/waiting period.

Now the question is: what diagnoses fit the criteria? It's very important that you look that up.

I wouldn't think that Asperger's Syndrome or ASD, Level One, without Intellectual/Speech impairment would be considered a "mental illness" or indicative of somebody with "subnormal" intelligence.

The Obama administration doesn't seem to care about the logic of such details. Since ASD describes "deficits" in its own diagnostic criteria, the SSA would well argue that deficits are, therefore, a facial "mental impairment" regardless of any severity levels. Then, there is the need for a representative payee condition, something every child recipient of SSDI or SSI is likely to enjoy. But, to the administration, such a child with a payee is just another box to check. We must remember that adding an individual to the proposed database appears legally to involve a lifetime prohibition. The good news is that all five of the database criteria must be met by an individual before the individual's name is added to the database. Even then, an individual's diagnosis for a "mental impairment" must be the idividual's "primary diagnosis" not a secondary or tertiary diagnosis. This means that fewer individuals will qualify for inclusion within the database.

The NRA alone has determined several faults withing the proposed regulation; some of which conflict with other existing federal laws. This regulation appears to be so sloppy and pointless, that I reiterate my believe that it is meant to be political grandstanding and sloganeering during the 2016 elections, and little else.