House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Once again for the SLOW STUPID and Lying IGNORANTS, the SS does not use Judges nor courts it is an administrative decision based solely on the application for SS. No Judge NO Court is involved at ANY time in the process and the applicant is not vetted nor interviewed.,No rights are given to the applicant no process is used to determine their mental state.

How do I know you ask? Because I applied for SS disability and it was granted to me but I was also told I was incompetent to handle my financial affairs by the same letter. There was no investigation no court no Judge. The only rights I had were to accept or refuse my disability.

Sure you had rights. You could have appealed the decision. Then you would have had a review. If that went south you could have appealed the decision of the review to an administrative law judge. You don't like that decision you get from him you can file a motion in Federal court. It is the exact same thing with the VA as it is with SSI. Perhaps, you didn't fully understand your rights.

The fact is my right to own firearms was removed by administrative action not by a Judge not in a Court. And THAT is unconstitutional.

That was YOUR CHOICE hoss. You could have appealed.

Look, if you plead guilty to murder and forego your right to a trial by a jury of your peers you don't get to go back and claim your constitutional rights were violated because you didn't have a jury trial.

This is the same damn thing.

I got disability in 1999 long before Obama created this power grab.

 

[Winston]

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.

Where is your reference to all of this crap you have been posting? It appears to be the mental meanderings of someone who should be reported to the NICS as mentally deficient because you cannot provide any support for your posts.

It is common knowledge. Look up Social Security - Representative Payee Program - When People Need Help Managing Their Money

All kinds of information about the program, who is in it, why, what do do if you are in and want out. How the money can be spent. You name it, it is there.

And again, the VA has been sending the exact same type of information to the NICS since the beginning.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prohibits you from purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition if you have “been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.” In compliance with this act, VA reports the names of incompetent beneficiaries to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which then adds the names to a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

Beneficiary - Fiduciary

So tell me, why the fuck did you not say anything about the VA doing it. You got something against veterans? Nope, not a peep about it for two damn decades, and not much of a fuss about it now. Nope, just defending crazy people on SSI, not the VA.

SAD

That link does not say anything you claimed. Here check out this link to pictures of puppies. It is just as relevant.

puppies - Google Search

It clearly explained precisely what the Representative Payee program is and to whom it applies. It is a very limited number of individuals who are either minor children or with an adjudicated mental disorder that prevents them from handling their own finances.

You are NOT adjudged to have a mental disorder that is not declared stated or written anywhere, you are wrong as usual.

Again, just because you did not avail yourself of the appeals process does not mean it was not available to you.

Adjudicate:
make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.

Was a formal decision made as to your need for a Representative Payee? Why yes, yes I believe it was. It was "adjudicated".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where is your reference to all of this crap you have been posting? It appears to be the mental meanderings of someone who should be reported to the NICS as mentally deficient because you cannot provide any support for your posts.

It is common knowledge. Look up Social Security - Representative Payee Program - When People Need Help Managing Their Money

All kinds of information about the program, who is in it, why, what do do if you are in and want out. How the money can be spent. You name it, it is there.

And again, the VA has been sending the exact same type of information to the NICS since the beginning.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prohibits you from purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition if you have “been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.” In compliance with this act, VA reports the names of incompetent beneficiaries to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which then adds the names to a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

Beneficiary - Fiduciary

So tell me, why the fuck did you not say anything about the VA doing it. You got something against veterans? Nope, not a peep about it for two damn decades, and not much of a fuss about it now. Nope, just defending crazy people on SSI, not the VA.

SAD

That link does not say anything you claimed. Here check out this link to pictures of puppies. It is just as relevant.

puppies - Google Search

It clearly explained precisely what the Representative Payee program is and to whom it applies. It is a very limited number of individuals who are either minor children or with an adjudicated mental disorder that prevents them from handling their own finances.

You are NOT adjudged to have a mental disorder that is not declared stated or written anywhere, you are wrong as usual.

Again, just because you did not avail yourself of the appeals process does not mean it was not available to you.

Adjudicate:
make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.

