Social security gun ban is coming :(

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks.
Hugs

People have shot their own children and partners thinking they were intruders. That is my fear also so that is why I do not own a gun even though I have never had this issue thinking I had someone else in my home. I said nothing about intruders, I said about me thinking I will kill someone in my home such as a family member thinking it's an intruder.

I reiterate: if you are your own payee, this proposal won't ban you from having guns.

Very true, kraftiekortie. But, it appears that the regulation's restrictions are lifelong (absent a restoration of rights by petitioning a federal court; a long and arduous ordeal). So, would an individual who is a child recipient of Social Security disability benefits must use a representative payee in adulthood after several years of doing so in childhood? If so, the restrictions would apply ... and unfairly, in my opinion. Of course, the regulation is unfair in and of itself.

The mentally ill should not be allowed to have guns. The 2nd amendment is not an absolute right for everyone to own and carry a gun.

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court determined also in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states because the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Current federal law requires that the only way to restrict an individual's individual and personal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is the lawful adjudication of an individual as a "mental defective" or who has been involuntarily "committed to any mental institution" not merely mentally ill. The proposed Social Security regulation appears to lack justification and harmony with the Court's Heller and McDonald opinions as well as other federal laws, particularly the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

Now, such existing protections of the Second Amendment go a long way to substantiate that the Amendment is very nearly an absolute right. At least it is one right which requires extraordinary care in any attempts to restrict it.

Getting SSI for a mental illness is proof you have a mental illness.

Yes. But, it is no evidence of being a federally court-defined "mental defective."

Same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upsho ... .html?_r=0

There is another angle that you might not be looking at that might alter people's views about this. I'm pretty sure I would be dead right now if I'd been allowed to own a gun or have access to one.

In fact, I would not be surprised if anti-suicide measures were a powerful determinant in this choice.

Granted, maybe you -want- to have an easy way to die and think that that's a human right we should have. I almost have that idea myself but at the same time I'm glad I'm not dead right now. How fickle we are.

I never understood why anyone wouldn't want someone to commit suicide. I can understand if a parent wouldn't want their kid doing it or someone not wanting their partner doing it and no one certainly wants someone to commit suicide that would cause the death of others and injuries and PTSD and in prison they don't want someone on death row committing suicide because they want to kill them first, not have the inmate beat them to it. Is it about the tax money because they would have to pay paramedics to get the person and try and save their life and also then there would be funeral costs and all and the hospital loses money because they will never get paid from the dead patient and even if they did live, they might still not get their money from the person if they had no medical insurance so I can also understand why they wouldn't want people committing suicide. So I guess I can understand why society doesn't want anyone committing suicide because even if a person kills themselves in their own home and no one else was involved, family members still have to suffer and their own friends and paramedics still have to come and where does the money come from that pays them to go to that spot?

So to ban guns for those who have been suicidal or ever attempted it should not have a gun. Of course they will find other ways to try and commit suicide but killing with a gun is a lot easier and quicker and painless. I also think anyone who has a history of aggression impulsiveness or who currently are even if it comes and goes also should not be allowed to own a gun. I know they will find other ways to be violent with; hands, knives, furniture, scissors, baseball bats, pans, pots, butter knives, forks, irons, plastic bags, cars, etc. But guns are a lot quicker to kill with and the victim doesn't really have a chance to defend themselves when there is a gun involved. So if they do ever pass this law here and make this restriction, then it won't bother me because I already know I wouldn't own a gun so it wouldn't affect me because I don't want one nor do I trust myself with one because of my own medical history and the fact I get suicidal at times because I seem to have the opposite of SAD.

AspE, folks with mental illness are no more likely than anyone else to shoot you. please see my postS above with references. you are the victim of media bias and as a result are victimizing innocents.

I'm not afraid if them, I just believe that a certain level of sanity should be a minimum requirement for gun ownership.And they are more likely to commit suicide than the general population.

There is such a "certain level of sanity" in federal law: the "mental defective" threshold within the Gun Control Act of 1968. It has worked too well for 38 years.

Jared Lee Loughner
James E. Holmes
Seung Hui Cho

Loughner, Holmes, and Cho purchased their firearms, the firearms they used for the murders they committed, from federally licensed firearms dealers. Loughner did so legally. Holmes did so legally. Cho did so without vital information regarding his dangerousness ever being reported. These three men slipped through the cracks and fifty-one people died as a result. The cracks exist due to the Act’s language and its interpretation—its defective language.

http://connecticutlawreview.org/article ... ntrol-act/

Well go down to the police and ask them to lock you away for life since you think aspies are so bad.

It's a social disorder.

There's many reasons to be on disability. I'm also on it for adhd so I like to keep busy doesn't mean I'd go shoot someone.

I'm am honestly shocked spies would turn on each other so quickly and spout the lies that April are violent horrible people.