Obama’s Parting Shot at the Second Amendment

By Jeff Knox

Prohibited Persons
Prohibited Persons

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- In the final days of the Obama administration, several agencies finalized new rules and regulations that Mr. Obama had been pushing for.

Among those, the Social Security Administration, or SSA, announced that they have finalized rules under which they will be reporting – possibly many thousands of – Social Security benefit recipients to the FBI's National Instant Check System as “prohibited persons.

Inclusion in NICS means complete loss of all Second Amendment rights, and makes it a felony for the person to possess or have access to any firearm or ammunition – ever.

It also makes a felon of anyone who provides a “prohibited person” access to firearms or ammunition. So parents of developmentally disabled children who receive SSI, and have used shooting and hunting as a family bonding activity, can continue doing that until the child turns 18, at which time, they would be committing a felony if they allowed their ward to touch a gun or ammunition.

Social Security Recipients : What the law says is that “prohibited person” includes anyone: “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” That's it.

The basis of this “final rule” is a bureaucratic finding that the person is “unable to manage their own affairs.” Just as we've seen from the Veterans Administration since the mid-1990s, the SSA is now submitting to NICS the name and identifying information of anyone whom they say is “adjudicated mentally defective” under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

The primary criteria for that determination is that they be an adult who, rather than handling SSA benefits themselves, has a “designated payee” who acts as a fiduciary to manage the person's benefits. For instance, a person might have sustained a head injury and, as a result, has trouble dealing with numbers, so they have a parent or spouse named as their “designated payee.”

Under the new SSA rules, that person will be labeled as “adjudicated mentally defective” and will be barred from ever holding a gun or ammunition for the rest of their life.

It doesn't matter to the SSA if the person is fully functional in every other way, if they “can't manage their own affairs” with SSA, they are considered a “mental defective,” and their name is submitted to NICS.

In some cases, someone who requested a “designated payee” as a matter of convenience, might be able to appeal the NICS submission, but they can only appeal after the submission has been made, and they could be looking at significant time and legal expense. They would also have to remove their guns and ammunition from their home until the matter was resolved. That could be a problem in states like Washington, where any firearm transfer, even just temporarily while sorting out a SSA mistake, must be processed through a licensed dealer, with a per-gun fee, and a required background check.

Assuming the person won their appeal, legally transferring the guns back into their possession would require processing again, including the per-gun fee, and a background check on the person getting his guns back.

The thing that is the most frustrating about this new rule, is that SSA says they are merely obeying a law which received broad bipartisan support, and which was supported by the NRA. The law is called the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007. It was passed in response to the horrible attack at Virginia Tech. One of the provisions of the act requires that government agencies share with NICS the names of people who are prohibited from firearm possession for mental health reasons. Even more frustrating, the law which forbids possession of firearms by “mental defectives” does not say anything about people who can't manage their own financial affairs.

What the law says is that “prohibited person” includes anyone: “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.” That's it. Nothing about managing financial affairs, etc. But several years ago, the BATFE, promulgated regulations for enforcing that line of the law, and in their definition of terms, they stated that “adjudicated as a mental defective” means:

“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.”

Out of the blue, the BATFE simply added the part about the “capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” They also stretched the term “adjudicated” to now include rulings by boards, commissions, and “other lawful authority,” which they say includes the bureaucrats at the VA and the SSA.

Where was Congress when this agency took it upon itself to overreach so dramatically.

And where have they been in the subsequent two decades as this unfounded regulation has been used to strip Second Amendment rights from countless, innocent veterans?

Let's hope that this ruling from the SSA will be the wake-up call Congress needs to finally take action to correct this travesty. Please let your senators and representative know that you want this travesty corrected. The number for the Capitol Switchboard is (202)224-3121.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

  • 130 thoughts on “Obama’s Parting Shot at the Second Amendment

    1. Mywife and I have, for some years now, “hired”‘ we pay these people, a financial advisory firm to handle our investments, such as they are. The person we deal directly with contacts us prior to buying or selling securities, but otherwise operates on our behalfs. Based on a view of our actions, our decision to hire this financial advisor, might we be deemed incompetent to own, use and take care of items of personal property, in particular firearms? I wonder.

    2. Pardon me for so noting, but if a person has sufficient grasp and awareness of reality to designate another to assist in manageing their financial affairs, and so does, that this individual should be complimented, hopefully they choose wisely, rather than being punished, as certain bureaucratic routines lead one to believe is what would happen, vis-a-VI’s the loss of rights that seemingly follows.

    3. Gentlemen:

      Reading through the foregoing, it strikes me, sadly, that there seems more heat than light generated. I guess that happens when people discuss something they have strongly held views on. That said, please read on, I believe that the following is sad, troubling, and worthy of mention and thought. Looking at what is and has been going on in Washington, DC and to an extent in state capitols too, as well as in some cities, the general structure of the citizens rights and prerogeratives is and has been under attack for some time, in the process the above mentioned, the structure has been seriously, some would say, fatally damaged. Note, the referenced attacks and damages have been inflicted on the general structure of citizens rights, aside from the ongoing attack on the citizens right to arms. These attacks come in the form of legislative proposals as well as bureaucratic action.

      Cutting to the chase, what I find troubling and particularly sad is the following. The seeming puzzlement on the part of the citizenry re the above mentioned, the general ennui that seems all that comes forth from the citizenry, faced with ongoing and determined attacks on their rights and prerogeratives. In short, what the hell is wrong with the citizenry, and how come it seems that they are unaware of, uninterested in the fact that rights undefended soon become rights lost. I submit that the citizenry really needs to think and to act on that. Strange Isn’t it that they don’t seem to, exceptions to this condition being few and far between. How long has it been since correspondents here contacted their supposed servants, the people they elect to office, and who, by the way, create and empower the bureaucracies that more and more seem to rule us all.

    4. Charles – Saw it too! Good news for starting to get this country back up and running again!

      And don’t worry the really Americans on this site are not spelling NAZI’s.