Was a formal decision made as to your need for a Representative Payee? Why yes, yes I believe it was. It was "adjudicated".

Really? What was the judge's name? Oh,snap! The Social Security Administration doesn't have any of those, do they?

 

[kiwiman127]

More evidence the NRA is a terrorist organization, and the fools who posted #2 & #3 above who enable the NRA to put profit over the people.

statists look for any reason to take away ones liberties.

Should criminals have guns?
Should children have guns?

---------------------------------------------------------------- criminals have guns , ------------ children , depends on the parents wishes . I had my first REAL gun at about 10 years of age Coyote ,

Pupps had his at age 7 and his first deer the following year.

Born on a Mountain top in Tennessee
Greenest state in the land of the free
Raised in the woods so he knew every tree
killed him a bear when he was only three
Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the Wild Frontier

 

[rdean]

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 one died at Sandy Hook.

And we need lots of guns in schools.

 

[rdean]

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.

Once again for the SLOW STUPID and Lying IGNORANTS, the SS does not use Judges nor courts it is an administrative decision based solely on the application for SS. No Judge NO Court is involved at ANY time in the process and the applicant is not vetted nor interviewed.,No rights are given to the applicant no process is used to determine their mental state.

How do I know you ask? Because I applied for SS disability and it was granted to me but I was also told I was incompetent to handle my financial affairs by the same letter. There was no investigation no court no Judge. The only rights I had were to accept or refuse my disability.

Sure you had rights. You could have appealed the decision. Then you would have had a review. If that went south you could have appealed the decision of the review to an administrative law judge. You don't like that decision you get from him you can file a motion in Federal court. It is the exact same thing with the VA as it is with SSI. Perhaps, you didn't fully understand your rights.

The fact is my right to own firearms was removed by administrative action not by a Judge not in a Court. And THAT is unconstitutional.

That was YOUR CHOICE hoss. You could have appealed.

Look, if you plead guilty to murder and forego your right to a trial by a jury of your peers you don't get to go back and claim your constitutional rights were violated because you didn't have a jury trial.

This is the same damn thing.

I got disability in 1999 long before Obama created this power grab.

Obama is gone nitwit. When your term is over and you leave, you can't call that a "power grab". Are you sure you have a full package of M&M's? The double u's are upside down.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

What the NRA wants the NRA gets.

Sometimes this is not all bad.

 

[Winston]

It is common knowledge. Look up Social Security - Representative Payee Program - When People Need Help Managing Their Money

All kinds of information about the program, who is in it, why, what do do if you are in and want out. How the money can be spent. You name it, it is there.

And again, the VA has been sending the exact same type of information to the NICS since the beginning.

So tell me, why the fuck did you not say anything about the VA doing it. You got something against veterans? Nope, not a peep about it for two damn decades, and not much of a fuss about it now. Nope, just defending crazy people on SSI, not the VA.

SAD

That link does not say anything you claimed. Here check out this link to pictures of puppies. It is just as relevant.

puppies - Google Search

It clearly explained precisely what the Representative Payee program is and to whom it applies. It is a very limited number of individuals who are either minor children or with an adjudicated mental disorder that prevents them from handling their own finances.

You are NOT adjudged to have a mental disorder that is not declared stated or written anywhere, you are wrong as usual.

Again, just because you did not avail yourself of the appeals process does not mean it was not available to you.

Adjudicate:
make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.

Was a formal decision made as to your need for a Representative Payee? Why yes, yes I believe it was. It was "adjudicated".

Really? What was the judge's name? Oh,snap! The Social Security Administration doesn't have any of those, do they?

Are you somehow under the impression that adjudication requires a judge? I have posted the definition, maybe you might want to check it out. Regardless, the beneficiary always has the right to appeal the decision, up to and including a federal court, which always has at least one judge. God but you people are a bunch of boneheads.

Tell me, did you protest the VA sending the names of those "adjudicated" mentally incapable of handing their finances to the NICS?

 

[2aguy]

And here is a look at the truth in this situation.....

No, the GOP Did Not Just Repeal the Background Check System or Give Guns to the Mentally Ill

There were a host of reasons to object to this measure.

