Social security gun ban is coming :(

Post Reply New Topic

I wasn't including autism. But if getting SSI for "mental illness" also includes autism, then I stand corrected and I apologize. I'm aware that autism is not a mental illness.

They system your side invented not working isn't w reason to bypass due process and blanket millions of people as violent felons.

Not our fault burocrats are slow and lazy and don't get everything in the system that should be. Why attack innocent people for your sides failure

Which is why even mental disorders aren't equally violent, making the Gun Control Act of 1968 more prescient.

I'm not saying the mentally ill are violent, just that their judgement cannot be trusted. There is an overwhelming public interest in preventing crazy people from using firearms.

Sooo, the mentally ill are "crazy" and "cannot be trusted"? That isn't a good foundation on which to argue anything within the WrongPlanet.net realm.

Look, a 38-year-old federal law exists to prohibit the possession of firearms among individuals who have been adjudicated "mental defective[s]" by a court (as was intended by the Founders to protect against arbitrary abuse by either the Legislative or Executive branches) or have been involuntarily committed to a mental facility. The law has worked well.

But, some want an agency regulation (not a constitutional provision or even a simple law) which is notably inharmonious with existing laws and court opinions to take precedent over the 225-year-old Bill of Rights' Second Amendment and the 38-year-old federal Gun Control Act of 1968? Does the attempt to overrule these longstanding precedents concern us? Do we at least recognize that this turns the Constitution on its ear?

If you think it's unconstitutional, you are unaware of Supreme Court precedent. The right to bear arms is not absolute. You can't own a bazooka or a working tank. Certain kinds of arms and ammunition can be controlled, and who is able to own a gun can be controlled, for instance prisoners or felons. What kind of country would it be if the mentally ill were all armed? The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Mmm, not quite. On March 21, in the matter of Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that "The Court has held that 'the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,' District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this 'Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,' McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)." This opinion reiterated the fact that the Second Amendment protects all discriminate arms possessed lawfully by citizens.

That's incorrect. This was a narrow opinion to address the notion that the 2nd amendment only applies to the kind of arms existing at the time of the framers. You still can't own a machine gun.

Again, not true.

The legal ability to own, possess and use an automatic firearm (a.k.a. “machine gun”) is dependent upon three federal laws: the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986. These laws have limited how automatic firearms can be bought and sold, but haven’t made it entirely illegal to possess such a firearm. Purchasing such a firearm requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, completing an FBI criminal-history review and paying a $200 tax, among other requirements (these requirements are similar to state concealed-firearm laws). Only automatic firearms which were manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 may be bought, owned and sold.

As complicated as it might seem, the ownership, possession and use of such a firearm is entirely legal and frequently enjoyed throughout the United States by many people.

That's what I'm saying. Their possession can be restricted without violating the 2nd amendment. Just like access to guns by certain people can be restricted.

But, how would that affect the Due Process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, as well as the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, if the proposed Social Security Administration regulation restricted the Second Amendment rights of disabled recipients who use the services of representative payees?

If so the. You can't be trusted so your opinion on this is invalid.

"Mentally ill" people are just as trusty as non mentally ill. ,any live life's work, and be responsible. You want to punish millions of people for the actions of a small few. You'd condem aspies because some violent person did something wrong. Why do you hate your own people so much.

their judgement cannot be trusted. There is an overwhelming public interest in locking crazy people up.

Next step is removing all their rights. After all if aspies are crazy and can't be trusted and are a danger to society at large. Why let them run lose. In the best Interest of the public to remove their rights and lock them up, and hey if they died while locked up all the better. Nazis did this same thing. They removed disabled people's rights, then they locked them up for publics safety then they exterminated them for the publics best interest.

Disabled people are not any more violent the others, so it's not in public interest to take their rights a way.

The only way what you say would be true is if aspies and other disabled were more prone to violence and the data shows that's not at all true. Most violent crinmals aren't disabled people.

People should only lose their rights after their day in court and being judged by a jury of their peers. DUE PROCESS!! !! !

I have a mental illness. I am rational much of the time. I have tried to commit suicide. I think (no one can know for sure) that I would be dead if I had had access to a gun, yet I am glad to be alive right now. I get incredibly angry and upset at people who try to help me when I am suicidal, as I think that they are taking my rights away to end my own life. Yet I am still glad be alive right now. It is paradoxical only if you think that states-of-being are permanent. They are not.
Mentally ill people have states of being that aren't in their best interest, have moments when they are not properly in control, where for their sake and other people's sake, they need help and need to be controlled.

This is all basically a long way for me to say that it's not invalid to say that a mentally ill person's judgement is invalid, but that at points in time it will have proven to be.

"The only way what you say would be true is if aspies and other disabled were more prone to violence and the data shows that's not at all true. Most violent crinmals aren't disabled people."

More than just that, from what I recall in my psychology class (granted this is now old data), the percentage of mentally ill who commit violent crimes in Canada is lower than what you would expect if both mentally ill and non-mentally ill committed the same ratio of violent crimes. ie: mentally ill are actually -less- likely to be violent criminals. This is counter to what most people think though, and I could see why. I wonder how committing violent crime is itself not a symptom of something mentally wrong with a person.

It's legal and constitutional to make a rule that restricts gun ownership, if the reason is overwhelming public interest. Since the 2nd amendment is not absolute, due process isn't violated.

Slippery slope fallacy.