The SSI Disability "Gun Grab" question


Maybe this article will help.

No guns for Social Security recipients? | Buckeye Firearms Association

From the article:

"Note the key word “adjudicated.” While most reasonable people would interpret that to mean a ruling from a court, the implementing regulations for this law use a much broader definition. Under the Federal Code of Regulations (27 C.F.R. § 478.11) the relevant section reads as follows:

“(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

“Is a danger to himself or to others; or

“Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”

Many years ago, under President Clinton, the Veterans Administration, began submitting the names of veterans and dependent beneficiaries to NICS, whom they said met that definition of “mentally defective,” including anyone who is not considered able to manage their VA benefits. Anyone who has had a fiduciary – usually a spouse, parent, or other relative – designated to manage their VA account is added to NICS and considered a prohibited person."

Food for thought.
So then no one has been denied. There's no claim as of this time, right?
 

Maybe this article will help.

No guns for Social Security recipients? | Buckeye Firearms Association

From the article:

"Note the key word “adjudicated.” While most reasonable people would interpret that to mean a ruling from a court, the implementing regulations for this law use a much broader definition. Under the Federal Code of Regulations (27 C.F.R. § 478.11) the relevant section reads as follows:

“(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

“Is a danger to himself or to others; or

“Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”

Many years ago, under President Clinton, the Veterans Administration, began submitting the names of veterans and dependent beneficiaries to NICS, whom they said met that definition of “mentally defective,” including anyone who is not considered able to manage their VA benefits. Anyone who has had a fiduciary – usually a spouse, parent, or other relative – designated to manage their VA account is added to NICS and considered a prohibited person."

Food for thought.

Good catch. Most people who see the word "adjudicated" employ their common sense and take at face value that a judge from some level of the Unjustice system is involved in taking their rights. I wrote about that code section (on this forum) more than two years ago, probably before that too, but the other mentions (by me) of it got swept away when the the Politics and 2A Politics forums went the way of the dinosaur. This is what I wrote on that day, which quotes a post of mine on another forum from '07:

While I'd love to see many of the laws just outright scrapped, chipping away at them is also worthwhile.

You lost me there. How is passing amendments (or "adding to") a law the same as "chipping away" at the same law?

Aside from that, I don't think you understood my concerns with the 2007 amendments. It's kind of complicated, and I tried not to reargue what I was involved in arguing for several weeks back in '07, so my previous post was probably hard (if not impossible) to follow. My main concern with this revision is that I don't see where it fixes the deficiencies of the '07 revisions, at least not the ones I was most focused on. I'll try to be brief, but the problem is that the wordage used that I am concerned about is spread over multiple sections, so I have to cite those sections before I can distill it down to what I think is the offending wordage. So bear with me....

The pertinent section that I'm referring to is:

SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If you refer to section 922(g)(4) of Title 18, US Code, you will see that this new legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecified "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Code as follows:

Link Removed

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution....

(g, continued)
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.

The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, but that's the gist of my objections to this legislation.

OK, that was an excerpt of a post I made at another forum back in '07. The language is wildly ambiguous as to what constitutes a board, commission or "other legal authority" sufficient to deem someone a mental defective. It leaves it wide open to local interpretation. Actually, it eliminates interpretation altogether and simply leaves the construct of these unspecified boards, commissions and other legal authorities just plain ol' wide open to almost any individual or group any government authorizes to function in such a capacity. No court or judicial entity is mandated to be a part of the determination of one's mental state under this revision. No agency, doctor or legal adviser is provided for the individual about to have his/her constitutional rights denied them.

And don't forget, this revision was staunchly supported by the N R A and the Brady Bunch, just as the new 2013 revisions are supported by the N R A. Forgive me for being just a tad bit suspicious of such dubious couplings.

So anyway, my concern about the 2013 revisions is that I didn't see in it where any of the above is even touched, other than exchanging "mental defective" for "mentally incompetent" and one or two other politically correct word-changes.

Did you see anything that further defines, limits, authorizes or otherwise regulates the unspecified "boards, commissions or other legal authority" S&W645? Because if it doesn't, I fail to see how it could possibly fix or improve anything in the '07 revisions or the base law itself.

