Obama Seeks To Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights For Seniors

Social Security Administration Releases Proposed Rulemaking on Disability-Related Gun Ban.

Social Security Card
Social Security Card
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- On Friday April 29th 2016, the Social Security Administration (SSA) released a draft of a proposed rulemaking that would supposedly bring the agency into compliance with what it claims is its responsibility to report prohibited persons to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The proposal focuses on five factors to determine if certain SSA recipients receiving Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” and are therefore federally prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. It would also create an administrative procedure for affected individuals to petition for restoration of their rights. The proposed rule will remain open for public comment for 60 days.

We have been reporting since last summer on the Obama administration’s plan to use SSA as a basis to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Concerns were initially raised by a report in the Los Angeles Times that SSA would follow the lead of the Department of Veterans Affairs by broadly reporting all beneficiaries receiving payments whose funds were disbursed to another individual on the beneficiary’s behalf. This prompted congressional inquiries, to which SSA replied that the plan would not apply to all beneficiaries assigned representative payees. The agency did not, however, elaborate on who would be included, and it did not rule out using the assignment of a representative payee as a consideration in determining who was reportable.

SSA’s intentions have now been made public. As outlined in the proposal, SSA would use five factors to determine which of its Disability Insurance or SSI recipients have been “adjudicated” by the agency as “mental defectives.”

The first factor is whether the individual filed his or her claim with SSA based on disability. Thus, merely receiving retirement benefits from SSA would not trigger further action.

The second factor would require the agency to determine which individuals have “been found disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments set forth in SSA rules. Those disorders cover a broad range of conditions, including but not limited to organic mental disorders, intellectual disabilities, anxiety-related disorders, personality disorders, substance addiction, and autism and other developmental disorders. Symptoms of these disorders can range from outright incoherence or hallucination to milder presentations such as sleep or appetite disturbances, decreased energy, or even “inflated self-esteem.”

The third factor is whether the individual has “a primary diagnosis code in [SSA’s] records based on a mental impairment.” According to the proposal, “The primary diagnosis refers to the basic condition that renders an individual disabled” under relevant SSA rules.

The fourth factor focuses on the individual’s age, specifically on whether he or she is at least 18 years old but has not yet attained full retirement age.

Factor five is whether the agency has determined the beneficiary’s payments are to be made through a representative payee based on a determination that he or she is incapable of managing them as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.

If all five of these factors are met, the individual would be reported to NICS as a “mental defective” and banned (presumably for life) from receiving or possessing firearms.

Elderly 1911
Obama Seeks To Restrict 2Nd Amendment Rights For Seniors

The rule would also allow affected individuals to petition for restoration of rights. Under its terms, relief from Second Amendment disabilities “may” be granted if the individual could “establish to [SSA’s] satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety, and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”

Overall, while the proposal is not as drastic as many initially feared and is procedurally more narrowly-tailored than the indefensible procedures of the Veteran’s Administration (VA), it still raises substantial cause for concern. Far more people are potentially implicated in the SSA regime than in VA’s regime because of the broader reach of SSA’s programs. The White House itself estimates that some 75,000 each year could be affected, with no upper limit or end in sight. And while SSA’s procedures at least consider (unlike VA’s) whether the underlying basis of disability is a mental impairment, those impairments cover a range of conditions, from those that might increase a tendency toward aggressive or self-destructive behavior to those that won’t.

Indeed, at no point in the actual “adjudication” is the individual’s propensity for violence a necessary consideration. 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. The procedures established for relief, moreover, lack adequate due process and do not even allow the petitioner the opportunity for an administrative hearing.

From beginning to end, in fact, SSA’s process makes no provision whatsoever for the individual to attend a formal hearing before an adjudicative authority, to put forth their own experts, or to cross-examining adverse witnesses. It only involves anonymous bureaucrats reviewing documents in a government-compiled file. That is hardly the process most Americans would consider an adjudication, and certainly not one sufficient to strip someone of fundamental liberties.

Ultimately, SSA’s rulemaking highlights the need for systemic changes to the federal laws concerning when mental illness results in a person being prohibited from possessing and receiving firearms.

Financial acumen, even if related to an underlying issue with sleep disturbances or inflated self-esteem, has no necessary relationship to a propensity for violence, and it’s not a sufficient basis to strip persons of their inalienable right to self-defense. This is exactly why NRA is supporting corrective legislation, including the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, the Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act, and the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

In the meantime, comments may be submitted on the SSA rulemaking in several ways:

  • Via the online Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov (use the “Search” function to find docket number SSA–2016–0011);
  • Via facsimile at (410) 966-2830; or
  • By sending them through the mail to NICS Comments, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Freedom Warrior
Freedom Warrior
4 years ago

If you stand by and let me be denied anything by them, they will come and take it from you. The “Amendments” to the Constitution of the United States are under the heading of the “Bill of Rights” not the bill of privileges. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview The amendments are enumerated to emphasize the rights of the Citizens’ and the States, then to the limiting the power of a central government the founding fathers feared, but knew we needed. They had the foresight to emplace limits to protect us from an over bearing central government even though they were trying to form one… Read more »

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

If he we’re alive today JFK would be demeaned as a “Right Wing Extremist”. That’s how far Left the Democratic Party has shifted since the ‘Radical’ 1960’s.

