SSI to block gun purchases

[tod evans]

From Drudge;



Social Security moves to block the mentally ill from purchasing guns

http://thehill.com/regulation/pending-regs/278740-social-security-moves-to-block-the-mentally-ill-from-purchasing-guns

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is proposing to report people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system.

The proposal, which stems from a memorandum that President Obama issued in 2013, would essentially block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns.

The SSA, which will propose the rule in Thursday's edition of the Federal Register, says it plans to notify disability beneficiaries who might be reported and establish a process for them to appeal their placement in the FBI’s background check system.
The proposal is just the latest attempt by the Obama administration to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Similar efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have been met with controversy. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has accused the VA of reporting veterans to the FBI simply because they cannot manage their personal finances and must be assigned a fiduciary.

According to Grassley, 99 percent of the people the FBI prohibits from owning guns because they are considered “mentally defective” come from the VA.

Now, the SSA is proposing to take similar precautions with people who receive disability insurance because they are unable to work due to mental health disorders.

“It appears that just like the VA, SSA’s regulatory action will not require the government to first prove that the individual is a danger to self or others,” Grassley wrote last July in a letter to Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

“Is the SSA using the VA’s regulatory standard as a template for reporting names to the [FBI]?” he asked. “If not, in what ways is the SSA’s regulatory scheme different from the VA’s?”

Some of the mental conditions the SSA screens for include schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, personality disorders, intellectual disabilities, anxiety-related disorders, substance addiction disorders and autistic disorders.

Depending on the severity of their condition, people with mental health disorders may qualify for disability insurance.

The public has 60 days to comment about the proposal.

[pcosmar]

I SEE PROHIBITED PEOPLE.

[tod evans]

I SEE PROHIBITED PEOPLE.

Only this time without a "conviction"..........

[sam1952]

No one wants crazies with guns. Better to be safe than sorry.

[tod evans]

No one wants crazies with guns. Better to be safe than sorry.

Reported......;)


(Confiscation team en-route)

[sam1952]

Report me! I'm reporting you!

Once we get rid of all guns we will be safe comrade :toady:

[brushfire]

Social Security - its all about the security.

[tod evans]

Report me! I'm reporting you!

Once we get rid of all guns we will be safe comrade :toady:

Surely we'll be safe once only our betters are armed........

[sam1952]

There is a member here, I apologize as I don't recall his name, has this quote in his signature. Kinda sums it up really,


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Anti Federalist]

There is a member here, I apologize as I don't recall his name, has this quote in his signature. Kinda sums it up really,


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

That's Gunny's sig and that is from Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn.

And that is us.

And we deserve just what's going to happen to us.

And oh boy, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Wait until all these fucking idiot AmeriKunts swiping their stupid fucking cards for mundane purchases, brings us into the cashless society.

[Brian4Liberty]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They must have amended the Second Amendment.

New version:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless a person is put onto a list."

[sam1952]

"Wait until all these fucking idiot AmeriKunts swiping their stupid fucking cards for mundane purchases, brings us into the cashless society" - AF

But wait, CASH IS king???

[Sonny Tufts]

They must have amended the Second Amendment.

Does the Second Amendment mean someone recently convicted of a felony involving violence or the use of a gun (e.g., armed robbery) has a right to possess firearms? The following from the Heller case (which recognized an individual's right to possess firearms) is noteworthy:


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. fn

fn We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (citations omitted)

[tod evans]

Does the Second Amendment mean someone recently convicted of a felony involving violence or the use of a gun (e.g., armed robbery) has a right to possess firearms?

"Shall not be infringed".

What part of that is open to ANY interpretation?

[presence]

Does the Second Amendment mean someone recently convicted of a felony involving violence or the use of a gun (e.g., armed robbery) has a right to possess firearms?

If I attack an ex con with violent and deadly force, does he have the right to defend himself or must he submit to my brutality?