      1. @Macofjaack and Charles, Yep, the pres used Barry Soetoto’s own technique against him, fire fought with fire! The next step is getting the other two branches of government back to doing their jobs.

    5. Maybe some of you caught this on the news but President Trump signed an order stopping all of Obama’s last minute mandates. Not looking to attack anyone for their point of view whether right or wrong or correct anyone’s spelling (Greg), but only stating what I heard last night on Fox.

    6. hi all
      LOL…this is the 1st time, that i’ve taken, to comment on 1 of these pages, so with that said…i will be honest here i HAVE NOT read all the posts here, i did skim over them, and what i noticed more than anything, is the (BASHING) that you have done to each other (childish) “we are supposed to be adults here”…
      i’m not a genius nor a moron either!…the point i would like to make is that, i’ve been out of school longer than many of you have been alive …i really don’t care about (mispelled) words or (good) friggin grammer…the intended (context) is what matters!…
      that said…”WE THE PEOPLE”… elect the individuals to speak and act on our “WTP” behalf!! what many do not realize is that “WTP” can remove them with the (VOTE)…they are supposed to answer to US…”WTP”!!!….so use your energy to contact your elected official (but by all means keep it respectful)…let ’em know that you voted them into office… and you can just as easy vote them OUT…let them know that the LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, and so on… (((ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE))) remember we pay their salary!!!!
      don’t bash each other…we are on the same side here…((to get the B S laws changed))…and don’t forget laws are changed almost everyday!!!
      i live in this great country of AMERICA and the Bill of Rights are supposed to protect me from bad things…and when our leaders want to remove my rights and cause more harm than good….ITS TIME TO CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP
      i voted for a change in the past …and will do so again in the future, if it is not acceptable to me, i will contact my elected reps. and let them know how i want them to vote on issues of importance…

      people we cannot be a fly on a screen waiting to get in…we need to take action… so many of our rights are being placed in jeopardy…we have to stand UNITED… or this country will…like so many others… FAIL!!
      we need to rally behind our NEW ADMINISTRATION…give’em a chance…remember we can make some changes in 2 years…
      i know that this post was a little off course and i do apagize for that …oh BTW sorry for mispelled words..it saves time on typing

      1. Welcome to the site Mr. American citizen! Yep, we are a tough bunch. Grammar and punctuation is important to many of us because we need to know what it is that you are really saying before we unload on you! We need to know if mean ” Let’s get ready to eat, Grandma.” or you mean “let’s get ready to eat grandma.” The author has a special responsibility to respect his audience and convey his intentions to his readership and not place the burden of guessing on his readers. I look forward to reading your thoughts and opinions in the near future. But be forewarned, this is a knowledgable, educated, experienced worldly crowd.

    7. When you to run down anyone who doesn’t either spell right or uses what you see as incorrect formatting in communicating either verbally or written then you have shown your ignorance of the very reason for talking or writing. Communications is not a set thing and every language has a set of RULES that are a guide to help do that. The whole purpose of language is to express or transfer a thought to someone. If the thought transfer was successful. When traveling to another country you will sometimes use any method to get your thought understood. You must realize that their are many times everyone will use what is not according to the rules but gets the job done. Criticizing some one for infractions of the language rules shows that you have ignored the content of message, spoken or written leaving you as the one looking stupid and incoherent to the subject being expressed. So if you want to look smart and intelligent then grasp the content of the persons thought and ignore the guide rules and process his thought . Then the communication was successful. You look a lot smarter “YEA for you. “

    8. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/315425-trump-white-house-tells-agencies-to-halt-regulations?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5825

      President Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, issued a memo Friday night telling federal agencies to not issue any more regulations.

      Hours after his boss was sworn into office, Priebus told the agencies not to send any regulation to the Federal Register until the rule is reviewed and approved by the new president’s appointed agency head.

      Any rule that’s already been sent to the Office of the Federal Register but not yet published must be withdrawn, the order says. For rules that were published in the last 60 days, Priebus told agencies to publish a notice to delay the effective date of the rule for at least another 60 days.

      The memo is careful to exclude any rule that’s in response to an emergency situation or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial or national security matters.

      If the rule raises any substantial questions of law or policy after it’s delay, however, Priebus told the agencies to notify the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB director.

      The order from Priebus is not uncommon.

      When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, he too had his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, send a letter to the federal agencies telling them to refrain from sending any new or proposed rules to the Federal Register.

      The agencies were also told then to withdraw any rulemakings that had not yet been published and consider extending by 60 days the effective date of those rules that had already been published.

      It looks like President Trump has Trumped obama’s parting gift.

      1. It would be interesting to see the outcome on this. I’d appreciate the NRA, for example, pushing for some common sense in having the SSA stick to funds distribution instead of gun enforcement.

      2. Trump should be sending an order to all US Attorneys, SES, and Agency heads down to the GS 15 level to send in their resignations. That to is a new president tradition.

    9. Gene Raino – Glad you felt the need to post the same thing six times!! Once on your stupid comment is more than enough!!!

    10. Since it is a proven fact that liberalism is a mental disorder, and its against the law for anyone with mental problems to own a gun I believe the ATFE should just check to see if they are voting democrat and then the ATFE could run out and arrest the crazy bastards !!

    11. Technically, a lawyer could argue that all children labeled as ADHD, and dyslexic are “mentally defective.” At this point that’s about half the male population under 16. This is a dangerously ambiguous law.

      1. Maybe it’s YOU that’s vanishing!

        Just Kidding.

        Sometimes a message you write can take forever to get posted. I once wrote a diatribe worthy of novella status and it took over a day to post. I was wondering if I hadn’t deleted it during an unmedicated moment (uh-oh, don’t let the SSA read this)

        I’ve seen some really ugly posts, so I don’t believe much gets deleted.

