Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The government assault on our Veterans and Law abiding U.S. citizens by using employees of the Social Security Administration and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to submit conjectured information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(NCIS) (We have talked about it before but I did not know about the Veterans, plus it has been taking place since 2012.)

I guess if they cannot kill em all with care in the V.A. then they can at least take away their right to protect themselves against bad guys.

MyVA: Building Trusted Relationships
VA is undergoing a radical transformation to improve our relationship with our Veterans. This relationship is the cornerstone for all that VA does. — What a load of chicken manure

Executive branch Federal Agencies have not the power to usurp the constitution.

"A 2012 Congressional Research Service report found 99.3 percent of all names reported on the background check system as “mental defectives” came from the VA."

Does not sound like the V.A. is putting Veterans first.

Gun-rights groups want Social Security role nixed in background checks - Liberty Headlines

Gun-rights groups hope Trump nixes Social Security role in background checks | Fox News

blob:http://video.foxnews.com/8cdb73b9-cada-4b12-8c89-9d41b02f8e8c

https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://video.foxnews.com/v/5276949973001/

(FoxNews.com) Second Amendment advocates hope President-elect Donald Trump will reverse a new rule by the outgoing Obama administration under which the Social Security system could be used to block gun purchases for thousands of benefit recipients.

The Social Security Administration finalized a rule in December under which the agency would submit information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if the government determines they are “mental defectives,” or unable to manage their own affairs.

One concern is how a similar program has worked at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been reporting some veterans to the background check system when they have been unable to manage their own financial affairs. The VA reported the names of more than 257,000 military veterans who couldn’t manage their finances. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report found 99.3 percent of all names reported on the background check system as “mental defectives” came from the VA.

“Now it will be the same premise with Social Security if grandpa has trouble paying the bills,” Pratt said.
The SSA change was months in the making. President Obama’s White House announced a package of executive actions in January 2016 that said, “The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.” The rule was not finalized until Dec. 19.

Specifically, the regulation affects anyone from 18 years old through retirement age who qualifies for disability because of a “mental impairment” that prevents the person from working who must have a “representative payee” for handling their finances, Lutz said.
This will affect “tens of thousands of harmless, law-abiding people,” who will lose a constitutional right without due process, according to the National Rifle Association, which also plans to ask the incoming Trump administration to take “corrective action” on the matter.
“At no point in the actual ‘adjudication’ is the individual’s propensity for violence a necessary consideration,” said an NRA statement issued after the rule was finalized. “Rather, the question ultimately devolves to whether or not the individual has any sort of mental condition and can responsibly handle money, which is not a fair basis to strip someone of their constitutional rights.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Not entirely accurate.

Been discussed here.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...a-ssa-finalizes-new-gun-prohibition-rule.html

The Social Security Administration finalized a rule in December under which the agency would submit information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if the government determines they are “mental defectives,” or unable to manage their own affairs.
This is not correct.

The SSA does not determine if an applicant is Mentally Defective. The applicant supplies the SSA with proof, documentation, medical records, court documents, etc. when applying for SS Disability based on mental Defect. If the SSA is satisfied with the documentation provided by the applicant, then the applicant will receive Disability Benefits and will be reported to the NICS system.

This is also incorrect, " or unable to manage their own affairs."

This is the actual wording by the SSA.

"Under the proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, 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 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."
That word "And" is very important and should not be replaced with "or" unless the intent is to change the entire meaning of the sentence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
Not entirely accurate.

Been discussed here.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...a-ssa-finalizes-new-gun-prohibition-rule.html



This is not correct.

The SSA does not determine if an applicant is Mentally Defective. The applicant supplies the SSA with proof, documentation, medical records, court documents, etc. when applying for SS Disability based on mental Defect. If the SSA is satisfied with the documentation provided by the applicant, then the applicant will receive Disability Benefits and will be reported to the NICS system.

This is also incorrect, " or unable to manage their own affairs."

This is the actual wording by the SSA.