[Brian4Liberty]

Does the Second Amendment mean someone recently convicted of a felony involving violence or the use of a gun (e.g., armed robbery) has a right to possess firearms? The following from the Heller case (which recognized an individual's right to possess firearms) is noteworthy:

If a person is recently convicted of a felony, one would assume they are in prison, thus would not have access to firearms. If they are released, then yes, the Second Amendment should protect their right to keep and bear arms. Anything else in ineffective, unless it is simply a way for the state to increase it's control and power. The Courts are in error with regard to most of the Bill of Rights, as they are an instrument of the state, and are sympathetic to efforts for the state to increase it's control and reduce the rights of common citizens.

The idea of putting people on lists and making it illegal for them to have arms is ineffective and misguided, to be diplomatic about it. If a person is such a clear and present danger to others that they can not be allowed to have arms, then they are clearly not safe to be on the streets at all. Due process obviously applies.

Laws making possessing an instrument that could potentially be used to do harm is just a way to expand the long list of violations that can be used against anyone at anytime. It does nothing to prevent criminals and psychopaths from doing harm to others.


"Shall not be infringed".

What part of that is open to ANY interpretation?

Exactly.

[Sonny Tufts]

"Shall not be infringed".

What part of that is open to ANY interpretation?

OK, so under your reasoning prisoners have the right to have guns in their cells. And if you say that's absurd, what part of "shall not be infringed" is open to ANY interpretation?

But if you think it's OK to bar prisoners from having guns, then banning their possession of guns after they leave prison can be viewed as an extension of their sentences.

[pcosmar]

No one wants crazies with guns.

And yet Police are everywhere.

[pcosmar]

OK, so under your reasoning prisoners have the right to have guns in their cells. And if you say that's absurd, what part of "shall not be infringed" is open to ANY interpretation?

But if you think it's OK to bar prisoners from having guns, then banning their possession of guns after they leave prison can be viewed as an extension of their sentences.

I have no issue with disarming those in custody under conviction. Though if you think prisons are without weapons,, you are mistaken.

But this is not about people IN Prisons. This is about disarming free men.

After a man has served his sentence and is no longer under supervision,, he SHOULD have full rights returned.

And to disarm people simply because some politically motivated witch-doctor says so,, is ridiculous.

[pcosmar]

If I attack an ex con with violent and deadly force, does he have the right to defend himself or must he submit to my brutality?

Some people are in to such,, some will pay for it.

I am not such a person.

[Sonny Tufts]

I have no issue with disarming those in custody under conviction. Though if you think prisons are without weapons,, you are mistaken.

It's obvious there are weapons in prison. But if one is going to rely on a literal, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, interpretation of the Second Amendment, one will be forced to the conclusion that there can be NO restrictions on possessing guns, even by incarcerated murderers.

[heavenlyboy34]

People will find a way around this. It'll be like the market for fraudulent EBT cards. Someone who can get guns will buy them on the behalf of a "blacklisted" mundane. The blacklisted mundane will pay cash or barter. I promise.

[pcosmar]

It's obvious there are weapons in prison. But if one is going to rely on a literal, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, interpretation of the Second Amendment, one will be forced to the conclusion that there can be NO restrictions on possessing guns, even by incarcerated murderers.

They should. The Constitution makes it clear that that is in fact the Law of this Land.

If you do not care for armed neighbors and an armed population,, then perhaps you should seek some disarmed country. Rather than disarming this one.

And this has nothing to do with you Straw Man of "even by incarcerated murderers".

[pcosmar]

People will find a way around this. It'll be like the market for fraudulent EBT cards. Someone who can get guns will buy them on the behalf of a "blacklisted" mundane. The blacklisted mundane will pay cash or barter. I promise.

This prohibited person is perfectly capable of building a gun from scratch at will.

Laws are fail.

I remain disarmed,, and am waiting for the armed people to set things right.

I'll help,,

[heavenlyboy34]

This prohibited person is perfectly capable of building a gun from scratch at will.

Laws are fail.

I remain disarmed,, and am waiting for the armed people to set things right.

I'll help,,
God bless you, brother. ~hugs~

[muh_roads]

Wait until all these $#@!ing idiot AmeriKunts swiping their stupid $#@!ing cards for mundane purchases, brings us into the cashless society.

I hope they ban cash. Let the decentralized crypto-currency revolution begin. Nation-state currencies are going to slowly leak users and die. When you are a 100% monopoly and competition suddenly emerges, the only direction you can go is down.