        1. kind of wondered about the automated moderator thing and 1 key word and you get deleted or even banned

          these automated things have no possible way to tell difference between like calling a person a nazi and comparing historical and current events

    12. Congress writes a law in general terms. Then the government agency writes the regulations enforcing the law. A law may be one page but the regulations enforcing it may be 100 pages!!!

      1. but agencies keep going way beyond enforcing

        they keep making new regulations that in reality is making new laws

        compare regulations to the actual law they say you now violate and you see thousands of times the regulation actually adds things law never says

      2. And therein lies the problem, or might one note. THE PROBLEMS. Seems to me that re the above
        comment, re 1 page of law, vs 100 pages of regulations, that The Congress has the absolute responsibility of overseeing the antics of those who “enforce” the law, and write the “regulations” persuant to the laws in enacts. Of course I’m rather old fashioned and stuffy about some things.

      1. start doing research and you find the biggest gun control people also support the communist party

        gee wonder what they have in mind for my life

      2. Actually, Lee, I wish we DID look at it that way. When crime is the result of bad economics or poor infrastructure or any of a dozen reasons our lawmakers take the easy route by blaming and regulaig guns, completely overlooking the real problems.

      3. I believe it was the then Suprindent of the N.J. State Police, under former Governor Whitman, in tetimony before the state legislature offered, during said testimony, ” we do not control guns, we control people”.

    13. I’m none too happy about this.

      I collect SSI and I chose and by law had to have a family member as a payee due to some problems with my disability and because I do not have the patience to handle a lot of this stuff.

      Yet I’m still competent to change my own clothes, exercise, bathe myself, make money through odd jobs and cook my own meals and I have an average IQ, a HSD and a trade diploma.

      Now thanks to this measure I’m completely disarmed since the area I live in has a problem with violent individuals.

      What am I going to do now to protect myself and my loved ones?

      What can I possibly do?

      1. screw the government

        just be 1 more felon

        stopping some idiot trying to kill you for pain pills more important than caring what government thinks

        really is times must ignore insane laws and regulations

        think — if 200 million people go around ignoring insane laws what can the government really do since not that many prison cells exist

      2. people need to ignore insane regulations

        not getting killed by some thug wanting your pain pills just way more important than what some desk jockey thinks

        if 200 million people ignore insane regulations not much government can do since not have 200 million prison cells

      3. do what you got to do to not get killed from some thug wanting your pain pills

        your life more important than what some anti gun government idiot thinks

      4. Wayne, these regulations are not arbitrary with peeps such as yourself. The regulations allow for circumstance. If you’re as competent as anyone else you have nothing to fear, as this was intended to address people with bigger problems.

        I’m not blind to the Pandora’s Smelly Box, but addressing mental issues as they relate to gun control should be something we all should agree is necessary.

        If you’re not a loon, I’m comfortable with you keeping a .38 bedside.

          1. You can repeat this all you want. Saying it does not alter the meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
            The Second Amendment could have been written differently…
            The security of the people to live in a state of freedom depends on the ability of the people to organize a fully functioning militia therefore the right of the people to keep arms secure from confiscation and to bear those arms in personal self-defense shall not be infringed.
            Not as elegant.

          2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            Amazing I don’t see the word STATES anywhere in this. Try reading before you engage your mouth!

            1. In a marginaly related subject, all but maybe five or six states have their own articles of gun rights protection in their own state constitutions. I learned this a while ago, but I’m certain it’s still correct. I don’t know how reaching those state guarantees are if they’re in opposition to fed rules, but I can assume they’re still powerful enough.

      5. I’m in the same boat. I HAVE A VERY HIGH IQ, BUT ADHD so i CHOOSE to have my mother as a payee. You have to meet 5 other criteria along with being officially DECLARED mentally defective. This includes but not limited to commission by a judge to a mental institution. Shown not to have an understanding of what is understood by a prudent person to be right & wrong.
        I still don’t trust this situation, so I have a hearing on 30 January to drop the voluntary payee status. This law comes into full effect 1 January 2018.

        1. not just a judge to commit you

          read atf expanded version and they added commission or board meaning a group of average people commit you and yes these mental health boards is made from average not even a doctor boards so you might get the person working the cash register at mcdonalds on that board

          and social security has their own people making up their own board meaning yup social security can call you mental defective and qualify under being a board or commission to screw you

          so tell me how you can avoid being called a mental defective since these people have no thought to just bad side effects from prescribed drugs and yes prescription drugs like anti depressants have side effects like hallucinations and aggression and suicide – just start reading in a doctors big book of drugs

          if people want to learn more how about reading about mary lincoln and her migraine drug psychotic side effect getting her committed and no this kind of thinking of must be mental illness since drugs never ever do bad things never stopped

          1. Sorry, Jamie, but you’re wrong. The review boards cannot be made up of clerks, etc., because of medical privacy issues. Anyway, there are a number of conditions that must be first met before the SSA can revoke your right to a firearm. While it may be easy to keep guns out of the hands of a raving lunatic who’s been institutionalized for 47 years, it will be a chore for others.

            We’re suffering anxiety over nothing. The SSA will be undergoing severe legislative and judicial overview regarding this, and it will be something they’ll take seriously. We need to get the facts before we jump from buildings.

    14. “Isn’t that what the NRA is always asking for, that current gun laws be enforced?”

      Yes, it is.
      But there’s a big difference between enforcing existing laws, and redefining those laws without legislative action, to fit your agenda.

      1. @Big Bill, you are correct when you identify that big difference, and the proper name for that difference is political corruption.

      2. This is new, not existing. The bureaucrats would like to add everybody to the prohibited list. The obama justice department under the direction of loretta lynch has scaled back arrests of violent criminals. obama has pardoned drug traffickers who he says were “non-violent” despite the fact that many used guns and may have committed murders that were part of the large number that are never solved.
        They like gun violence because it helps them push their confiscation agenda.

