The SSI Disability "Gun Grab" question

[TroutKing]

Then you haven't been keeping up with current affairs, because the government has been doing it for quite some time already. In fact, this new debate is over the Obama administration simply trying to get the Social Security Administration to do what has already been done at the VA for several years now. This isn't something new. It's just an expansion of an existing practice from one government agency to an additional one. Another piece of the pie so to speak. I didn't believe it when I first heard about it either.
.
Senator: Veterans Still Losing Gun Rights Because of VA Reporting | Military.com

The VA and SSA are apples and oranges. The VA is trying to walk a line that can't be defined. The SSA thing will prove to be unconstitutional.

The basis of a denial or constitutional violation may not be arbitrary or capricious under the law. The mere fact that someone has another person handling their affairs does not in itself constitute "infancy" or any danger. As in past failed attempts at gun control it will need to be fought. What comes to mind is the failed attempt by HUD in the 1990's to disallow gun ownership by anyone living in federally subsidized housing. The ruling was clear. Denial of one's right requires cause. And cause is must be individually determined. They may try it but it will be found unconstitutional to deny someone a gun right just because another handles their affairs. To me it shows desperation.

 

[BluesStringer]

The VA and SSA are apples and oranges. The VA is trying to walk a line that can't be defined. The SSA thing will prove to be unconstitutional.

The basis of a denial or constitutional violation may not be arbitrary or capricious under the law. The mere fact that someone has another person handling their affairs does not in itself constitute "infancy" or any danger. As in past failed attempts at gun control it will need to be fought. What comes to mind is the failed attempt by HUD in the 1990's to disallow gun ownership by anyone living in federally subsidized housing. The ruling was clear. Denial of one's right requires cause. And cause is must be individually determined. They may try it but it will be found unconstitutional to deny someone a gun right just because another handles their affairs. To me it shows desperation.

To me it shows that Obama has learned that when it really counts for him, and against The People, he can rely on either/or Roberts and Kennedy to pull his butt out of the political fire with a 5/4 decision.

Your faith in SCOTUS to uphold and defend the Constitution will most likely remain unrequited on this or any other issue. Like the N R A, SCOTUS is little more than the controlled opposition.

Blues

 

[TroutKing]

To me it shows that Obama has learned that when it really counts for him, and against The People, he can rely on either/or Roberts and Kennedy to pull his butt out of the political fire with a 5/4 decision.

Your faith in SCOTUS to uphold and defend the Constitution will most likely remain unrequited on this or any other issue. Like the N R A, SCOTUS is little more than the controlled opposition.

Blues

I would have to agree with that.

 

[vernsimpson]

The VA and SSA are apples and oranges. The VA is trying to walk a line that can't be defined. The SSA thing will prove to be unconstitutional.

The basis of a denial or constitutional violation may not be arbitrary or capricious under the law. The mere fact that someone has another person handling their affairs does not in itself constitute "infancy" or any danger. As in past failed attempts at gun control it will need to be fought. What comes to mind is the failed attempt by HUD in the 1990's to disallow gun ownership by anyone living in federally subsidized housing. The ruling was clear. Denial of one's right requires cause. And cause is must be individually determined. They may try it but it will be found unconstitutional to deny someone a gun right just because another handles their affairs. To me it shows desperation.

I do agree that this is unconstitutional, but I believe you are wrong about desperation and trusting the courts to rule against it.

It is not desperation in this at all it is only opening another front that we must fight. The leftist anti's never ever give up. When they can not get their way by knocking on the front door, they try the back door, side doors, windows, chimney and every other opening they can find. Then when all else fails they will simply drive over you with a bulldozer!

If they do this and it gets to SCOTUS, we will lose!!!

 

[Rhino]

The VA and SSA are apples and oranges. The VA is trying to walk a line that can't be defined. The SSA thing will prove to be unconstitutional.

Actually the SSA is being told to implement the exact same strategy that VA was using, so it's apples to apples. I wasn't debating the merits of the policy, so I won't address the rest of your post. But his "desperation" as you call it, is taking away peoples' guns. Rights once lost are extremely difficult to regain.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Actually the SSA is being told to implement the exact same strategy that VA was using, so it's apples to apples. I wasn't debating the merits of the policy, so I won't address the rest of your post. But his "desperation" as you call it, is taking away peoples' guns. Rights once lost are extremely difficult to regain.

I still fully believe that our government is so incompetent that they lack the ability to actually determine who that collects VA, SSA, or SSI benefits and that actually owns guns.

I collect SSA, Medicare has paid a number of my medical bills. I also have filled out 4473's during that time, and I am not in any fear that the incompetent bureaucrats can link any of it together. I am also a vet, but damn glad that I don't have to depend on the VA for anything, due to their incompetence.

 

[TroutKing]

I do agree that this is unconstitutional, but I believe you are wrong about desperation and trusting the courts to rule against it.

