THIS TIME HE’S GOING AFTER SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES …
|| By FITSNEWS || U.S. president Barack Obama‘s administration is attempting to prevent up to 2.4 million recipients of Social Security benefits from owning guns.
The move – reported on by The Los Angeles Times – would deny Second Amendment rights to Social Security beneficiaries whose accounts are managed by others due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”
According to the Times, though, “there is no simple way to identify that group.” As a result, Obama’s gun-snatchers are interpreting it as broadly as possible, seeking to deny firearm ownership to “anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.”
“When the Obama administration can’t get its way by attacking gun owners head on, it merely turns to extorting the elderly and disabled whom it holds hostage via their need to receive Social Security benefits – benefits I might add, that are owed to them,” noted Brandon Turbeville over at Activist Post.
Indeed …
Obama’s latest gun grab comes on the heels of two mass shootings: One in Charleston, S.C. (perpetrated by a 21-year-old white supremacist) and another in Chattanooga, Tennessee (perpetrated by a 24-year-old Muslim suffering from depression).
Why either of those incidents would prompt a gun grab from older Americans is beyond us …
This website has consistently called out Obama’s anti-Second Amendment machinations.
Why? Because as much as liberals hate to admit it, guns save lives. Like it or not, more guns = less crime.
24 comments
I think mental illness or some conditions should preclude someone from owning a gun for the safety of themselves and others. Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s, dementia, or other mental health issues in their old age and holding a gun probably isn’t going to end well for anyone involved.
It’s like old people driving, you don’t want to take away licenses from old folks who don’t have problems, but some old people simply should not be behind the wheel.
Everything you say makes such perfect sense. Of course we should keep guns away from those with “mental health” issues. Ah, but guess who will decide what constitutes a “mental health” issue? That’s right, the Government. This new tactic is just a trial balloon to get the population used to the idea of the Federal Government deciding (for our own protection, of course) who is competent to own a gun.
It would seem to be the job of the people who know the individual with the diminished capacity to determine that the guns need to be removed. Not unlike an adult child who takes mom or dad’s keys away because they are a danger to themselves and others.
Once the bureaucrats get the right to determine that an individual is mentally deficient and they need to take away the guns then they just start writing the rules on where the line is drawn. Eventually anyone who disagrees with anything the bureaucrats want to do can be declared in that group and have the sheriff come and take their guns.
Do you think anyone cares about Obama talking about restricting rights? He is going to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NRA and Gun Industry for creating the biggest firearm boom in American history. Nothing sells guns like a dumb ass who doesn’t know which end to even hold one scaring the Beejeezus out of the ones that do.
GET AN AVERAGE INCOME WEEKLY ::: @1ma7
bs……
http://www.enhancecareersdevelopersshade/temptime/works...
Creating more “soft targets”.
This is something I have observed going on for a while now, at varying levels of government. Chip away at the number of people who can own guns. Create new classes of people denied the right to own by invoking violation of new (or old) laws such as The Lautenberg (may his soul rot in Hell) Amendment, which literally overnight, disarmed and removed thousands of police, military, and security, people from employment who had ever had any offense on their record that involved “domestic violence” or similar wording, even if that offense were decades old with no repeat offenses. People like Larry Martin, Greg Hembree, and Katrina Shealy, have pushed for similar at state level. I have no use for true “wife beaters” but the truth is, many who are arrested and wven convicted under our CDV laws are not wife beaters. A (frequently intentionally provoked) push or grab of an arm blocking your exit from a hostile confrontation does not a wife beater make, but under our laws it is more than enough to get you a trip to jail and banned from owning guns for a lifetime.
SC already has a state law that says if you are declared mentally incapacitated your firearms must be taken away. Apparently even we are not so stupid as to give guns to the people we know have mental illness or incapacity.
Is the NRA really so nutty that now they want to defend the rights of incompetent people to have guns. Hell why don’t we just open free gun distribution centers, and let people just pick them up. Oh wait, that is going to far. How would the gun industry convince the nuts to buy more guns, so they can fight off the Marines that are coming to take their guns away. So is this really just another opportunity for the Right Wing Media to bash Obama and stir up the crazy Wingnuts? I think so. I am sure Fake News, Rush, Beck, Drudge, etc. etc. will be all over it.
Those of us in the middle are being forced more and more to accept the possibility the Republican Party is slowly losing its mind.
T he problem is not that anyone wants to give guns to people with mental issues. The problem is WHO gets to determine who has the issues and how bad is bad. The left wants everyone to believe they have the country’s best interest at heart but in reality they want our guns and will use any and all excuses to take them. They use incrementalism to slip gun control by stupid people. Like the classic boiling of the frog, and the “they came for the Jews and I wasn’t a Jew ” scenario.
The left, the liberals, the libtards, you people sound like a broken record. Always bashing people who don’t agree with you. Never discussing the real issue. The “left” obviously isn’t an entity. The left can’t decide anything. What you are saying is you are open to a rule, so long as there is no way to enforce it. Someone has to decide. So, who do you want to decide?.
Also no one on the far right should be quoting Niemöller. People might read the whole quote and realize how much what he described sounds like the Republican Party of today..
And what is the real issue you want to discuss ?
The “left” indeed is an entity. It consists of all the people who believe the government should control our every thought and action. “It’s for your own good. It’s for the children.” comes to mind.