    15. Fight to rewrite the second amendment so it fits your views, not the other way around. I own many guns, and it upsets me that you are casual as to the owning of a weapon made to kill people. It is not a tool to eat with or build a house with. There should be rules as to who owns guns and how they are sold. Fighting that is childish and wreckless.

      1. when the regulations get written in ways your family member living 50 miles from a bank and no car is called defective just because have a payee then yes people need to fight

        and when regulations get written in ways some agenda pushing not a doctor and never even meet you desk jockey can decide who is defective and take away your rights – yes need to fight

        when some person can make fake reports to win against you in court for divorce or some other thing and get your rights taken away – yes need to fight

      2. @Brian, are you sure that you are not rewriting the Second Amendment to fit your views. Nor were guns invented to kill people. Societies have recognized that people killing other people is wrong since Cain killed Able. Firearms are merely an extension of the person using them. Apparently, you think that guns are for killing people. I do not. I know that that is what artillery is for.

    16. If someone is “adjudicated mentally defective” – considered too incompetent to have a gun or ammunition – how can they be considered competent to stand trial?

      1. Really starting to make more sense now that you mention it, one Ammendment at a time. But it is not a privilege it’s a right we must stand for.

      2. True and according to the government they are not citizens of equality since they have a defect. Hence they are sub human citizens and do not have the same rights as a real human. I’ve heard of government arguments like this before . 1930s German, pre civil war , etc.

        1. Mark, you’re looking at it the wrong way; no one in their right minds would give a gun to someone who a shrink has documented as psychotic, or suicidal, or has anger control issues, or who has difficulty maintaining lucidity or comprehending reality. Would you?

          These regulations have nothing to do with race-hate. You should know better.

            1. you keep parroting that… but yonder come de coyote to eat off yer haid…. READ that Second… it clearly declares the RIGHT to keep and bear belongs to THE PEOPLE. Not states, not FedGov, not counties, not police, not military… THE PEOPLE. COmmon ordinary everyday citizens.

      3. @Hank, If an adjudicated mental defective commits a felony the issue of whether they are too mentally defective to stand trial is decided at a pretrial competency hearing, in most jurisdictions. The evidence, in most jurisdictions, must show that the defendant “knew what they were doing” and “knew that it was wrong” So it is theoretically possible for an adjudicated mental defective to by tried.

      4. adjudicated mentally defective will have a guardian taking care of ALL their affairs, so that person will deal with the legal aspects for hm, But this is not the issue addressed in this article, The LAW, passed by the Congress, speaks of “adjudicated mentally defective”, a clearly defined situation, and rightly so.
        These new RULES are, first, not law, and second, illegal. they have no real authority. What BATF and others are doing is making rules that would declare certain ones incompetent…. where the law dictates “adjudicated mentally defeictive”. VERY different thigns, each clearly defined.

    17. These rules are not acts of Congress. These rules are clearly unconstitutional. It would be cheaper for President Trump, by executive order, to direct the agencies to repeal the offending rules, than litigate up to the S Ct. So just from a governmental efficiency stand point.

    18. I don’t believe that this will be as dramatic as the article makes it seem. I am a gun owner, and support many of the safegaurds.

    19. I think this is discrimination against people on SSI,This law should never have passed. I am really upset at the NRA,Where were they. I thought they were for our right to own a firearm, But I guess I am wrong. I can only hope President Trump overturns this law because if you can total the number of people it will take rights away from would be astounding and a number I can;t even imagine

      1. @Mike M, He does not know to capitalize the first word of a sentence, either. Not to mention his thinking that it is his internet.

      2. @mike, Because those things are not laws enacted by Congress, but rather rules promulgated by the various agencies, the NRA had no ability to stop them. The agencies are part of the executive branch and are creating these rules because the executive at that time wanted those rules created. Finally, we all hope that at the, now, President of the United States Donald Trump will order these rules repealed as soon as possible.

    20. Sports figures and Hollywood actors almost always have managers to handle money.. If a person uses a stock broker or a financial professional to manage their money, does that make them mentally defective?

      Legally, ATF, SSA and other agencies are administrative, but to be adjudicated requires a court, a judge and a defense and not just a bureaucrat.

      This needs to be a first 100 day action by the new Trump Administration.

      1. You are the Dumb POS to beleive Obama didn’t want to TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY !!! These laws need redefine. Yes the Mentally ill need prohibited but this Law went TOO FAR !! The BOLLYWOOD DIRA LICTS SHOULDNT HAVE REAL GUNS ANYWAY !! THEY CAN’T ACT LET ALONE KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN! ALSO Stay out of Politics , REGAN was the Only real man besides JOHN WAYNE from BOLLYWOOD !! OVER.PAID,OVER RATED DROP OUTS ANYWAY !!!

        1. Yikes! Here’s just a suggestion, if there’s someone else at home with you, have them proof read your comments before you hit the “post comment” button. I realize that even after proofing things can slip by but with yours there were several problems.

      2. Really, Jim? You’re comparing a person who struggles with competency against a sports figure who hires an accountant?

        Geez, read the regulation instead of stating a position based on this incomplete (and hard-leaning) article; the SSA will not base their determinations on age or coin-toss or ego. They won’t send a guy out so you can pick a card, any card, and you won’t have to call it in the air, either.

        Where recipients fall in these regulations will pretty much be based on medical history and court processes, dude. This article is clearly one-sided, and it’s a mistake to accept it as gospel. After reading the regulations, I would struggle to find fault with them.

        No hate.

        1. The Social Security office will report directly to the FBI. No court or appeal process is included in the administrative rule. If you’re denied it will take a long process to find out why and then a ton of money to hire lawyers and run an appeal.

          1. WTH, were did you get that “fact” about the SSA reporting to the FBI? OMG, dude, these are two distinct departments with two completely different processes and agenda. The SSA will get background info from the FBI but does not report to them. Hell, we get background checks when we buy guns, so no big deal. Anyone who tells you that the SSA constuctively reports to the FBI is an idiot. You should not listen to them. You should not lend them money, either.