That word "And" is very important and should not be replaced with "or" unless the intent is to change the entire meaning of the sentence.

I read your response on the other thread too, and I think you're missing something. In the past, for a person to be prohibited, a "court or other lawful authority" had to make a determination that a person was mentally incompetent, and/or have them involuntarily committed. However, as I understand it, people can qualify for these mental impairment benefits even if a court has never made such a determination. You don't have to have a court judgment saying you're incompetent for the SSA to allow these benefits.

So, this isn't simply the SSA "forwarding" a disqualifying judgment to NICS (which would be scummy enough, frankly). In effect, this means the SSA is now making a disqualifying judgment itself, and that's a huge change.

As for the "or," I think it's intended as a plain-language clarification, not an implication that there are two disqualifying criteria. As in "an explosive device, or bomb."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
You are missing the point. These people that are applying for Money from our SSA are claiming they are Mentally Defective and they cannot work, cannot manage their own affairs and will never work. To prove this to the SSA they have to supply documentation that they are Mentally Defective, whether that be Medical Records, Court Documents or whatever they have.

One cannot just walk into the SSA office and say, I'm nuts I need benefits. They have to prove it.

In legal language "and" and "or" are never confused or swapped. They mean two different things.

You wouldn't ask for a Hamburger or Fries if you wanted a Hamburger "and" fries, would you?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
steve has it correct. SSA requires doctors reports and other verifying documentation that a person can't handle their own affairs and are mentally defective [ disabled ]. THAT documentation is then passed on to the appropriate authorities through appropriate channels.

SSA isn't making any determinations of mental fitness. As for the OP's opinion on the VA, well, opinions vary. I've been treated extremely well at the VA since 71. They're responsible for saving my life once after two private hospitals couldn't find what was wrong in months of testing and short hospital stays.

No system is perfect, but the VA isn't any worse than a private hospital and a whole lot better than many of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
You are missing the point. These people that are applying for Money from our SSA are claiming they are Mentally Defective and they cannot work, cannot manage their own affairs and will never work. To prove this to the SSA they have to supply documentation that they are Mentally Defective, whether that be Medical Records, Court Documents or whatever they have.

One cannot just walk into the SSA office and say, I'm nuts I need benefits. They have to prove it.

In legal language "and" and "or" are never confused or swapped. They mean two different things.

You wouldn't ask for a Hamburger or Fries if you wanted a Hamburger "and" fries, would you?
Yes, but being mentally defective and being unable to manage your affairs, and even having the SSA agree that you are, do not make you a "prohibited person" as far as buying a firearm. You have to be judged so by a court, or a body with judicial authority. The ability to purchase a gun is a right protected by the Constitution, and it can't be taken away without due process of law. A bureaucrat reading medical reports and deciding "incompetent" is not due process.

And honestly, even if the evidence being reviewed by the bureaucrat includes a court judgment, I don't see what business the SSA has in helping ATF enforce firearms law.

This isn't legal language we're discussing, it's a plain-language news report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rcsoftexas

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Yes, but being mentally defective and being unable to manage your affairs, and even having the SSA agree that you are, do not make you a "prohibited person" as far as buying a firearm. You have to be judged so by a court, or a body with judicial authority. The ability to purchase a gun is a right protected by the Constitution, and it can't be taken away without due process of law. A bureaucrat reading medical reports and deciding "incompetent" is not due process.

And honestly, even if the evidence being reviewed by the bureaucrat includes a court judgment, I don't see what business the SSA has in helping ATF enforce firearms law.

This isn't legal language we're discussing, it's a plain-language news report.
Self admission, releasing medical records of doctors findings that support the claimants position and asking for assistance would be a qualifier, IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Self admission, releasing medical records of doctors findings that support the claimants position and asking for assistance would be a qualifier, IMO
...and it does.

On the other hand, if the applicant feels that they are crazy enough to be paid for it, but not crazy enough to actually be adjudicated crazy and are not crazy enough to be considered "Prohibited persons" under the Gun Control Act of 1968, then they can have their case reviewed and have their second amendment rights restored and give up there Disability Benefit check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
...and it does.