Blues

Not sure what the Clintons have to do with this since the ambiguous language was added during or a little before '07, but you're absolutely right that the language definitely leaves the door wide open for government to bypass due process protections and deem anyone they want to as a mental defective and/or prohibited person.

If I recall correctly, GW Bush was President in '07 when the amendment including that language passed, proving once again that Republicans are no more friendly to the cause(s) of liberty than are the Democrats.

Blues
 
So then no one has been denied. There's no claim as of this time, right?
I assume by this point you're just deliberately ignoring the facts so you can feign ignorance. Even the VA admits doing it. Are you really so dense as to think we'll believe this innocent act you're playing, or are you truly incapable of seeing something that is blatantly obvious?
.
Okay, I'll bite I guess. One recent case.
Link Removed
.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies.
Grassley to Holder: Why Is The VA Putting So Many Veterans on Your Federal Gun Ban List? - Katie Pavlich
.
Specifically, once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun ban list, consequently denying his or her right to possess and own firearms.
Ibid.
.
Or how about this letter sent to an Oregon vet back in 2012. Check the top of page 2. Then go back to page 1 and notice this was all started only because he had a fiduciary appointed. No physical or psychological exam. No adjudication.
Link Removed
.
So are you going to lay off the fake innocence act now or are you going to try claiming water isn't wet?
.
You also need to keep in mind that thousands of these veterans have been pre-emptively denied their firearms rights. They probably have no idea they've been reported to NICS as mentally defective and many of them never will know because they'll never do anything that requires a NICS check. That doesn't excuse the denial of their rights though.
.
So if 127,000 people having their rights denied without due process and without the adjudication the law requires counts as "no one has been denied" in your eyes, then yeah, I guess you can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing bad has happened. A few of those people probably did need to have those rights removed, but if you truly believe that all or even most of them were correctly reported to NICS, then, I'm sorry, but you have to be one of the dumbest people ever to walk the planet Earth.
 
I assume by this point you're just deliberately ignoring the facts so you can feign ignorance. Even the VA admits doing it. Are you really so dense as to think we'll believe this innocent act you're playing, or are you truly incapable of seeing something that is blatantly obvious?
.
Okay, I'll bite I guess. One recent case.
Link Removed
.
Grassley to Holder: Why Is The VA Putting So Many Veterans on Your Federal Gun Ban List? - Katie Pavlich
.
Ibid.
.
Or how about this letter sent to an Oregon vet back in 2012. Check the top of page 2. Then go back to page 1 and notice this was all started only because he had a fiduciary appointed. No physical or psychological exam. No adjudication.
Link Removed
.
So are you going to lay off the fake innocence act now or are you going to try claiming water isn't wet?
.
You also need to keep in mind that thousands of these veterans have been pre-emptively denied their firearms rights. They probably have no idea they've been reported to NICS as mentally defective and many of them never will know because they'll never do anything that requires a NICS check. That doesn't excuse the denial of their rights though.
.
So if 127,000 people having their rights denied without due process and without the adjudication the law requires counts as "no one has been denied" in your eyes, then yeah, I guess you can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing bad has happened. A few of those people probably did need to have those rights removed, but if you truly believe that all or even most of them were correctly reported to NICS, then, I'm sorry, but you have to be one of the dumbest people ever to walk the planet Earth.
I'm not dumb for sure. 35 years as a practicing attorney. This thread isn't about the VA, it's about the SSA. We all know what's happening with vets. The purported basis of the VA situation is mental health issues brought about in some cases by combat. That's a big difference from taking someone's gun because they have another person handling their banking. I ask for a case because as a former attorney I would love to see the reason for an SSA denial. It's arbitrary and capricious. I'm not being stupid. We know the courts have provided for denial of 2nd amendment rights in cases of danger or mental health issues. I'm retired, sane, healthy, and my wife handles my SSA. What basis will they provide for denying my rights?