        2. no, he’s comparing a Veteran or an individual receiving Social Security payments using a financial manager to a Hollywood bigwig actor using a financial manager. WHY do the Veteran and Social Security beneficiary lost their right to arms but the Hollywood Hot Shot does not?

          1. Tionico:

            This isn’t about a vet or an individual choosing to use a financial manager to handle his money versus a Hollywood bigwig, etc. It never was, and you know it. J Maklin knows it, too. You both are being senselessly obtuse over this issue, almost as if you’re intentionally trying to rumor-monger.

            Pay attention: this set of regulations is aimed at people who receive federal SSA benefits and who have been adjudicated as unable to manage their lives to the point that a third party has to manage it for them. People who declare that this also includes people who CHOOSE to hire financial managers are just being stupid. Stupid, as in just being stupid.

            Any fool can see the difference between a veteran who retired and is drawng SSA benefits and has those fed funds directed to a managed portfolio for continued retirement growth versus some poor mentally deficient sap who can barely feed themselves and would probably eat an SSA check instead of cashing it. Attempting to assign equal values to those two is asinine. I cannot understand why some people on this thread can’t comprehend the differences.

            It’s frustrating to enter into these dialogues with people who refuse to keep it simple by sticking to the facts at hand; the SSA is NOT an arm of the FBI and cannot be party to the FBI’s enforcement strategies, the only people who can be subject to the constraint of gun enhancements are those that receive SSA benefits AND have been declared by competent legal or medical authority as unfit to safely manage their own affairs due to either mental infirmity or psychological disorder. The persons subject to this have to meet five levels of criteria, and the checks and balances ensure that the criteria are clear.

            Nowhere in the regulations is it stated that simply having a hedge fund qualifies for gun control. Anyone on this thread dumb enough to believe that some retiree using Vanguard to manage their 401k while getting SSA benefits should be the ones to have their gun rights restricted, especially after having it explained over and over to them.

            Not hating on anybody, and no disrespect intended, but the frustration is high over thread members making up ridiculous reasons to justify a case of watery bowels. These regulations, as written, are aimed at beneficiaries who are under psyciatric or judicial care because of their inability to care for themselves, and who clearly would represent a hazard if given firearms.

        3. Sorry but I deal with social security on the issue on a regular basis. there is NO court involved in most of these decisions. There is no due process. All it take is the signature of a doctor and you have a representative payee, no court, no hearing.

    21. Good old Congress – democrats in particular and scumbag obama specifically. Time to tell democrats to go sh#t in their hats – again.

        1. but regulations get used the same as if they are law

          try violating a epa regulation once – how about one with a million dollar a day fine and see if courts tell you not to worry not a law

          1. ONLY the Congress can make law. Federal agencies are NOT congress, though many of them behave as if they were. THAT needs to change.. and has for a long time.

            When CONGRESS pass a law that is consistent with the Constitution, then it becomes the law of the land. If Congress do not pass it, or it is not consistent with the Constitution, then its not. Simple.. basic, Even a child can understand it. Brother can’t make up and enforce the rules of the household, Dad can, and should.

    22. Hopefully the new administration will correct the SSA/NCIS bureaucratic userption of the Constitutional rights of our veterans and others.
      Thank You !


          1. Bob G, Jim S and other Californians:

            The following is attributed to Thomas Jefferson: People usually get the sort of government they didn’t vote against. The problems in California didn’t come to pass overnight, they have been building for some number of years.

      1. You are the Dumb POS to beleive Obama didn’t want to TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY !!! These laws need redefine. Yes the Mentally ill need prohibited but this Law went TOO FAR !!

        1. this is not LAW, as Congress did not pass it. It is a set of administrative rules that are in direct conflict with the Constitution, which IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

      2. Greg, easy on the caps. Peeps who submit dialogue in all caps are considered a bit unstable. If you’re not careful, the SSA will use this to declare you unfit to own a gun.

        Anyway, there is a lot of hyperbole surrounding the SSA regulations regarding gun ownership and benefits; if you review an unbiased and non-agenda reading you’ll discover that the regulations are actually moderate and fair. The big issues – and the ones drawing the most ire – involve the regulations addressing competency. As I read them, the regulations fairly address gun ownership by those people adjudicated as unable to take care of themselves, or who have a history of mental issues.

        As an inteligent and realistic person I actually took a look at the regulations. Too many peeps read anecdotes such as this article and assume they have all the facts, then base a position from here. So go look up the information and you’ll realize that what I do: people who are unable to care for themselves or who cannot function around the rest of us really should not have access to a firearm.

        As someone who recognizes that many shootings that are attributable to the mentally or emotionally unbalanced end up getting placed at the feet of the rest of us gun owners, I have no problem with any regulation that fairly determines that mental health care and gun ownership should not be exclusive. At any other time of the year most of you make every effort to declare that this shooting or that shooting is the result of a nut job, and that the rest of us should not be held responsible, but when regulations appear that seem to address this issue you guys foam at the mouth and gas up your living rooms. Any sane person who is quick to declare a shooter as “wacko” or crazy is being a hypocrite when fair legislation is put forward in an attempt to control this.

        Let’s face it, there are some old people who should not have a firearm, much as they should not drive a car. If someone is determined incompetent to the level that they cannot care for themselves then what gun-owning idiot would suggest that person should still be allowed access to a firearm? There are young peeps with recognized behavioral issues who cannot control themselves or their emotions who would be a horrific threat to everyone should they get a handgun (best examples: Gabby Giffords, Sandyhook) and are pretty much a driving force behind knee-jerk gun control.

        I am very aware of the “doorway” legislation that allows further legislation, but having an uncontrolled bowel movement over incomplete information is stupid.