On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable. On due process grounds, there was nothing to recommend the measure (as the ACLU made abundantly clear in its opposition letter). On statutory grounds, it seems clear that the SSA was acting ultra vires.

And, as political matter, the vacillation of the Obama administration — which insisted simultaneously that “incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system” and that it was “not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence” — was downright embarrassing.

But one does not have to agree with me on process or in outlook to see that as a matter of positive policy, the idea was a terrible one.

As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first adumbrated, the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak:

“Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations. It is for this lattermost reason — not from any great fidelity to the Second Amendment — that so many organizations urged the GOP to act.

As the House Ways and Means Committee was sure to make clear, letters of support were received from ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International. All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

 

[Winston]

And here is a look at the truth in this situation.....

No, the GOP Did Not Just Repeal the Background Check System or Give Guns to the Mentally Ill

There were a host of reasons to object to this measure.

On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable. On due process grounds, there was nothing to recommend the measure (as the ACLU made abundantly clear in its opposition letter). On statutory grounds, it seems clear that the SSA was acting ultra vires.

And, as political matter, the vacillation of the Obama administration — which insisted simultaneously that “incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system” and that it was “not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence” — was downright embarrassing.

But one does not have to agree with me on process or in outlook to see that as a matter of positive policy, the idea was a terrible one.

As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first adumbrated, the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak:

“Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations. It is for this lattermost reason — not from any great fidelity to the Second Amendment — that so many organizations urged the GOP to act.

As the House Ways and Means Committee was sure to make clear, letters of support were received from ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International. All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

The National Review? LMAO.

First, the quote from the American Association of people with Disabilities.

This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Incorrect. Not all beneficiaries receiving benefits via a Representative Payee Account, just a subset. From the proposed guidelines.

As a result, individuals whom we are required to report to NICS will be a subset of the universe of individuals for whom we have appointed a representative payee.

https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPR...Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA).PDF

Even after stating something completely false, the National Review has to interpret the alternative fact for "laymen".

The rule would have allowed bureaucrats within one of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right — and on the highly questionable grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a “mental defective.”

Again, this does not apply to ALL beneficiaries receiving benefits via a Representative Payee. Only those adjudicated "mentally defective" will be reported, and that is the law.

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

Funny, the National Review doesn't even mention the fact that the VA has been using this criteria since the passage of the Brady Act in 1994. In fact, the VA policy is even more broad than the limited Social Security policy.

Beneficiary - Fiduciary

And then there is the ACLU. Opposing this policy is what the ACLU does. It is most certainly not a sign of something being right or wrong, legal or illegal, constitutional or not constitutional. And the right can't suddenly become a fan of the ACLU. You can't condemn them at every turn and them bring them out when it suits your agenda. I suppose you support the ACLU lawsuits against Trumps Muslim ban as well. LOL

 

[TNHarley]

More evidence the NRA is a terrorist organization, and the fools who posted #2 & #3 above who enable the NRA to put profit over the people.

statists look for any reason to take away ones liberties.

Could I please have liberty to be safe from a maniac living down the street? Without having to own an arsenal myself? What about ME? Don't my rights to safety count at all? Maybe the list isn't the right people or the right diagnosis, but in the meantime, does that mean they can go buy a gun? The federales are doing everything they can to shy away from determining particular diagnoses that are considered "dangerous." Psychiatrists are no doubt afraid to be sued if they report a patient as "dangerous," so they don't.
And I or my friend or my son get shot because some people shy from calling a nutcase a nutcase.
Okay, so how else do we keep guns from the hands of the severely mentally ill?

Freedom isn't free.
I think the mentally ill should receive help. That's one thing the government SHOULD be pursuing. That would actually work.
But in all fairness, gun murder from a mentally ill person are the rarity. Most gun deaths are suicide and criminals. By a YUGE margin.

Huh? Dylan Roof? Dude, ALL of these mass shootings are committed by the mentally ill. WTF is wrong with you? You need to slap yourself upside the head.

Its a spec in the radar compared to gun deaths.