Let me ask you this; All this talk of allowing everyone to be armed is great. But we do have people in this world who we shouldn't arm. Criminals and the mentally disturbed. With nearly 22 suicides per day by vets the VA is trying to ID persons at risk and prevent them from doing harm to themselves. And we know they're screwing-it up royally. The SSA thing is not based in the recommendations of a physician or shrink that a person is dangerous. Therein lies the problem.
 
I'm not dumb for sure. 35 years as a practicing attorney. This thread isn't about the VA, it's about the SSA.
This thread is about SSA doing what is already being done at VA.
.
We all know what's happening with vets. The purported basis of the VA situation is mental health issues brought about in some cases by combat.
Purported. Now you may be catching on. I's purported to be about people who shouldn't have guns, but they're doing it to everyone who has a fiduciary assigned.
.
That's a big difference from taking someone's gun because they have another person handling their banking. I ask for a case because as a former attorney I would love to see the reason for an SSA denial.
We were already telling you that. They were claiming to be taking guns away from those who were mentally deficient. How many posts ago did we tell you that?
.
It's arbitrary and capricious.
You think?
.
I'm not being stupid.
Sorry, but it sounded like a deliberate effort to play dumb in order to ignore the obvious facts that were repeatedly placed in front of you.
.
We know the courts have provided for denial of 2nd amendment rights in cases of danger or mental health issues. I'm retired, sane, healthy, and my wife handles my SSA. What basis will they provide for denying my rights?
If your wife has been appointed your fiduciary, the basis they provide for denying your gun rights is that you aren't sane and healthy, that the appointment of a fiduciary is prima facie evidence of that 'fact', and that 38 CFR § 3.353 gives them the right to make that determination without a medical exam and without due process. The fact that none of that is legal doesn't bother them one little bit.
.
Let me ask you this; All this talk of allowing everyone to be armed is great.
I never said anything about allowing everyone to be armed, nor have I seen anyone else advocate that. The people challenging these practices, both here and elsewhere, are not in any way advocating that arms should be freely available to everyone. Nobody is arguing that steps shouldn't be taken to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally incompetent, nor are they opposed to improving the manner in which we tabulate, report or record those who have been properly determined to be mentally incompetent through valid and proper medical and legal channels. This comment by you seems to insinuate that we're making that argument when we aren't. If so, that might explain why you seem to be having difficulty understanding some of the posts here. It can be hard to read them sometimes if you're too far up on your high horse.
.
But we do have people in this world who we shouldn't arm. Criminals and the mentally disturbed. With nearly 22 suicides per day by vets the VA is trying to ID persons at risk and prevent them from doing harm to themselves. And we know they're screwing-it up royally.
It's gracious of you to try to excuse the VA by assuming it was just good intentions gone wrong, but that excuse is a total non-starter. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that a fiduciary isn't even remotely a valid indicator of mental status. They can also see that it fails the due process requirements in the U.S. Code. Even if you lived in a fantasy land that would allow you to believe that everyone at the VA was stupid enough to not know those things when they implemented the program, it still wouldn't explain why the practice continued long after those faults were exposed and repeatedly challenged. Sorry, but the 'But I meant well.' excuse is so ridiculously lame that the only thing it's good for is a laugh. They can't claim there isn't a better way either. It's called obeying the law, and millions of people have been managing to do it for many, many years.
.
The SSA thing is not based in the recommendations of a physician or shrink that a person is dangerous. Therein lies the problem.
Absolutely none of this has been based on the recommendations of a physician, which includes 'shrinks', and none of it has been based on due process. And you need not single out SSA as unique, because your notion that the initiative there is somehow different than what happened at the VA is incorrect. It is identical. They might use a different form number than the VA, or maybe use a different term than "mentally deficient", but they're still going to use the appointment of a fiduciary as the sole basis to notify NICS that someone should not be allowed to possess firearms, and that's exactly what's been going on at the VA.
.
By the way, you started the last paragraph with "Let me ask you this", but you never actually asked a question.
 