        Now, as far as your ridiculous racist rant, stop being the singular example of stupidity. Obama has a record of less-than-friendly gun principles, and your claim that he is anything other than anti-gun is the perfect example of the adage of rose-colored glasses. Whatever we may think of him as a President, he was no friend of the gun-owner. You assume that race-baiting increases the quality of your argument, but it, in fact, simply diminishes your argument; whitey has heard the race card being played so often that it draws a yawn, and the peeps who play it have become a joke. If you have to play it then shame on you for being weak in your ability to develop a cogent argument addressing the elements of this issue. This article simply stated that tge SSA was emplacing regulations that Obama pushed for – didn’t ridicule or name-call – and you shat yourself and frothed and played the card. Not cool, dude.

        The author submitted an article that was missing clear information, that’s true, but you reacted from a position that’s indicitive of weakness to grasp facts. From where I stand, uneducated factless SJW are as much a threat to my 2nd as the loons who get their hands on a gun.

        By the way, I also see what’s coming, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

        No hate or disrespect, but please turn off the lunatic caps-lock.

          1. ?

            Feel free to jump in, but make a point.

            If you’re saying the SSA does not have the right to enforce a program regarding firearms to its benefit recipients, then you’re wrong. If your position is that the state is the ultimate authority on who gets a gun, maybe you’re right, unless you’re talking about federal benefits programs.

            Was that your point?

            1. My point is each agency has a purpose. The Social Security Administration is charged with administering money accounts for those who pay into the system. It has no responsibility for and is expressly prohibited from regulating or even infringing on the civil right to keep and bear arms. The government has other agencies that oversee and enforce laws connected to firearms licensing, sales, manufacture, importation, exportation, interstate transport and on and on. I hope this clears it up for you.

            2. Gene Ralno:

              Your comments about “reserved for the state” were unclear in their context.

              At the core, you’re correct. I think the SSA is addressing a problem that isn’t theirs to fix. Yes, there’s a problem with unbalanced people having access to guns, but my own opinion it should not be the SSA’s responsibility to fix rather than the court’s or local health or legislative entities. The subject’s own state health agency should have juristiction over that matter as the issues arise, rather than having this federal agency use this as a process involving benefits.

              The positive in this set of regulations is that someone is identifying mental health as a problem as it relates to guns, rather than maintaining that guns are the problem. But that’s the only positive.

              The concept of an administrative agency charged with the control and dispensing of federal health-related (for the most part) funds and having the authority to dictate gun control terms is unsettling. I don’t like the possible openings being given to gun control if those controls are being excercised by entities who see an agenda beyond individual personal safety. It seems dark to have an agency in control of your substantive means of income also to control aspects of your life – such as gun control – with the hidden message being follow their rules if you want benefits. Those benefits are yours, and SSA’s only mission should be ensuring you receive those benefits in a timely fashion. Your gun access is better left to local entities, and should be addressed as needed, not as a stipulation to benefits.

              But we were not addressing that in the thread. Everyone was having massive stomach cramps and projectile vomiting over bad information regarding the regulations. The author was possibly – at best – stirring us up to generate awareness of this so that we would take the time to learn more about these regulations and comment on them. He should have given us better information.

          2. The States have the power to maintain an organized militia as laid out in Article One, Section Eight of teh Constitution of 1788. In 1789 The Bill of Rights was written and adopted. The right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed to the people.

            1. Hey, Jim: you and Gene make that statement, but I don’t see the point you’re trying to make as it relates to this context.

              If you’re trying to mimic what Gene said then that’s fine but, once again, it’s not relevent in the issue of federal benefits and regulations regarding competency and guns.

              Be careful what we wish for; the biggest fear I had was Clinton getting the WH and sitting a liberal on SCOTUS, which would have left guys like me at the mercy of restrictive state legislatures (remember, you said that a state can control and restrict its firearms practices.)

          3. READ that Second Article of Amendment. It says the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear…. not “the states”. Clearly and unambiguously THE PEOPLE.

        1. Bob,
          While I respect your well thought out and articulate argument, I cannot agree with your final conclusion that the outrage against this decision. Clearly you are not considering the harm that could be done to entiire families because of the intentionally vague language used. Someone one SSI disability for an accident, let’s say confined to a wheel chair, may have, for convenience sake, assigned a designated payee to handle their finances, such as a family member with whom he lives. This person is of no danger to themselves or any other, but, because of the ill-chosen wording of this decision, he may be denied access to a firearm.
          Nobody wants to see another mass shooting. Anyone who has been determined to be a risk to themselves or others, by the proper medical authorities, in the course of treatment or commitment proceedings, should loose their guns. The restoration process also should be revisited. Have you ever tried to sue the SSA. Just like the checks and balances of our criminal courts system, the restriction or suspension of a Constitutionally enumerated right such as keeping and bearing a firearm should have automatic appeal processes. And the burden of proof must land squarely on the shoulders of the medical personel seeking the adjudication. Presumed competence just as presumed innocence.
          Oh and please spare me the scolding from the grammar nazis around here! I’m not a straight A student, it’s after midnight (past my bed-time :-), my phone’s screen is cracked and worst of all, I can’t find my glasses!!! Lol

          1. I is not a grammar nazi.

            I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Your recognition of the Pandora’s box is the same as mine, but some of these guys are acting as if they’re fending off the feds as we speak, and they’re doing it without the facts, which means those who are looking for information will end up getting bad information.

            This is a process. I don’t love it, but I recognize what the positive safety features are, and I DO appreciate that it’s a program specifically addressing those who are unstable to the point where firearm access can be tragic. I know I’m being Glass Half Full, but I don’t want to see this from the other extreme and end wearing a foil hat, either.

            This thread is making the mistake of determining a stance based on incomplete information in the article, and not enough are making the effort to get better information elsewhere. So they’re attacking this from the wrong perspective, much like the [movie] Frankenstien who only sees fire as Bad because he hasn’t seen it in any other context. Then we add in these weirdos who want to quote the 2nd with the assumption that it’s supposed to mean something in this instance. Frankly, it’s BECAUSE of the 2nd that I think there’ll be plenty of safeguards and conversations to avoid the scenario you painted (which I believe is a very solid threat.)