On the other hand, if the applicant feels that they are crazy enough to be paid for it, but not crazy enough to actually be adjudicated crazy and are not crazy enough to be considered "Prohibited persons" under the Gun Control Act of 1968, then they can have their case reviewed and have their second amendment rights restored and give up there Disability Benefit check.
So you apply for benefits, a bureaucrat looks at it and decides to take away your civil rights, and you have to go to court to get your rights back? That sounds pretty much completely backwards.

If the SSA is giving these benefits to people who have not been judged incompetent or involuntarily committed by a court, then a person can be getting these benefits AND buying guns. If a person hasn't lost his rights in court, the SSA has nothing to say to NICS, full stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
Self admission, releasing medical records of doctors findings that support the claimants position and asking for assistance would be a qualifier, IMO
For benefits, maybe, not for loss of gun rights. As I understand it, even commitment to an institution doesn't disqualify one from purchasing, if it was done voluntarily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
So you apply for benefits, a bureaucrat looks at it and decides to take away your civil rights, and you have to go to court to get your rights back? That sounds pretty much completely backwards.

If the SSA is giving these benefits to people who have not been judged incompetent or involuntarily committed by a court, then a person can be getting these benefits AND buying guns. If a person hasn't lost his rights in court, the SSA has nothing to say to NICS, full stop.
Wrong!

You apply for benefits and YOU supply the SSA with proof that you are Mentally Defective.

There is no bureaucrat deciding if you are Mentally Defective, The applicant provides Medical and Legal documentation proving Mental Defect.

To put it simply, those that admit and quality for SS Benefits based on Mental Defect are already "Prohibited persons" whether they apply to SSA or not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
894 Posts
Web sites featuring "Patriot"," Liberty", "Facebook", or "Fox news" may have an agenda that overrides truth, justice, and the American way. Lots of "hair on fire" articles are written on both sides of the gun debate. Try to find some objective rational and reliable site before taking the internet at face value. It can be a chore.
Now, even the print media is falling into its historic roll of "yellow journalism".

Some of the arguments here confuse me. You apply for SS, provide proof you are mentally defective (which has several meanings), and obtain benefits. Should you have a gun? depends on the definition of "mentally defective". Are you a little slow, enough to limit work ability? Does that mean "no guns". Are you a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of persecution . One is a reason to remove all guns, the other is not. If you falsely obtain these benefits and get enough money, does it rise to a felony level? That can remove your guns? If if if.

Someone look up current law, publish it here. Your current worries about SS should be about what changes the new congress plans to make that will effect your future financial well being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIGP250 and AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
Wrong!

You apply for benefits and YOU supply the SSA with proof that you are Mentally Defective.

There is no bureaucrat deciding if you are Mentally Defective, The applicant provides Medical and Legal documentation proving Mental Defect.

To put it simply, those that admit and quality for SS Benefits based on Mental Defect are already "Prohibited persons" whether they apply to SSA or not.
So you're saying that the only people who receive these benefits are those who have been judged mentally defective by a court, or involuntarily committed by a court?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
So you're saying that the only people who receive these benefits are those who have been judged mentally defective by a court, or involuntarily committed by a court?
One can collect ssdi for any number of "disabilities". Physical and mental health issues. If you admit you need tax dollar assistance from the rest of us that you're mentally defective and can't work, and the accompanying doctors reports/findings suggest that's their finding as well, then you've sealed your own fate by admission and accepting MY tax dollars so you don't have to work and thus deal with society at large [ for the most part ].

I'd not care to see diagnosed paranoid skitzo's who are suckling at the gov nipple for relief for their ailment also be allowed to be in possession of a firearm. They, as just one example, are placed on drugs to alleviate the demons within [ whether real or imagined ] and many forget to take them or refuse to take them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,556 Posts
This is a bad thing. People who need treatment for PTSD won't seek help if they think it will haunt them later.