I'm not dumb for sure. 35 years as a practicing attorney. This thread isn't about the VA, it's about the SSA. We all know what's happening with vets. The purported basis of the VA situation is mental health issues brought about in some cases by combat. That's a big difference from taking someone's gun because they have another person handling their banking. I ask for a case because as a former attorney I would love to see the reason for an SSA denial. It's arbitrary and capricious. I'm not being stupid. We know the courts have provided for denial of 2nd amendment rights in cases of danger or mental health issues. I'm retired, sane, healthy, and my wife handles my SSA. What basis will they provide for denying my rights?

Let me ask you this; All this talk of allowing everyone to be armed is great. But we do have people in this world who we shouldn't arm. Criminals and the mentally disturbed. With nearly 22 suicides per day by vets the VA is trying to ID persons at risk and prevent them from doing harm to themselves. And we know they're screwing-it up royally. The SSA thing is not based in the recommendations of a physician or shrink that a person is dangerous. Therein lies the problem.

I've never participated in arming someone else. "We" don't arm people, they arm themselves, and if they have nefarious intent or they lack the mental capacity to handle weapons responsibly and within the law, nothing "we" do or say is going to stop them from obtaining weapons if they're committed to obtaining them. Laws are only for the law abiding. Having the unfettered access to defensive weapons is the only real counter to either the violent criminal or the criminally insane. To the extent that the law plays any role at all, it should be to keep separate the law abiding citizen from being exposed to violence-prone people no matter whether they be suffering from mental problems or just a plain ol' black heart, but for cripe's sake, don't pass and enforce laws based on the Big Brother-esque mantra that "we" shouldn't be arming people. You think you're qualified as a retired attorney, or just some Joe Schmoe on the street for that matter, to decide who gets to be armed and who doesn't, you can just as easily decide against me maintaining my armed status as the homeless guy walkin' down the street talkin' to himself.....and answering. I neither recognize your individual authority to disarm anyone, nor "our" collective authority. I recognize our collective authority to set the consequences for violent crimes committed with (or without) guns, but as far as I'm concerned, even crazy and criminal people can have just as legitimate a need to defend themselves as you or I. I can defend myself against them, and don't need no stinkin' "we" deciding that I'm incompetent to handle my own safety and security on some shithouse excuse like who handles the money in my family (or whatever). Leave that which shall not be infringed un-freakin'-infringed.

Blues
 
Thanks for all posting about this thread. I got shot in the back ~ 9 years ago by a damned gang while I was working though school (something they obviously never considered doing) and have PTSD as a result. However, I handle my own money, benefits, etc., and even have a SC (my state) CWP without issue. This scared me though, until I found out what the "small print" says. For a bit there I was like, "Wait. *I* get shot, disabled, and now the government is trying to tell me *I* am the problem?? Well, I never was, but sure as HELL will be if/when they try to take my RIGHTS away!"

Just glad it never quite got THAT far. I swear, the nation was about to break for sure if HRC had won. Thank God she didn't & I pray this insanity ends...
 
Thanks for all posting about this thread. I got shot in the back ~ 9 years ago by a damned gang while I was working though school (something they obviously never considered doing) and have PTSD as a result. However, I handle my own money, benefits, etc., and even have a SC (my state) CWP without issue. This scared me though, until I found out what the "small print" says. For a bit there I was like, "Wait. *I* get shot, disabled, and now the government is trying to tell me *I* am the problem?? Well, I never was, but sure as HELL will be if/when they try to take my RIGHTS away!"

Just glad it never quite got THAT far. I swear, the nation was about to break for sure if HRC had won. Thank God she didn't & I pray this insanity ends...

FYI: Grandma Got Run Over by Obama: SSA Finalizes New Gun Prohibition Rule
 
My Grandpa was asking me about this the other day. I told him as long as there is no "payee" that isn't him on the account he's fine.

He never managed money his entire life. My Grandma did that, he signed his paychecks and she deposited them in the accounts and paid the bills. When she was in the hospital, he was cashing his paychecks instead of depositing them and almost screwed them over financially because he didn't understand that they had automatic payments coming out.

When she passed, my mom helped him, and then his girlfriend. Sometimes he will ask me or one of my uncles a question if they aren't sure.

But basically, he doesn't manage the money but he knows what's going out and what's coming in (his gf writes everything down, they do it all together so he's not out of the loop). If you asked him to write you a check, he wouldn't be able to.
 