            I am absolutly aware of the adage of offering the inch and losing the mile, but gun owners have to be coherent about this. Too often Frightened America’s only image of the gun owner is the one on the news, a hood rat, someone from another country, or a bearded cap-wearing gap-toothed weirdo eyeing his nubile under-age niece. If you read some of these posts you can start to visualize these peeps.

            Maybe I’m more offended that a lot of these posts seem to confirm the negative views of the gun owner. I worry that I have more in common with my anti-gun neighbor than with these guys posting on this thread. I come here to share information instead of paranoia.

        2. Not quite… look into what has been happening particularly in certain states, regarding Veterans. Some elect to have a third party receive and disburse their lawully due payments. Some only need help balacing their bank accounts and credit cards. Since when does not being comfortable running the maths needed to mind one’s finances disqualify one from his right to arms? Some folks either “dont get” or don’t care to mess with maths.

          The LAW clearly states “adjudicated mentally defective” or “committed to a mental institution”. Into which category does a guy not being sufficiently handy with numbers to mind his monthly accounts fall? Come on, which of those two will you use to hide Charlie who simply hates keeping track of his expenses and payments, so chooses to appoint his brother to do it? And, per BATF, if CHarlie has his brother mind his maths Charlie loses his right to arms. This is NOT the law, but it is reality.

        3. Y don’t u get off face book!
          Congress or the President can’t change our Constitution!!! We the people are the only ones who can change our Constitution! It has to be if we vote to change it!!!!

      3. Greg,

        “….THEY ARE TO DUMB….” Really Einstein ? The correct word is “too”.

        Amazing how you libtards want to impress folks with your alleged intelligence but, you have no command of your own native language. 2nd Grade English and you cannot use it properly. Yet you want to call others dumb ? Better look in the mirror before you accuse others of being what you are.

      4. Heh! Smart people know what a CAPS LOCK key is! Insane people sometimes scream a lot when no one is listening so they can get the attention they so crave.

      5. Unbelievable. Just another one of the brilliant, tolerant left. Coexist, celebrate diversity and all of that dude. You know, follow the bumper sticker slogans plastered all over the back of your Prius.

        1. My Prius gets me to the gun club much more efficiently than your 1 ton dooly. Hmmmm – back to your prepper cave, Aardsnark. The black helicopters are coming for you.

      6. Greg…If you were actually smart (as you claim) then there is no way in the world that a “dumb” person could hold you back. What it really sounds like is that you yourself lacks in sufficient education to adequately provide for yourself or you are unwilling to work hard enough to make ends meet. Therefore you want other hard working folks to support you with “free” money. Well free money isn’t free. Somebody worked hard and paid their taxes to make it available to those in real need. If you have a computer or smart phone to blog on then you do not need any government money. Just learn to budget what you do have. I own firearms and nobody, including yourself, will ever take them away. With that said, we still love you Greg and respect your (and ours) first amendment, constitutional right to free speech. I hope you can respect ours (and yours) 2nd amendment, constitutional right to keep and bear arms. No law can be written to take away any person’s constitutional rights. That is the entire basis of the constitution.

      7. Poor greg,
        It is because of idiots like you we actual Americans, had to put up with obama (the muslim, communist) for 8 years.
        He your would be king, made life actually worse for everyone. Lies, war crimes, gun control (tried),Treason and violations of the Constitution of the United States, is all he ever accomplished. Many republicans and most all democrates in office are accessories to his crimes and all should be tried, convicted, and given the maximum sentence provided by law. Mexico and other countries where, he and his partners in crime, have caused the killings of mass numbers of innocent lives, Should have the U.N. arrest him and the rest arrested, and the charge, Crimes against Humanity. They all are guilty and by voting for him, like you obviously have done twice, you as well are an accomplice to these crimes as well. He and his supporters are also the reason that many law enforcement officers have been killed and wounded, race relations due to you all are almost as bad as the 60s. Guess you and people ( far left lonnies, anarchist ) like you just want something to commplain about. Look pick any country in the middle east or africa and please move there, so the rest of us actual Americans ( of all races) can get on with making America great again, do us a favor take a majority of all congress with you, bith republicans and democrates, you all deserve eachother.

      8. Greg A:

        Whatever it is that you have to say, is it really necessary to “shout”, that being your indiniscriminate capitalization?

    24. what a biased bunch of uneducated lies and assumptions. FYI…. When your talking about how “the evil muslim president” is taking our guns having gun ads in the article shows what the true purpose of the article is.

      1. This from someone who doesn’t even know the difference between “your” and “you’re”. Government education on display. Indoctrination, not education.

      2. Biased? Do words no longer have meanings? WHY have Obama’s henchmen attempted to change the meanings of words so as to “justify” the disarming of tens of thousands of normal Maericans? Yes, tens of thousands. YOU are the one living under a slimy rock.

        1. I have never trusted the Government when it comes to individual freedom. They all want it their way, not the right way. If they were for the people they would uphold the Constitution but they have no idea what it means.

      3. Just like all the failures , and there are many , because the past president was a failure in itself, the worst liar ever to be president, he failed to bankrupt America, he failed to convert America into a muslim nation, he failed to hide his fraud, he failed to hide his treason, he failed on all gun laws, he failed as a community organizer, he failed to be king, he failed in Bengazi, he failed in osama bin lyin, he failed in gun running, he failed in hiding the CIA and prostitutes, he failed in everything he touched, he failed in hiding his drug use in college, he is scum of the earth and a muslim brotherhood member. He did not succeed in taking away senior citizens rights to bear arms, he failed in the media circus that is now exposed. He will fail in defending himself for war crimes and he will fail to flee the country to avoid prosecution. He is nothing but a failure and will go down as the worst traitor president in American History, and that is only the tip of the iceberg, he is shaking in his boots now as all his failures will creep up on him and he will live a life of misery !!!!