I once asked my doctor for prescription sleeping pills. He said that I would have to get them from a psychiatrist and wrote a referral. I thought about it for a couple of days and decided against going and cancelled the appointment. Five years later my security clearance came up for renewal and the hospital had put a note on the application saying that I had been referred to a psychiatrist and refused to go. It could have prevented my clearance from being approved and would have cost me my career. After that I never disclosed anything to my doctor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
I'd not care to see diagnosed paranoid skitzo's who are suckling at the gov nipple for relief for their ailment also be allowed to be in possession of a firearm. They, as just one example, are placed on drugs to alleviate the demons within [ whether real or imagined ] and many forget to take them or refuse to take them.
I have no fundamental problem with stopping such people from buying guns, as long as it's done with due process of law. Until a judge or jury says that a citizen can't own a gun - by judging him mentally incompetent, or by convicting him of a felony or domestic violence charge, or by court-martial - he has a right to buy a gun, no matter what he, the SSA or anybody else says about him, his mental state, his alleged ties to terrorism or anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1911srule

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
I have no fundamental problem with stopping such people from buying guns, as long as it's done with due process of law. Until a judge or jury says that a citizen can't own a gun - by judging him mentally incompetent, or by convicting him of a felony or domestic violence charge, or by court-martial - he has a right to buy a gun, no matter what he, the SSA or anybody else says about him, his mental state, his alleged ties to terrorism or anything else.
Here's something to consider. When these people out on the street who are collecting and living off our tax dollars [ because they are bat crap crazy and qualify for ssdi ] were instead housed in mental health institutions, no one questioned they should be able to access/buy firearms. If they checked themselves into an institution or were baker acted and institutionalized, no one gave their 2a rights a second thought.

Now that the loonie tunes walk among us as they've all been released, you expect people to worry about their 2a rights being violated? Simply because of a change of venue? Used to be these people were segregated from society, for the good of society, and really didn't have 2a rights. Nor did others champion their having access to firearms.

But we were a saner society then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,673 Posts
There were a few years when it was easy to get a PTSD diagnosis shortly before military retirement and a few devious types decided to game the system, faking a disorder for attention and reduced taxes. This was bad for people who actually have PTSD, and bad for dishonesty gaining benefits. Karma kicked these dirtbags in the gut with impacts to their 2A rights. Sadly, though, some folks with PTSD issues who aren't a gun risk are lumped in with all the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,306 Posts
Used to be these people were segregated from society, for the good of society, and really didn't have 2a rights. Nor did others champion their having access to firearms.

But we were a saner society then.
Like I said, I have no problem with "these people" being denied firearms, if it's a court that determines which people are "these people" while following due process. My problem is with a bureaucrat being the one to determine who "these people" are, either for the purposes of gun ownership or determining who gets segregated from society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,071 Posts
Like I said, I have no problem with "these people" being denied firearms, if it's a court that determines which people are "these people" while following due process. My problem is with a bureaucrat being the one to determine who "these people" are, either for the purposes of gun ownership or determining who gets segregated from society.
A bureaucrat isn't taking their 2A rights. A person applies for (asks for, requests) to be PAID govt disability benefits under their own declared premise that they are mentally disabled. The bureaucrat then asks them to prove their mental disability with medical records, documentation, etc. in order to receive said funds. If the bureaucrat agrees that the individual has proven their self-proclaimed assertion that they indeed are mentally disabled then they are due to be paid accordingly as being mentally disabled. They are not being declared so against their will, they are requesting to be declared so. If you want the money, you're voluntarily giving up your 2A rights.

From a reasonableness standpoint, you can't have it both ways. "I've voluntarily told you I'm mentally defective enough that I can't work, I'm disabled, and need to be supported financially with govt tax dollars. And I've provided you sufficient medical records and documentation to prove it. And I need someone else to handle those govt dollars for me because I'm so mentally disabled I can't do it...but I'm perfectly mentally capable enough to handle a firearm safely and securely."

That scenario may indeed exist, but it's very counter-intuitive.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top