Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is seriously fucked up.
House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill
According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.
Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.
"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults.
No right is unrestricted, why is it the NRA and their supporters think that the 2nd Amendment should have no restrictions?
What is concerning is who makes such decisions regarding a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I don't want severely mentally ill people owning a weapon either, but I don't trust the government not to use such powers as a battering ram.
This is seriously fucked up.
House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill
According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.
Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.
"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults.
It is violating due process. There is no definition of what is considered severe mental disorder, it could include anyone that files for Social Security Disability for any mental reason.
Not true. Not even close to true. This order only applied to individuals receiving their Social Security benefit via a Representative Payee. Social Security assumes an adult can handle their finances, even those on a mental disability. Only after it has been PROVEN otherwise, with investigations, hearings if necessary, and after a judge signing the order if the beneficiary protests, is a Representative Payee assigned. There is even a right to appeal the decision. There is plenty of "due process" involved with making the determination that a Special Representative should be assigned.
Let's examine some examples. My father-in-law has been collecting disability since he was in his 30's. A mental disability, anxiety mostly. He has "episodes" every once in a while and has to hospitalized for a period of time. Last time he wanted me to take him to Hardees because Daniel Boone was going to be there to meet him. But he does handle his finances, even the royalties from the shale oil operations in Texas. He can legally purchase a gun.
Then there is my uncle. He too has been collecting disability since he was in his 30's. A mental disorder as well, full blown schizophrenic. He will tell you the government is snooping on him via the television a la 1984. One time he ran naked into the street with a shotgun shooting at the road crew. My mother is the custodian of the Representative Payee account. He cannot legally buy a gun. The government SHOULD provide that information to the NICS.
So, in a nutshell, what you are defending is not the right of that person with the Representative Payee account having a gun. Hell, he can legally own a gun. He just can't legally buy one. And how does it make sense that he can, hell he can't legally handle his own money. Is not part of handling that money deciding on what to buy, like a gun? Damn but you people are a bunch of flippin moronic robots receiving your orders via tweeter.
You are defending the right of the GUN SELLER to remain ignorant as to a customers inability to handle their money and LEGALLY purchase a gun. Seriously. Here is the scenario
So, my uncle busts out of the nursing home and manages to walk the mile or so to the pawn shop. He is on a mission, like the time he flew to New York to marry Vanna White. He comes in disheveled, reeking of body odor, muttering under his breath and carrying his priced 1950's era Martin D-45. He is even carrying his state ID card in his wallet. Right now, under existing law and existing guidelines, he can walk out with rifle or a shotgun. If his name is on the NICS list, like under Obama, he can't wait a bit and walk out with an AR-15. But now, well he can. He shows his ID, pawns his guitar, and waits while the background check runs. He has no criminal record, his mental health issue has all been handled privately, and now his name is not on the list, removed by Trump's order. Within a few hours he is walking out the door with his AR-15, a couple hundred rounds of ammo, and his "mission" to finally get all the people that have been spying on him.
How would a gun dealer know if the information that they have been adjudicated mentally deficient if it was not subject to the background check?
You gun-grabbers are arguing in circles and tripping over your own feet!
EXACTLY
Which was the reason for the NEW Obama policy of sending the names of those adjudicated mentally deficient via the Social Security representative payee program to the NICS.
Legally, they can't own a gun. Is that not information that should be available to a dealer via the NICS? If not, why not? Because rather you realize it or not, if you are opposed to this action and support Trump's order you are supporting the continued ignorance of the gun dealer. Nothing else.
Legally can't own a gun?
Why?
Because they need help with their finances?
Why yes. Yes, they can't legally buy a gun because they can't legally handle their own damn money.
What moron argues that someone that does not have the mental capacity to adequately handle their own personal finances somehow does have the mental capacity to responsibly purchase a gun?
But the action does show the government is not afraid of crazy people with guns. The government is afraid of crazy people with MONEY.
"Why yes. Yes, they can't legally buy a gun because they can't legally handle their own damn money"
You can't be serious.
On second thought, you are, and just dont' realize how much a fool you are.
WTF
Are you arguing that someone that does not have the mental capacity to handle their own money SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN?
And you call me a fool?
Welcome to America where you can be found mentally incompetent of handling YOUR MONEY but you can still get a gun.
My mother could not see the fine print on checks, but she could see someone breaking into her house to do her harm. There is no determination of "mentally incompetent" by some government hack in a cube farm.
Who is restricting speech and assembly rights?Good, the Comstituion should apply to all Americans who have not broken the law.
Snowflakes like to prevent others from exercising their first ammendment rights.
Should there be a mental health evaluation completed for anyone attempting to exercise their first ammendment rights?
Who is restricting speech and assembly rights?Good, the Comstituion should apply to all Americans who have not broken the law.
Snowflakes like to prevent others from exercising their first ammendment rights.
Should there be a mental health evaluation completed for anyone attempting to exercise their first ammendment rights?
I hope it had nothing to do with the Bowling Green Massacre or the size of the Inaugural crowds or any other alternative facts.Who is restricting speech and assembly rights?Good, the Comstituion should apply to all Americans who have not broken the law.
Snowflakes like to prevent others from exercising their first ammendment rights.
Should there be a mental health evaluation completed for anyone attempting to exercise their first ammendment rights?
Bernie supporters and members of the democrat party, they silence conservative speakers on college campuses regularly including 2 times this week.......
It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.
What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.
STEWPYD.
The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
STEWPYD.
What is concerning is who makes such decisions regarding a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I don't want severely mentally ill people owning a weapon either, but I don't trust the government not to use such powers as a battering ram.
Someone who has trouble tracking their money is not severely mentally ill......and that the government will use that definition to deny rights should show people why they need to block government crap like this.....they also declared a veteran who had insomnia mentally ill and pulled his gun rights too.......
anti gunners will use mental health to deny as many people access to guns as they can.......they will try to go back to your child hood and use any interaction with a healthcare professional or social worker as a reason to strip your gun rights........see a grief counselor in after a parent dies when you are 12......gun rights are gone.....that is what they are after...and they need to be stopped.
It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.
What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.
STEWPYD.
It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.
What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.
STEWPYD.
And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....
It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.
What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.
STEWPYD.
And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....
At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again
The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:
In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.
Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.
who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits
So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.
So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.
And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".
STEWPYD.
