The House of Representatives approved on Thursday a resolution that would undo regulations adopted during the Obama Administration that would prevent many Social Security recipients from buying firearms if they need the help of a representative payee handling money. I am uncertain whether Democrats can or will filibuster this in the Senate.
I am curious if there has been much caselaw in regards to the second amendment; clearly being for the purpose of defense (self or others), defense requiring recognition of a threat, recognition requiring rationality, and therefore the second amendment not extending to irrational individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis just doesn't seem like it should be controversial.
This bill had good intentions but was not addressing the issue properly. Handling of money by a third party is not a good reason to deny one a firearm's permit; such a situation proves nothing. The issue should resolve around the type of disability. For example a person with a physical disability may have a representative payee because they are often in the hospital or undergoing in-patient treatment, whereas someone with severe depression who is somewhat suicidal may handle their own money....where is the logic? Denial of any second amendment privileges should revolve around one's type of disability and be confirmed by a qualifying Psychiatrist.
ReplyDelete@3:19
ReplyDeleteI thought the bill only was in regard to SSA-ordered payee? I've never heard of a payee being ordered by SSA other than with mental impairments, or substance abuse. Actually, the latter might be a problem. Substance abusers can be quite rational.
In my state at least, a person must swear that they do not have any mental disorder in order to purchase a firearm. Now, while I may suspect some depressed individuals (and perhaps others) may swear falsely, it does seem to me that part of the approval process should be to examine government records regarding competency.
ReplyDelete@4:44
ReplyDeleteDoes it define mental disorder? If your state requires it, I could probably find the statute if you point me to the correct state. I'm just curious.
@319
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should actually have read the reg, and not gotten your info from FAUX news or the NRSlay. The only people who are getting their guns taken away are those who need a rep payee AND meet or equal a mental listing. People who meet or equal a listing are either so severely mentally incapacitated by their illness or have such low IQs, anyone in their right mind would never want them to have access to a firearm.
9:37 p.m. - is that true? I really doubt that the reg specified people who met a listing were the only ones affected. I just can't see that being the standard. I recall reading that it applied to those who had rep payees. I need to review some of Charles Hall's prior posts on this to be certain, though.
ReplyDeleteIf, as Charles states, this is only a prohibition on new purchase of guns, than I'm all for it. I do decry the liberal press (of which I follow closely, and identify with) from characterizing this as a loosening of gun control to let metally ill people own guns. It's pretty limited, actually.
ReplyDelete@10:03 - see 20 CFR 421.110(b)(2).
ReplyDelete@everyone - the final rule notice is at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007#sectno-reference-421.110%20.
I have a payee because I cannot manage money. I just don't understand numbers once dollar signs and weird bank fees get involved. If I had a firearm I'd be a million times more likely to commit suicide (PTSD and major depressive disorder) but I'd never hurt another person. You'd think the rich heartless folks in power WANT me dead, as eager as they are to hand me a gun... but hey, one less drain on society, right? Just kill us all and be done with it already!
ReplyDeleteIts probably more simple than that. Smith and Wesson just want to sell you a gun and they donate to congressmen. They basically don't care what you do with it, they have immunity from liabikity for atrocities.
ReplyDeleteDo we know how many people become entitle to Social Security benefits, have a severe mental impairment, and have a rep payee appointed for them, and then subsequently purchase a gun? Versus how many people receiving Social Security, have a severe mental impairment, have a repaye, and already owned a gun. Perhaps the regulation is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
ReplyDeletethe regs are clear: the only people affected by this are those who meet or equal a mental listing and require a rep payee. if you just have a severe mental impairment that doesn't meet/equal a listing it does not apply to you. similarly, if you have a rep payee, and don't meet or equal a mental listing, it doesn't apply to you.
ReplyDeletewhat it does: again, read the reg. all SSA would be doing, would be notifying the Attorney General to include these people in the background check system, which bars them from purchasing AND possessing a firearm.
Do you want people with sub 70 IQs owning guns? Do you want people who are psychotic to own guns? I know I sure don't
You can be on the No Fly List and still buy a gun why not these guys?
ReplyDelete@1:19
ReplyDeleteIf the mental listing alone were all that barred firearm ownership, I might have a problem with it. Particularly in regard to 12.07 (Somatic Symptom and related disorders), 12.10 (autism spectrum disorder), and 12.13 (eating disorders). However, the additional requirement that only those who need a payee are blocked, suggests these listings would not result in a denial of a firearm.
I agree with your points, however I am not sure you recognize those who don't have a payee but meet a listing also are not blocked.
@ 9:11
ReplyDeletebecause you can wind up on the no-fly list if your name is similar/the same as a suspected terrorist, or if you have been in too close proximity to even a suspected terrorist, or if you're one too many degrees of separation too close to a terrorist via email/phone contacts. That's why. The no-fly list is gargantuan and full of people who don't deserve to be on it.
Fron The text of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007#sectno-reference-421.110%20.
ReplyDelete"To reiterate, we will report an individual's record to the NICS based on his or her inability to manage his or her affairs due to a disabling mental impairment that meets or equals the criteria found in one of the Mental Disorders Listings. A criminal background check is not necessary for us to make a determination on that issue. However, we will obtain a criminal background check as part of the relief process. The relief inquiry focuses on whether the applicant will be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety, and whether the granting of the relief would be contrary to the public interest. The distinction we have made in these rules, under which we will obtain a criminal background check as part of the relief process, but not as part of the referral process, is consistent with the NIAA"