It is not desperation in this at all it is only opening another front that we must fight. The leftist anti's never ever give up. When they can not get their way by knocking on the front door, they try the back door, side doors, windows, chimney and every other opening they can find. Then when all else fails they will simply drive over you with a bulldozer!

If they do this and it gets to SCOTUS, we will lose!!!

The reason it's a loser for Obama is because some SSA recipients may have others handle their affairs only because it's convenient, because they're wealthy and don't want to deal with it as well as many other reasons. If that's the only criteria they can't win it.

 

[BluesStringer]

To me it shows that Obama has learned that when it really counts for him, and against The People, he can rely on either/or Roberts and Kennedy to pull his butt out of the political fire with a 5/4 decision.

Your faith in SCOTUS to uphold and defend the Constitution will most likely remain unrequited on this or any other issue. Like the N R A, SCOTUS is little more than the controlled opposition.

Blues

I would have to agree with that.

The reason it's a loser for Obama is because some SSA recipients may have others handle their affairs only because it's convenient, because they're wealthy and don't want to deal with it as well as many other reasons. If that's the only criteria they can't win it.

You already agreed that they can win with either/or Roberts and Kennedy on the court. Which is it?

 

[TroutKing]

You already agreed that they can win with either/or Roberts and Kennedy on the court. Which is it?

I agree that the NRA is useless. And I believe the SCOTUS has let America down in many areas all the way back to Roe v. Wade. But I don't believe the SCOTUS would rule that merely having someone handle your affairs is grounds for removing your gun rights. And the matter isn't before the court anyway. If I had a client denied his right to own a firearm strictly on the grounds that someone handles his finances I believe I could win that case easily. In arguing against my client the feds could not win in the lower courts as their denial is arbitrary and capricious. What will they say when I produce a client on SSA who is retired, healthy, wealthy and has someone handling his affairs? How will they argue he is dangerous. This is a very long way from the SCOTUS. To my knowledge there isn't even a case in play. And while I'm retired now I would have loved a case like that.

 

[Rhino]

I still fully believe that our government is so incompetent that they lack the ability to actually determine who that collects VA, SSA, or SSI benefits and that actually owns guns.
.
I collect SSA, Medicare has paid a number of my medical bills. I also have filled out 4473's during that time, and I am not in any fear that the incompetent bureaucrats can link any of it together. I am also a vet, but damn glad that I don't have to depend on the VA for anything, due to their incompetence.

I'm retired military, collect my military retirement pay and disability pay from the VA. Soon I will very likely also be receiving SSI disability pay. Like you, I don't fear anyone coming after my guns, but it isn't because I doubt their ability to link anything. I don't fear it because I've never designated anyone as a fiduciary for my pay. I don't doubt their ability to make the connections. They're already doing it. That's why your assertions seem more fancy than fact. If they lack the ability to determine who collects those benefits, and then to match that to those submitted for NICS checks, then how is it that they've already been doing exactly that for a few years now? You're doubting the ability for something that has already been done. It's like saying you doubt we have the technology to invent a microwave oven. Don't get me wrong though. I understand the point I believe you're trying to make They screw so many things up with such regularity that's it's sometimes hard to believe they could accomplish even the simplest of tasks. But unfortunately for some gun owners, this is one of the tasks they have managed to accomplish, and now they want to accomplish it on a more widespread basis. I'm sure recent events will only more urgently spur them on.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If they lack the ability to determine who collects those benefits, and then to match that to those submitted for NICS checks, then how is it that they've already been doing exactly that for a few years now? You're doubting the ability for something that has already been done.

It isn't a matter of NICS matching people to who has fiduciaries or not. It's a matter of what the VA and/or the SSA report to NICS. Veterans who are prohibited persons because of having fiduciaries are because the VA reported them as prohibited to NICS due to "being adjudicated as a mental defective." The exact same thing could happen with the SSA - anyone with a fiduciary could be reported to NICS the same way. Anyone think the SSA couldn't easily figure out who has a different payee and who doesn't? They list everyone who has a different payee as "adjudicated as a mental defective", submit it to NICS - and you become a prohibited person due to the action of the SSA alone - just like the veterans who became prohibited persons due to the action of the VA alone.

 

[Rhino]

It isn't a matter of NICS matching people to who has fiduciaries or not.

I was responding to XD40scinNC's assertion that the government lacked the ability to determine eligibility and to link the information between agencies, so it was a matter of the matching people as far as that discussion was concerned. The rest of your post just repeats what I already said.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

It isn't a matter of NICS matching people to who has fiduciaries or not. It's a matter of what the VA and/or the SSA report to NICS. Veterans who are prohibited persons because of having fiduciaries are because the VA reported them as prohibited to NICS due to "being adjudicated as a mental defective." The exact same thing could happen with the SSA - anyone with a fiduciary could be reported to NICS the same way. Anyone think the SSA couldn't easily figure out who has a different payee and who doesn't? They list everyone who has a different payee as "adjudicated as a mental defective", submit it to NICS - and you become a prohibited person due to the action of the SSA alone - just like the veterans who became prohibited persons due to the action of the VA alone.

