WH eyes Social Security to block millions from gun ownership

Post Reply New Topic

Notably, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) president and co-founder Ari Ne'eman, who is also a National Council on Disability member, is quoted as having said that the independent federal agency would oppose "any policy that used assignment of a representative payee as a basis to take any fundamental right from people with disabilities."

This is another great reason to support ASAN, in my opinion.

So, if a person has been adjudicated as incompetent, they should still get to have guns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/ba ... -says.html
plug a hole in the system that allowed a unqualified crazy person with a drug conviction get a weapon or politick for more brownie points? hmm, choices..

It should be a matter of competency. If a court rules someone detached from reality and they are saying things like, "so and so is an Agent for Orange and must be stopped. A nine mm will stop them and I am an agent of God," you do agree such a person shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm? Some people are this out of touch with reality and use word association. They don't know what they are doing. So, with no law, you are just putting a gun in the hands of someone who has no idea of anything until they are helped out. They are not rational like you.

What if you were the one they thought was an Agent of Orange? Wouldn't you want something in place to protect you, as in a court saying sir, at this present state of your incarnation, you simply cannot legally purchase a firearm? You cannot assume your own gun will do the job every time. All kinds of variables are at play, as in, someone could sneak up on you.

Whether everyone with a payee or court appointed guardian is this out of touch with reality is debatable but there's a chance some are. To be assigned a guardian or payee suggests the person's thinking is clouded but in what way and what does it pertain to? It can be someone who is too naive and keeps getting their money conned out of them by others.

Case-by-case basis.

U.S. federal law already provides for the restriction of Second Amendment rights if and when an individual is "adjudicated [by a judicial court] as a mental defective" or "[involuntarily] committed to a mental institution[.]"

The proposed scheme would be extralegal by restricting Second Amendment rights simply because an individual uses a fiduciary for the management of his or her Social Security Administration disability and retirement benefits.

At least one autism advocacy group sees a problem with this. How many Americans with autism or ASD use fiduciaries for the management of their benefits? If those individuals are a risk, why aren't they also adjudicated or committed?

If you have volunteered to the government that you are incompetent . . .

You know it stinks just by the fact that the forum antis have jumped to support it so quickly.

This from the ATF website:
https://www.atf.gov/file/56461/download
Bolding is mine.

That would tell me that incompetence has to be determined on an individual basis, not en masse for anyone using fiduciaries.

The NRA and other Second Amendment advocacy groups are already warning that they would respond (judicial complaint) to the federal government if this scheme is adopted. Clearly, an individualized adjudication process that you described would be prohibitively costly to the federal government. But, a regulation which relies on law needs to comport with the law which this scheme suggests it wouldn't. I see this going nowhere. But, its proponents will try.

I don't understand the need for it because these people sometimes live with their payee or guardian, like Adam Lanza. His Ma bought the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223-caliber model XM15 rifle, not him. He is the most famous mass shooter that might meet the specification of this proposed restriction. If the guns are in the house, they do not have to go out and purchase them, so the law is irrelevant unless it also covers guns in the same house they live in, not belonging to them.

Again, it's a matter of who's competent and what kind of restrictions should they be subjected to - their own weapons and those of others.

Seems like this law is chipping away at a group that can easily be bullied by the government because most of them do not have jobs and are a fractional voting block,plus they depend on the government for their sustenance, unless they have a retirement account that pays enough. If they do have jobs, they don't pay much. It's not like they are going after the typical gun owner in America because they fight back so they will chip away and bully the ones they can get away with, I guess to give the impression they are doing something.

good thing we've got your reasoned debating skills to fall back on! oh wait, sorry, it's just white noise again, my bad.
so the NRA is bad, until they support your argument in which case they're good.

Yep, just another breaching attempt by Barack and company. A few weeks ago he wanted an executive order to end discussion of firearms topics online (including Youtube videos) under the the cloak of ITAR. I didn't bother to track it because I don't see it going anywhere, either. It's just one more indicator of the man's lack of character as a national leader.
Nothing new.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

woah there buddy, don't let your facts get in the way of mah politiks, you're just a sheep something something gun rights.

The psychiatrist said that determining whether someone was not fit to possess guns is a different determintion from that of financial incompetence.

That might be a matter of keeping certain technologies from being in videos that show how they work to help deter spying.

Unable to manage your own financial affairs does not equal unable to responsibly manage a gun.

Seems like a gun-control measure that hasn't been thought out at all and is simply designed to please wingnuts. Just like every gun law ever?