This isn't exactly the same as what happened at the VA, assuming we have complete information on the VA's actions. The new SS rule limits their action to "individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee." The apparent difference here is that the SSA is limiting their actions to those who receive benefits for a mental impairment, and/or have a fiduciary due to a mental impairment. The reports I've seen from the actions at the VA on the other hand, indicate they aren't limiting their actions to those who are receiving benefits due to a mental impairment. The VA apparently feels that simply using a fiduciary at all 'proves' mental impairment, regardless of the reasons why a veteran receives disability. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten from the reports I've read about actions at the VA. None of that means that SSA is being more responsible by limiting their actions to those with mental impairments. They're still making arbitrary decisions without cause and without due process. Their 'justification' is that their decision constitutes "adjudication" as required by 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4). But legal interpretations of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922 have always been interpreted as a legal adjudication, not a simple bureaucratic designation. I expect Trump to reverse this, but the matter will not be truly addressed until changes are made that prevent future politicians and/or bureaucrats from taking similar actions again.
 
FYI: TTAG | BREAKING: House Votes to Overturn Obama’s Gun Ban for Social Security Recipients:

Congress voted just moments ago to scrap former president Barack Obama’s “Social Security gun ban.” The ban, which targeted the elderly and disabled (two populations which might have a stronger case for the need for a firearm for self defense than any other) added individuals who had their finances managed by someone else to the list of prohibited persons in the National Instant Check System used to process background checks for firearm sales. Barack Obama implemented the ban via executive order, circumventing Congress.

Obama had previously stated that his inability to pass gun control legislation was one of the biggest disappointments of his career and that he would side-step Congress if it was a means to an end to enact his policies. He had added the new rule under the auspices of keeping guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill,” a narrative that the mainstream media is continuing in their reaction. From the Washington Post:

Under the rule, the Social Security Administration would provide information to the gun-buying background check system on recipients with a mental disorder so severe they cannot work and need someone to handle their benefits. The rule, finalized in December, affects an estimated 75,000 beneficiaries.

The rule, House Joint Resolution 40, passed the House of Representatives mostly along party lines. The resolution now moves to the Senate, where the Republicans hold a tenuous majority. If it passes the Senate then the resolution would go to the President for final approval before coming into effect.
 
Hopefully Trump will void this Obama anti-gun order.

House Joint Resolution 40 is moving to the Senate now. Once passed there, it needs to be signed by the President. You know, the way our government is supposed to work.

This is, by the way, the fastest way to undo President Obama's rule change. Why is that? Because of people like you that like to give the government, especially the President, exclusive powers. President Obama enacted a rule change based on prior authorization by Congress. A rule change takes time due to the process involved. Undoing a rule change by the President is just another rule change, requiring a similar amount of time to enact. This could take months. Undoing a rule change by an act of Congress is a matter of weeks.
 
... All the press on this is confusing and I have no idea what is true and what is false. Any help would be appreciated.
U.S. House Passes Repeal of Social Security Administration Gun Grab, Begins Rolling Back Obama Era Executive Gun Control
"On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a strong statement in support of the Second Amendment by passing H.J. Res. 40, which would repeal Barack Obama’s scandalous attempt to grab guns from thousands of vulnerable, law-abiding Social Security recipients. ..."
Trump: Making America great again :)
 
U.S. House Passes Repeal of Social Security Administration Gun Grab, Begins Rolling Back Obama Era Executive Gun Control
"On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a strong statement in support of the Second Amendment by passing H.J. Res. 40, which would repeal Barack Obama’s scandalous attempt to grab guns from thousands of vulnerable, law-abiding Social Security recipients. ..."
Trump: Making America great again :)

You are replying to a post that is 18 months old. At that point, the SSA gun grab rule wasn't even enacted. It was being discussed. Your post is also just redundant to posts #52 and post #55.

It is common for new members to browse the forum and just respond to the very first post in a thread, thus ignoring all the other posts in the same thread. This can lead to redundant posts, but also to confusion. I highly recommend to refrain from "blind posting".

Welcome to the forum.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top