There is a difference between having a fiduciariy and being adjudicated mentally defective.

Big difference.

Ever since this BS hit the 'Net I have discussed this with numerous Veterans, Veterans' groups, like the DAV for one, and my US Senator Tom Cotton's Veterans' Rep and no one has heard of a Veteran having his gun grabbed by Obama just because he/she has a fiduciary.

If they are adjudicated as being mentally defective and a fiduciary has been appointed, well, that's one thing, but just having a fiduciary isn't grounds for Obama the "grab your guns".

Pretty simple.

Paul

 

[XD40scinNC]

I'm retired military, collect my military retirement pay and disability pay from the VA. Soon I will very likely also be receiving SSI disability pay. Like you, I don't fear anyone coming after my guns, but it isn't because I doubt their ability to link anything. I don't fear it because I've never designated anyone as a fiduciary for my pay. I don't doubt their ability to make the connections. They're already doing it. That's why your assertions seem more fancy than fact. If they lack the ability to determine who collects those benefits, and then to match that to those submitted for NICS checks, then how is it that they've already been doing exactly that for a few years now? You're doubting the ability for something that has already been done. It's like saying you doubt we have the technology to invent a microwave oven. Don't get me wrong though. I understand the point I believe you're trying to make They screw so many things up with such regularity that's it's sometimes hard to believe they could accomplish even the simplest of tasks. But unfortunately for some gun owners, this is one of the tasks they have managed to accomplish, and now they want to accomplish it on a more widespread basis. I'm sure recent events will only more urgently spur them on.

NICS checks are only an indication that you "wanted" to buy a gun, and in no way indicates that the purchase was actually made. Have a check run and approve, there could still be a change of mind, or the CC was rejected due to being over-limit, couldn't agree on the final price, etc.

I have purchased a number of guns in NC either with a PPP (issued by the sheriff and good for 5 years), or with my CHP, and a NICS check has never been run at the time of purchase on any of these purchases. This is unique for NC, but proves the government doesn't have a clue if I actually purchased a firearm. Every purchase I have made is 100% legal under NC law, and in some cases 4473's do not exist, in other cases, they are store on paper in the archives of the LGS. They exist in NO government database.

Sure they can go back (after the fact) either through the NICS check or serial# (find LGS the manufacturer/distributor shipped the gun to) of the gun and get details of the purchase (4473 retained by the selling store).

Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then, but given the track record of government agencies, I do not believe they have databases that could link SSI (or VA) beneficiaries to gun ownership, anymore than they can prevent Medicare fraud or bogus tax refund fraud by the IRS. If asked by a government goon, keep your pie hole shut.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Howdy,



There is a difference between having a fiduciariy and being adjudicated mentally defective.

Big difference.

And you don't think a high government official won't care about that difference in order to further their own political agenda? Never happens, not in our government, right.... oh, wait....

UPDATED: Timeline Of IRS Tax Exempt Organization Scandal - Forbes

June 24, 2013. The IRS issues its own report into the scandal together with an action plan. At the same time, the IRS admitted fault, saying that “inappropriate criteria” was used for review of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

What-if: Obama "urges" SSA to "further evaluate" those that might be adjudicated mentally defective and provide an updated list of prohibited persons to NICS. When everything comes out and there is enough public outcry, the SSA admits faults saying that "inappropriate criteria" was used to determine those persons "adjudicated mentally defective". The liberal progressive socialist democrats have proven time and time again that they don't care what the laws are.

 

[TroutKing]

Actually the SSA is being told to implement the exact same strategy that VA was using, so it's apples to apples. I wasn't debating the merits of the policy, so I won't address the rest of your post. But his "desperation" as you call it, is taking away peoples' guns. Rights once lost are extremely difficult to regain.

I can't find anywhere they have the basis to do so. Has any SSA or SSI recipient lost his guns becuase someone handles his $$? Where is there a directive to SSA from another agency or executive order that orders this review?

 

[RJT CCW]

I can't find anywhere they have the basis to do so. Has any SSA or SSI recipient lost his guns becuase someone handles his $$? Where is there a directive to SSA from another agency or executive order that orders this review?

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.

 

[Farmhood]

Good food for thought!

Folks that think anything these guys say can be believed reminds me of the 36 times I heard: "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it:

This must be the desert!

 

[Rhino]

There is a difference between having a fiduciariy and being adjudicated mentally defective.
.
Big difference.