Rich
Rich
4 years ago

Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin.. Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control.. The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his “classical conditioning” theories. In fact, Pavlov was disturbed that Vladimir Lenin would use these conditioning methods against the people in order to get them to accept communism. Since that time the social sciences have been used as… Read more »

Rich
Rich
4 years ago

There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

If the DSM is the standard by which Obama wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

BEWARE, BEWARE

5WarVeteran
5WarVeteran
4 years ago

Well seeing as Obastard is carrying a social security number of a man from Connecticut who was born in 1889. Perhaps the SSA should report his ass for being to goddamned old?

Thom Paine
Thom Paine
4 years ago
Reply to  5WarVeteran

Not to mention Soetoro ,AKA Obama,also failed E-Verify and they prosecuted the whistle-blower instead of the real criminal. It is 1984 and George Orwell if I’ve ever heard of it.

JohnC
JohnC
4 years ago

The Social Security Administration seems to be overstepping their authority. We do not need yet another agency authorizing or in this case prohibiting gun ownership.

Thom Paine
Thom Paine
4 years ago

Barry Soetoro and his cultural marxist minions,can kiss my white patriot ass.

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

Guns are the ‘fly’ in Obama’s socialist ointment. LOL

andy
andy
4 years ago

They’re coming to take you away, haha…. they’re coming to take you away!

2nd Amender
2nd Amender
4 years ago

Socialist/Progressive/Communists have infiltrated the mind-set of half the United States population. Let history be your guide….Russia, China, Cuba….plenty more in South America…..are countries where DO-GOODERS and their ideas ignite the tempers and imaginations of the poor, in turn the Academics chirp in about the inequality of wealth, then come the religious zealots….the “soul savers”, whose ideas get more people killed than any other in history, (and we’ve got one in Pope Francis, folks)……next thing you know students start balking at the requirements which don’t fit their needs or their expectations, so they hold rallies and protest demonstrations demanding less stringent… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

Soetoro (aka Obama) is tightening the noose on the American public. Soon, the various federal agencies will be saying if you have more than one gun you are obsessed and there for mentally defective. Then the agencies will say if you have a gun you are obsessed, and therefore mentally defective. Then some bureaucrat will issue a ruling letter saying that you are now adjudicated mentally defective, and if you do not send in all the guns that they can trace to you your funds will be cut off and search and confiscate team will be sent to your house.

GregW
GregW
4 years ago

Naksuthin, what you have pointed out is all those gun control laws are unconstitutional, because the 2A is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. That’s why there is no “exception clause” in the 2A.

What SSA is doing shows exactly why the government was prohibitied from fringing on the 2A. It has taken activisits jurists and corrupt congress to allow the infringement on the 2A.

Joe Capuano
Joe Capuano
4 years ago

I don’t fall in this criteria, I do collect social security. There is no way in HELL they are taking my guns

David C. Telliho
David C. Telliho
4 years ago

How about Obama(if thats his name) have his freedom restricted to 1 minute of fresh air,food and water/day. That may be too generous, Or encourage him to crawl back in his wood pile

Naksuthin
Naksuthin
4 years ago

It is totally legal to restrict people with mental health issues from owning a gun The 2nd Amendment right to Gun ownership is a privilege (similar to the right to drive a car). Gun ownership is not an inalienable right like the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion An” inalienable right ” is defined as “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred. 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE BASED ON NATURAL LAW An inalienable right like the First Amendment is a right based on natural law, because all… Read more »

Todd
Todd
4 years ago
Reply to  Naksuthin

Your logic is sound if you assume that the 2nd grants a right. The 2nd, nor any of the other amendments, does not grant a right, it protects that right. The restriction of that right is something that was put in place by supreme courts who do not observe original intent and is unconstitutional.

Jerry
Jerry
4 years ago
Reply to  Naksuthin

Please tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says anything about a driver license. I have never seen it. Also please tell me where it also says where illegal aliens have any rights in the United States. The Bill of Rights are for United States CITIZENS.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago
Reply to  Naksuthin

Naksuthin, “The 2nd Amendment right to Gun ownership is a privilege (similar to the right to drive a car).”

Clearly, you have contradicted yourself in the first sentence. If the Second Amendment is not a Right, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? You have to be living under a rock or in a cave not to know about the Heller ruling.

For the record, I did not waste my time reading the rest of your post.

Rich
Rich
4 years ago
Reply to  Naksuthin

words from a gun grabber who does not understand ——-

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Naksuthin

Naksuthin, I am afraid that you are too late. Lawyers, judges, and other legal experts from the time of the founders of this nation up to our present time have already decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States enumerates, recognizes, and enshrines the keeping and bearing of arms as an inalienable Right, that shall not be so much as even infringed upon. All of your logical gymnastics are moot.