Someone has to decide. So, who do you want to decide ? How about the family Dr. with the inclusion of the family? Not some govt. bureaucrat. But I realize that in your world the govt. knows best. I will never be a part of that world.
Oh, yea, you are going to get doctors to sign up to decide if their patients should have a gun or not. Who is going to pay the doctor to make that determination. who is going to ask the doctor? How will the doctor know if you have a gun? Do you have to get a doctor’s certificate every time you buy a gun to prove you are not a nut. Is the doctor going to report to the police if he decides you should not have a gun. Can you appeal a doctors decision or just go to another doctor, and offer him money.
You people are pathetic. There is a big difference between the government deciding everything and government deciding crazy people should not have access to guns. You people are pathetic. The party of no answers only roadblock..
As I understand this proposal, it will limit the ability of anyone who is on the “representative payees” list with Social Security to purchase a firearm on the basis of their diminished mental capacity. The plan is to simply add the 4 million or so folks to the “do not sell” list in the NICBCS so that they can not purchase firearms. Sounds like it would keep crazy people from getting guns right? Not so much.First, very few of these people are even capable of getting themselves to a gun store and filling out the required forms – that’s why the have a “representative” to handle their financial matters with the Social Security Administration. Second, 40% of folks over the age of 65 report owning a gun according to the Pew Research Center. Thirdly, there are clearly a number of disabled young people on Social Security and many of them will have “rep payees” listed but I doubt they are much of a threat either.
Why do i suspect that this is step one in a twelve step plan to infringe gun ownership?
Federal gun laws say that “…marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease…” are reasons to preclude one from gun ownership – Funny though, that also describes many of the 535 “gubamint employees” working at East Capitol Street Northeast & First St SE in Washington, DC. They’re all on “gubamint checks” maybe we ought to ad them to the list as well…
Something I have wondered about since reading this story on another site yesterday; what about dependent children of a decedent receiving benefits via a representative payee? Let’s say the father dies and the mother receives benefits for the kids. While the kids are likely too young to buy a gun now, will they get put on a list and never removed, making legal purchase/ownership impossible when they become adults?
I think I read that the 4 million at question are all on the rep payee list because of mental deficit bit is a good question.
“Why do I suspect that this is a step one in a twelve step plan to infringe on gun ownership?” Because you obviously need to be on the list. Put the tin foil hat back on.
I have a friend whose wife has Alzheimer’s disease. He has a number of guns, he normally keeps in a gun safe. Several months ago, he was cleaning a gun and accidently left it on his desk and went to bed. He awoke to find his wife with the gun pointed at his head and screaming, “Why are you in my house?”
People with mental health issues do not need guns. .
And they are already barred from owning them. I seriously doubt his wife had the ability to drive herself to a gun store and purchase a gun. Your friend is a fool.
My father who recently died from complications related to Parkinson’s called me into his bedroom several weeks before his death and told me to take his guns, my mother was his rep payee.
I wonder how many people South Carolina has prosecuted for selling a handgun to an alcoholic or drug addict?. What is the penalty for doing so?
SECTION 16-23-50. Penalties; disposition of fines; forfeiture and disposition of handguns.
(A)(1) A person, including a dealer, who violates the provisions of this article, except Section 16-23-20, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(2) A person violating the provisions of Section 16-23-20 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(B) In addition to the penalty provided in this section, the handgun involved in the violation of this article must be confiscated. The handgun must be delivered to the chief of police of the municipality or to the sheriff of the county if the violation occurred outside the corporate limits of a municipality. The law enforcement agency that receives the confiscated handgun may use it within the agency, transfer it to another law enforcement agency for the lawful use of that agency, trade it with a retail dealer licensed to sell handguns in this State for a handgun or any other equipment approved by the agency, or destroy it. A weapon must not be disposed of in any manner until the results of any legal proceeding in which it may be involved are finally determined. If the State Law Enforcement Division seized the handgun, the division may keep the handgun for use by its forensic laboratory. Records must be kept of all confiscated handguns received by the law enforcement agencies under the provisions of this article.
Yea, pretty much what I thought, a slap on the wrist. I am betting the answer on prosecutions is zero.
I wonder how many gun dealers ask a person if he is an alcoholic or drug addict before they sell him or her a gun? Heck I know a few alcoholics that have guns myself. I will have to ask how they got them.
Feckless, Traitorous, Fool!
Why has he refused to lower US flag for the murdered 5 marines and 1 Sailor in Chattanooga? Was it because of his Muslim friends committed the crime? Or that, he has no regard for American Service people? He allowed our Marine to LANGUISH IN A MEXICAN JAIL, he refused to add the release of AMERICAN hostages in his feckless deal with Iran.
I have begun to expect nothing positive, Patriotic, or good from the Kenyan Muslim!
Don’t Federal operatives have access to every citizen’s health records? Could a diagnosis of ADD or anxiety or depression cause one to be considered “mentally ill”? Could there be an entire generation of over diagnosed and over treated kids that will one day be informed by the Government , “Sorry, our records indicate you are mentally ill, so no guns for you!”? Never underestimate the genius and patience of the long term plans those on the Left have for America.
Chipping away at our rights a little at a time. Sounds strangely familiar . The liberals are in no big hurry to take our rights. They do it a little at a time here and there , it looks innocent enough but in the overall scheme of the left it is like a puzzle. One piece at a time but it all fits together. Never trust a liberal. There is nothing good in liberalism.
You need guns to keep from living in fear? What a bunch of pussies.