That's the point. The VA has been reporting those with fiduciaries as mentally defective. They're not supposed to be doing that. Now the administration wants to expand the practice to the Social Security Administration. The consensus seems to be they're using this 2013 presidential memorandum as their motivator.
.

Ever since this BS hit the 'Net I have discussed this with numerous Veterans, Veterans' groups, like the DAV for one, and my US Senator Tom Cotton's Veterans' Rep and no one has heard of a Veteran having his gun grabbed by Obama just because he/she has a fiduciary.

The only BS here is that you've supposedly investigated and found nothing. You can find it in seconds with a Google search. The VA itself says it has added 127,000 veterans to the mentally defective NICS category because they couldn't manage their financial affairs, without legal adjudication. There is absolutely no confusion, uncertainty or argument about that. They freely acknowledge it. They claim they're authorized to do so under 38 CFR § 3.353, which grants agencies the power to determine incompetency and competency. But the regulation only applies to financial matters. It has no relevance or authority outside that realm, including having no authority to affect the regulation or control of firearms. In reporting those names to NICS, the VA is violating the federal regulation they claim they're operating under. They're also ignoring the due process requirements that are in the last paragraph of that same regulation. Probably the best single source of information is the Link Removed. There's lots of other sources for various details, but that one probably has the most facts in a single link. You can get the rest with that Google search I mentioned. Unless of course you want to stick with your numerous veterans, veterans' groups, the DAV, blah, blah. I got a bit curious and found this at disabledveterans.org though:
.

It looks clear that the VA determination of “incompetent” does result in a veteran losing their Constitutional right to bear arms. This is probably fine if the person is a harm to himself or others. My concern is for the veterans who are not a harm to themselves or others. They just cannot balance a checkbook due to a head injury. In this latter scenario, I am nervous.

That's from 2013, so they've been aware of it from the beginning as well.
.

If they are adjudicated as being mentally defective and a fiduciary has been appointed, well, that's one thing, but just having a fiduciary isn't grounds for Obama the "grab your guns".
.
Pretty simple.

It should be that simple, but the Obama administration doesn't agree with you. You're sitting here attempting to ridicule those who are decrying the abuses you say shouldn't be possible, which makes you the one worthy of ridicule. 99% of the names listed as mentally defective in NICS came from the VA. Even someone who hated the military with every fiber of his being couldn't find a way to successfully defend a number like that as being valid.
.

NICS checks are only an indication that you "wanted" to buy a gun, and in no way indicates...
.
...in other cases, they are store on paper in the archives of the LGS. They exist in NO government database.

Our individual cases are only examples, and aren't indicative of the populace as a whole. That was my point. We don't fear any linking of information because our individual situations cause us to be relatively immune to the danger. But many people don't have the circumstances we do, and the danger does exist for them.
.

...Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then, but given the track record of government agencies, I do not believe they have databases that could link SSI (or VA) beneficiaries to gun ownership...

Then you aren't up on current events. As I stated earlier, this isn't a matter of belief. They've already done this and they continue to do it. That's why I posted the link earlier. They aren't proposing something new. They're simply proposing to expand something they're already doing at one agency, the VA, to also be done at a new agency, Social Security. This isn't a theory or an idea for you to believe or disbelieve. It's a fact that's already in existence. As incompetent as the federal government is, and I tend to agree with you on that score, they have already managed to accomplish this feat. The linking you don't believe they can do has already been done. They just want to do it in an additional place now.
.

I can't find anywhere they have the basis to do so. Has any SSA or SSI recipient lost his guns becuase someone handles his $$? Where is there a directive to SSA from another agency or executive order that orders this review?

The 'directive' is supposedly the 2013 presidential memorandum mentioned above. As for the 'basis', I imagine Social Security will try to use the same passage in 38 CFR § 3.353 that the VA uses, even though it isn't legally correct. To my knowledge, Social Security has not implemented this practice yet, and there are several members of Congress who are attempting to stop them before they do.

 

[Rhino]

Oh, and you're not likely to hear of "a" veteran individually being denied his gun rights or having his guns taken away because the names themselves are protected by privacy laws. Unless a veteran wants to make his personal situation a matter of public record, reports of individual cases will not be very common. There have been some though. I think I've even seen one reported in a thread here before.
.
I'd also like to point out that the issue with the VA reporting veterans to NICS was originally reported here by members who are very often criticized for reporting conspiracy theories. While I will sometimes chastise members such as Ringo or opsspec1991 to do a better job of checking their facts before posting some topics, I don't jump down their throats like some others here do. You might find it irritating to see conspiracy theories or off the wall stories getting posted on the forums, but it is often these guys with their hyper sensitive antennas that will be the first ones to pick up on the real conspiracies too. And maybe even the juiciest ones now and then. They're trying to protect the same rights we are, so we share the same enemies. I think that makes them deserving of a little leeway now and then.