Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business

Elderly Old Man Hands Revolver
Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business
Tom Gresham's GunTalk Radio
Tom Gresham’s GunTalk Radio

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- As he left office, President Obama screwed American seniors who own or want to own guns by issuing an executive order directing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to treat seniors in the same miserable way the Veterans Administration does our vets.

That is, the SSA now reports to the FBI anyone who prefers to have someone else handle their finances, and the FBI puts that person on the list that is a LIFETIME BAN on owning firearms.

Naturally, the general media portrayed this as keeping guns out of the hands of those with serious mental defects, and when the House of Representatives voted 235 to 180 to repeal this gun confiscation move, the howls from the fourth estate nearly drowned out the facts. Nearly.

As a current or potential Gun Talk Truth Squad member, (join now) you have the opportunity to push back on these bogus reports, and to answer friends who offer that this ban “seems reasonable.” Here are the facts.

The media said that the SSA would be providing the information to the FBI so these people could be included in a “background check database.” Well … doesn’t that sound reasonable? The fact is that this move actually puts these people on a list that bans firearms ownership for life.

Who would oppose putting those with “serious mental defects” into a “background check database?” The NRA, of course. But wait. Another vocal opponent is the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union. Groups supporting and providing aid to those who actually do suffer from mental handicaps also opposed the “I’m outta here” move by the departing “vertical pronoun” President to ban tens of thousand of Americans from owning guns, and all without due process.

Here’s an example of the media coverage of the House vote to repeal this rule. This is from Politico.

Democrats ripped the move as an effort by Republicans to undermine background checks for gun purchasers. After the House vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pleaded with supporters to rally against the move in the Senate. “Senate may vote today to weaken background checks on gun purchases. Call your Senator to oppose this change — ensure your voice is heard!” she wrote.

Tell your friends that there has been a law in effect for decades that prohibits the truly mentally incompetent from owning guns, and this law provides for due process. Under current law, if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he or she can’t own a gun.

Adjudicated.” As in, a judge and a court room. Where you can defend yourself. Not a bureaucrat who checks a box and places your name on the banned-for-life list. ~ Tom Gresham

About Tom Gresham’s GUNTALK radio:

In its 22nd year of national syndication, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk radio show airs live on Sundays from 2PM-5PM Eastern, and runs on more than 219 stations every week. Listen live on a radio station near you (guntalk.com/site39.php) or via live streaming from one of the stations here: guntalk.com/site38.php. All Gun Talk shows can also be downloaded as podcasts at www.guntalk.libsyn.com, Apple iTunes, and i-Heart radio, or through one of the available Apps: GunDealio for iPhone, GunDealio for Android, Gun Talk App on Stitcher, the Gun Talk iPhone App, and the Gun Talk App for Android on Amazon. Gun Talk can also be heard on YouTube, at http://bit.ly/144G3OU. More information is available at www.guntalk.com.

(“Gun Talk” is a registered trademark.)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
B.Zerker

First off, this attempt to unduly strip some Americans of a “secured” constitutional right (see the Heller and McDonald decisions) by adding them to an arbitrary list of prohibited people is clearly a “Bill Of Attainder” which is unconstitutional according to Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, it does so in violation of both “Due Process Clauses” in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Americans do however have “remedy and recourse” in this atrocity because acts like this are a breach of the federal law. Anyone that “conspires to” deprive Americans of rights that are guaranteed by… Read more »

Wild Bill

The U.S. Attorney’s office will not prosecute bureaucrats just following Exexutive Orders, using this statute. USDOJ would certainly be in on it. Trump needs to rid himself of all the Obama SESs, various federal agencies GS14-GS15, and State Dept personnel that are determined to destroy his presidency. He can not administer the government with those people operating in secret against him. The are only entitled to two weeks notice. Notify them.

B.Zerker

Wild Bill, This is exactly what those sections of Title 18 are meant to do – to hold bureaucrats, judges, LEOs and whoever else that violates a persons secured constitutional rights under “the color” of an unjust law criminally accountable. This includes those that would obstruct justice in the DOJ. How can they uphold one part of the code and completely disregard another? There is no justice in that and that is exactly what’s been going on for the past century. It is tyranny! What we have to do is to raise a big enough stink about this that it… Read more »

Wild Bill

Perhaps, BZ, but the USDOJ and the Office of the Attorney General will not apply that section of law to legislators, judges, bureaucrats.

B.Zerker

RE: WB, I am a constitutionalist. Nobody, the state or an individual, is above the law – THE SUPREME LAW. Article VI and Marbury v. Madison dictate that all statutes and regulations, or parts of those statutes or regs, that are in conflict with constitutional guarantees are “fictions of law” and are therefore null and void. Anyone that proposes, enacts or enforces a “fiction of law” is liable, both criminally and civilly. This is what the two sections of Title 18 and the one section of Title 42 are meant to enforce. It seems we’ve lost sight of that and… Read more »

Small town USA

That is maybe what’s needed. A few class action lawsuits against these usurpers will finally hit them where it hurts them the most. They have tried to manipulate laws of the land hoping nobody would notice.That seems to be the biggest problem with many politicians. They think the American public actually need’s them. Vote, and then hold them accountable. If they break the law, they are just another criminal. Prosecute them. Maybe the public need;s to pay more attention. Most AMERICANS are well capable of thinking for themselves. We don’t need elected officials doing our thinking for us. B.Zerker…..right on

B.Zerker

Thanks Small town USA! The time has come (actually, it has long since passed) for “We The People” to reclaim the Founders’ “Grand Experiment” and return OUR Republic to what was their original intent. Most Americans don’t realize that the U.S. Constitution was written “for” the American people (and their posterity) by American people (the Founders) and that it is a lawfully binding contract in every U.S. court with “the people” in the position as the beneficiaries. This contract does not preserve or guarantee any right that “the people” did not previously possess as living sentient beings, but rather, it… Read more »

Kim

AS A SENIOR CITIZEN MYSELF, I WOULD HAVE SHOT ANYONE COMING AND TRYING TO TAKE MY WEAPONS… I AM TIRED OF THE COMMIES, AND READY TO FIGHT TO TAKE BACK MY COUNTRY!!!
THE OATH I SWORE WHEN INSTALLED INTO THE MILITARY, I WAS NEVER RELIEVED OF THAT OATH, AND I WILL USE IT TO FIGHT AS HARD AS I CAN, WHEN NEEDED…

TEX

Obama spent so much time trying to figure out ways to make as many people as possible ‘prohibited persons’ from legally owning firearms. None of it involved due process either. Trump will reverse the damage Obama attempted to do through executive orders to law-abiding firearms owners and the 2A. A person has to be adjudicated as mentally defective to be stripped of a constitutional right. Due process !

Ian

So lets go back to the Bush administration. When they removed. The rights of thousands of people. Who were originally charged with a felony but had the charges reduced. Paid their price to society and moved on..
This abomination should also be reversed except for violent offenders

Charlotte Bankston

Only a completely clueless idiot would believe that someone with a mental issue cannot get their hands on guns, just because they are on a “BAN LIST”. Really, just how naive can you be. No on will take thi seniorss guns while I am alive.

Mike Lynch

Social Security should not be in the business of supplying information to the FBI for this purpose. I live in California which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. I cant purchase a gun from out of state even as a competent sane person. Additionally, I take care of my mother’s income, not because she is crazy, but because she has never been able to manage money for as long as I can remember. She may be in competent when it comes to finances but she is not mentally ill. Glad our senate has done the… Read more »

James Norris

What ever happened to our HIPA LAWS? No ONE, unless AUTHORIZED by me personally hasa RIGHT to KNOW WHAT IS IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS. (If anything.) The social security administration has NO RIGHT giving your mental health status to ANYONE without a court order, SIGNED BY A JUDGE.

tomcat

To all the people the kenyon troubled with his stupid get rid if guns program I know how you feel. I am not mentally incapable but I have kidney disease and cancer. I would not want to be left with out my guns to for self protection. I can get around but I am not as strong as I use to be so I would not be comfortable without protection. @Melinda Logan, get yourself a shot gun and keep it by your side. Anyone that comes in your home that belongs there should make their presence known. If they don’t… Read more »

Treva Dacheff

I believe before removing a persons civil rights, the person should be tested incompetent. I agree there are people whom should not own guns, but all it takes is one individual having a breakdown to trigger a new amendment to forsaid Constitution so that actually cancels out for said Civil Right you had in the beginning. very sad for the original constitutional rights that were put in place as basic civil rights that should endure forever. Js

Timothy S Jenkins

I think if you comment a felony after 7 years I think you should have a gun I been out of trouble for almost 10 years and I still can’t have a gun

Jim S

I thought is was delicious when the ACLU came out in support of terminating this law. Silly socialist liberals dont know what they really want…

Bob Lawrence

It is intolerable for any government, especially the American government, to prevent mentally healthy, responsible citizens from defending themselves with the best weapons available. The centuries pass, but there are always punks and thugs who will attack, beat, rob, and kill those unable to protect themselves, their families, and homes. Until science develops ways to re-engineer human genetics, DNA, and bio-chemistry, making our species responsible and peaceful, we must be able to defend ourselves. Many anti-gun people have lived only in small, low-crime towns, are untraveled, inexperienced, stupid, ignorant, and have never been attacked, beaten, robbed, carjacked, or had family… Read more »

James Norris

Besides, there is ALREADY a PROVISION to keep guns out of the hands of “dangerously mentally ill” people in the FBI / ATF FORMS you MUST FILL OUT AND CERTIFY that you have NEVER been ADJUCATED (by a JUDGE) to be mentally unfit, AND / OR you have never been COMMITTED to a mental institution. Lying on these forms is a felony AND the ATF WILL come to your home and TAKE any guns you may have purchased. The other thing this rule did was allow the ATF to show up at your house and TAKE any other guns you… Read more »

Samuel

The reason this got voted down is not because the Democrats had any good ideas about gun control, but it’s because they went after a small and weak group of disabled individuals and tried to blame them ( wrongfully so ) for being the cause of gun violence. The Democrats heaped their own judgment on themselves. Justice served, maybe even more bad things will happen to them without due process of law, and quite frankly that’s how they deserve to be dealt with, they deserve to be judged without due process of law for refusing to allow the innocent their… Read more »

Dorothy Murray

This has nothing to do with guns.
But I pray that trump will take away the right’s of parents who abandon their children.who refuses to pay their child support
Why give these parents free checks monthly
Free cell phones.Free foodstamps
I say take their Augustinian them like criminals. Because they are committing a crime. Just saying.

Linda Hayes

I’m. 66 yrs old handle my disabled sons finances. Im a nurse retired. What would be the reason i could not own a gun if i choose ? This is out of line. My age does not define my mental capabilities.

Chelle

So what is the problem. The reason Ex President Obama issued the order was to protect us citizens, and To keep guns out of the.hands of certain individuals with mental issues.

jamie

if want to take guns out of truly dangerous how about starting with the soros funded protest terror groups and put every person on both the donor and the paid protest payroll lists on the banned for life nics list

then add all those crazies from bloomberg funded groups calling for insane things like swatting gun owners to get them killed

Melinda Logan

Protester more likely dangerous but i am deaf i have no time to draw my gun to protect myself i cant hear break in and that why i have no time to shoot. BUT the person in wheel chair able use hands do have the time to draw cause can hear his protect. I do need homeprotection i have Ptsd from my past been raped alot people break into my home and move in on you.

Mark

This can be occomplished with a court order per case situation. We don’t need government lists that they can use against us on their dreamed “collection day. “. A blanket law generally harms more than it helps. Seniors need the ability to protect themselves because they are preyed upon more by thugs as soft targets. As a therapist, I have seen family members time and time again remove guns from the homes of at risk seniors. Come and take it!

James Norris

I like how the anti-gunners are BLATANTLY lying about this abusive rule. I just spent time on twitter trying to explain the FACTS to them and not one of them would engage me in an intelligent discourse. They called me names then blocked me. Liberal women, who claim to support ALL women refused to answer me when I asked them THIS question: If a woman was BRUTALLY RAPED 25 yrs ago and needed a handful of Zanax to help get over trauma RETIRES tomorrow on SSDI because she is now disabled from a car wreck… and has her husband pay… Read more »

Lisa Warren

I agree with this person. I myself have a mental illness and I am on that list. I wouldn’t want to lose control and kill someone with a gun if I lost control. A lot of people with mental illnesses don’t realize what the are doing. Those people don’t need guns.

rbrittne

Are you nuts???

TexDan

Well then, don’t purchase or have access to a firearm or any other kind of lethal instrument. But, just because you cannot trust yourself, don’t remove the right of self protection from others. Guns are not magic devices that the Government can just go, “POOF” and they disappear for certain people. It just provides a mechanism that Law Enforcement can tack on more charges after you do kill someone. So, as there are people like you that cannot trust themselves, we need to be able to defend ourselves against your actions.

sandy england

So you are saying that when you become a senior citizen you well develop mental illness, and all senior citizens are mentally ill?
Maybe all in your family develop mental illness on their 60th, 62nd, or 65th birthday. None of the seniors I know have mental illness.

Bea

It really doesn’t matter. You can go on any street corner in any big city,Orlando, Chicago, L.A. Vegas, New York, ETC.. and buy a gun. At 60 years old I have more sense than some 20 year old in a love jealous rage. STOP chipping away at our civil rights. How many see eniors walked into a school or a theatre and shot people? 0

TEX

,so you think that a 65 year old man who has trouble balancing his checkbook should not be able to own a firearm ? That makes him mentally defective without due process ? Obama can play as much golf as he wants to now. Hillary can continue to deal with her mental issues and whine about losing the election.

Thom Paine

Without due process it’s a major problem ! I suggest you educate yourself .

Gordon

The problem is that people without mental conditions are being put on the list because they get assistance with their finances, social security etc. If you are elderly or physically incapacitated in any way and require assistance, and if someone is helping you file social security, you are immediately considered mentally ill because you require assistance with no recourse for proving otherwise.

Orlando DeLaurol

Thank you all for preserving our American interest

James Norris

Both the House and now the Senate have voted to repeal this abomination. All it needs is President Trump’s signature.

RDNKTXN

It’s sitting on his desk while we speak !

paula glenn

Thank you for giving us this information.