        1. Where were you going with this?

          My assumption is that you don’t like Obama, but you’re being a little National Enquirer over it. I didn’t care for him, either, but I don’t think he was our worst, and I don’t hate him.

          My biggest issue with him was his foreign policies and being soft on some of our domestic issues. I think Carter was just as bad in some aspects.

          You make a lot of comments that have no relevency. You should know that peeps who do this are viewed as rabid and imagined as weird little men wearing foil hats. No disrespect toward you, btw. Just saying this is a little excessive. You forgot to include his relationship with men from mars.

          1. Sir, or Mam,
            Because of obama, carter can now smile. Carter can now rest easy knowing that he wasn’t the worst president in American history.
            The gentleman or lady that you responded too, is exactly right, and not all national enquirer over obama. The foil hat cpmment makes one think you are actually a far left operative. The article is about loss of the 2nd amendment for certain portion of citizenry, that along with war crimes is exactly what obama has been after, his whole terms in office. Other than tear America down and make a deeper racial devide. Obama has done nothing else.
            Semper Fi!
            God, Family, Country, and the Corps
            Please help your want to be king obama, with the pronunciation of the last word above.

            1. Get stuffed.

              If you look at his run-on rant you’ll get the feeling he’s an unreasonable quack. I was trying to be kind, but he really does make silly comments.

              Guys who chant War Crimes are being fairly stupid since no reasonable person actually think that; there are a number of things I did not care about in the Obama presidency, and I named them: his foreign policy was pretty bad, maybe not as bad as Carter’s, but the times were different and it’s difficult to compare, and some of his domestic policies – including race relations – were failures. It didn’t take Obama to cause race issues, that’s whitey’s fault for being overly apologetic for guilt, but when Obama had the opportunity to make things better he didn’t know how. He was the right person to help but he made no effort.

              So what part of that made you think leftist? I’m a fairly moderate Republican who voted right, but I’m not an idiot who bases an opinion on someone’s color or party affiliation. I leave that to people like you and your foil-hat buddy.

              Semper-Fi, yourself, buddy. You’re the exact person who I hate representing the rest of us, because you accept a narrow version of reality to fit your agenda and make no effort at being reasonable. You’re as bad as gun-hating liberals in your ability to pick and choose truth. You chant the 2nd as if it really means something in this context. Here’s me being sarcastic: What, you mean it’s about the 2nd? Hold on, Ca and New York, here’s Terry. All those restrictions you’ve made are no bueno according to Terry, so you have to undo them. Yes, yes, I know the courts have allowed those restrictions, but Terry says to undo them because, well, because he said. He was in the Marines after all.

          2. Looks like to me, YOU are the one declaring relevency, but not reading what the man wrote. He was correct on everything he composed. Looks like your respect for the worst president in our nation’s history was a pal of yours, or at least you think so. Get a life.

          3. Poor,Bob/greg/troll
            Oh yes sure you are a modrate repbulican/democrate.
            You have no idea of the real world, you lefties never do. To have to mention you are (pick a title), is a sure sign you are not.
            You are right California should undo its draconian gun control law against law abiding citizens as well as other state that carry the same type laws. You are watching way too much television and believing all your lefty news buddies.
            Maybe one day you can move out of your mothers basement, get a job, and see what it is to actually make a living in the real world.
            Now I am sure, you’ll respond that you work as a (pick any job title) again b.s.
            Your comments here scream young uniformed and mom’s basement.
            Have a wonderful day in your own world.
            Semper Fi!
            God,Family, Country and Corps.
            Don’t worry grown men and women, will keep you, safe and free. Some have even gave the ultimate sacrifice to do so.
            bob,greg/lefty troll. Whatever you are.

            1. You’re an ass. You closet yourself in your douche ex military wrappings and consider your perspective as adequate.

              I served in the Corp during fairly ugly times and did what they expected if me, but I don’t find a need to post it in all my texts to make people think I’m a man. I don’t know you from the next guy, but I bet you were the typical shitbird we always stuck in ship’s platoon to keep them out of the way.

              I believe you to be stupid. The guy I responded to was on a ridiculous rant and I commented fairly. You came along and added your miserable nickle. If you agree with him then that’s fine, but the difference between our perspectives is that you yack and moan and snivel about how you wish it would be, whereas I comment on how it will actually turn out. I said I didn’t think much about his presidency, but that wasn’t enough for you, you douche. I have to hate him or I’m un-American, right? I voted for Bush and the Dems around me said I was un-American. I didn’t vote either time for Obama and yet you still think I’m un-American. Fine. Then I think it’s you who is un-American, and since I don’t know you I might as well claim your service was probably unsat, and you sat around in the rear while real men took care of business. Maybe you were best in the pot shack.

              You and ol’ vet can bask in your fake glory, and try to impress people with made-up stories of adventure, but none of that means anything anymore. You two are has-beens who can’t earn respect unless you’re telling people you deserve it. That’s sad.

              We’re done here,

      4. @Greg A, Based upon what you have written, am I supposed to jump to some implied argument that you think that you are making? And am I further to assume that you think you have made a winning argument? Can I suggest, perhaps that a Dale Carnige course may be beneficial?

      5. >>> Greg A
        You have some valid points and some invalid points. But your mouth will just get you ignored so when debating someone keep it cool and adapt to the situation. You said you were in the Corps so don’t defeat yourself buy a frontal attack. Remember that you are trying to convince someone to see your point of view so that the majority will be on your side. This is not a lesson but at fact of life. I appreciate your points but as I said (some valid some not) . Get uptight and cohesive (get your SH*t together) before attempting confrontation. When you Lock and Load be prepared for any comeback. Don’t let emotions rule your logic or your mouth overload your ass. If you were a U.S. Marine you use what you learned to be more effective. This is advice from a Very Old Marine (two tours in Nom and mush more. It’s better to be Wise than Smart. >>>> Oldmarine

    Leave a Comment 130 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *