Obama bans social security recipents from owning guns??

[LarryC]

I find it somewhat amusing that even the staunch supporters of "gun rights" are stating that the "Government" should have restrictions on elders driving and or owning firearms when they no longer can "manage their affairs". I was raised in the 1940's and 50's, born in 1941. There were very little to no restrictions of any kind on firearms and very little on driving "privileges" ~ their wasn't even a speed limit in the 40's as I recall. Somehow wonder upon wonder people survived!

My neighbor just a few years ago passed away in his late 80's, he drove far past his ability to see well or judge distance very well. He did have a few marks on his bumper and fenders from missing the garage door opening. However I felt far safer meeting him on the road than some of the people I see (not restricted to age or gender) playing with their cell phone while halfway in my lane. At least he was looking where he was going.

As far as firearms, I knew many farmers and other elderly that had become somewhat senile, most of who did owned firearms and had them readily available. I NEVER, ever heard of any of them shooting at or hitting anyone with a projectile. My Grandmother was in her mid 90's when she reverted to childhood memories. She then resided with my aunt ~ and firearms were hung in their home accessible to anyone needing one to dispense of varmints. Their were never any incidents there either.

I DON"T NEED any government assistance to feed me, keep me safe or tuck me in. If they would dispense with all the laws but the real 10 (commandments), I really believe we would do better than we are. Somehow many believe the laws give us a safer, better life. However having seen life with very little government, I certainly disagree. In every case I can remember when people genuinely needed assistance when I was a lad they got it, however no one capable of working kept getting aid. Missing a few meals made finding a job much easier I think!

 

[david890]

I DON"T NEED any government assistance to feed me, keep me safe or tuck me in.

Other than the tax laws to pay for the roads and schools, the State Dept. to negotiate trade deals to get you your $200 "Made in China" TV vs. the $400 "Made in America" TV, EPA rules to keep your air and water relatively clean, FCC laws to keep the airwaves in order, NTSB rules to keep the planes, trains and other transports safe, the National Park Service so you can enjoy unspoiled nature, etc.

You benefit from government assistance in more ways than you imagine.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Other than the tax laws to pay for the roads and schools, the State Dept. to negotiate trade deals to get you your $200 "Made in China" TV vs. the $400 "Made in America" TV, EPA rules to keep your air and water relatively clean, FCC laws to keep the airwaves in order, NTSB rules to keep the planes, trains and other transports safe, the National Park Service so you can enjoy unspoiled nature, etc.

You benefit from government assistance in more ways than you imagine.

I think you are missing the point. It is entirely possible to hold people accountable for the consequences of their actions without micromanaging the dogsh*t out of every aspect of a person's life.

 

[david890]

I think you are missing the point. It is entirely possible to hold people accountable for the consequences of their actions without micromanaging the dogsh*t out of every aspect of a person's life.

I think you missed the point. The issue is preventing a person's actions, be it a mentally-ill person shooting up a movie theater or an elderly driver plowing through a crowd at the Farmer's Market. Yes, we'll still hold them accountable, but that's of little concern to those who have died from those actions.

 

[Dead Duck]

I think you missed the point. The issue is preventing a person's actions, be it a mentally-ill person shooting up a movie theater or an elderly driver plowing through a crowd at the Farmer's Market. Yes, we'll still hold them accountable, but that's of little concern to those who have died from those actions.

Preventing
Ha - That's a good one.










Oh - You were serious?


I too saw Minority Report.

 

[jamil]

I think you missed the point. The issue is preventing a person's actions, be it a mentally-ill person shooting up a movie theater or an elderly driver plowing through a crowd at the Farmer's Market. Yes, we'll still hold them accountable, but that's of little concern to those who have died from those actions.

The problem with that is that "prevention" requires us to deny people's rights as a preemptive act, in case they might cause harm. That means we must deny the rights of people who pose no threat at all to make sure we prevent the ones who will actually cause some problem. Revoking a constitutional right shouldn't happen without due process. Classifying a group isn't due process.

ETA: it also presumes that the means for preventing is effective.

 

[Dead Duck]

The problem with that is that "prevention" requires us to deny people's rights as a preemptive act, in case they might cause harm. That means we must deny the rights of people who pose no threat at all to make sure we prevent the ones who will actually cause some problem. Revoking a constitutional right shouldn't happen without due process. Classifying a group isn't due process.

You forgot - "Do it for the children"

It's not even a slippery slope - It's a torrential waterfall..........without the barrel.

 

[david890]

The problem with that is that "prevention" requires us to deny people's rights as a preemptive act, in case they might cause harm. That means we must deny the rights of people who pose no threat at all to make sure we prevent the ones who will actually cause some problem. Revoking a constitutional right shouldn't happen without due process. Classifying a group isn't due process.

ETA: it also presumes that the means for preventing is effective.

When there is obvious evidence of mental illness (or the inability to see STOP signs, in the case of my step-grandfather and his "right" to continue to drive), "might cause harm" becomes "likely" or "very likely" (as in the case of the LA shooter). Yes, we can deter or prevent some crimes. Yes, it's a judgment call, but in most cases, it's the judgment of several people, not just one person. AFAIK, a person still has the right to contest that judgment call if they choose.

As far as an effective preventative, improved reporting to NICS would be a step in the right direction. No solution is 100% foolproof, but the current background checks can be improved.

 

[LtScott14]

Some Seniors are very spry well into 80s and 90s. Some could not find the door to the bathroom, or stairs, or safety on a firearm. Every situation is different. People are different.

Example: My 85 yr old Mom use to call me, and tell me it was time for her Driver License to renew. She insisted I ride with her for errands, and be honest about her abilities. She was an excellent driver, did everything right, passed her renewal. She then decided to end driving, sold me her car (for $1.00), and moved in to Senior housing. We painted and fixed up her house, sold it in short time, and she lived all expenses paid at SR Housing. I found her Kabar Knife( Mom was a USMC Lady Marine WW2) and was gifted to me.

She knew when time was ticking, was proud to drive to 85+, didn't burden anyone. Other Seniors I have known weren't as lucky.
Families need to stick together, and if the firearms are too much... get rid of them as a noble thing. Government should not interfere with that. Soc Security isn't paid by ownership of guns. It's paid during your employment days. Second Amendment aside, safety for the Seniors is the issue.

 

[jamil]

When there is obvious evidence of mental illness (or the inability to see STOP signs, in the case of my step-grandfather and his "right" to continue to drive), "might cause harm" becomes "likely" or "very likely" (as in the case of the LA shooter). Yes, we can deter or prevent some crimes. Yes, it's a judgment call, but in most cases, it's the judgment of several people, not just one person. AFAIK, a person still has the right to contest that judgment call if they choose.

As far as an effective preventative, improved reporting to NICS would be a step in the right direction. No solution is 100% foolproof, but the current background checks can be improved.

Firearms are a different matter than driving. The usefulness of the analogy of your step-grandfather ends when we start talking about how to determine if he's fit for exercising a privilege such as driving on public roads. We don't generally test citizens to verify their propriety for exercising constitutionally protected rights like we test drivers' propriety for driving.

But there is a useful range of the driving/age analogy for this discussion. It is already illegal to own a firearm if you've been adjudicated as mentally ill, or have been committed. And that criteria is every bit as arbitrary as setting an age limit for driving. Your step-grandfather isn't a danger because he's 80. He's a danger because his eyesight is failing. Not all drivers over 80 have dangerously impaired eyesight at 80. And not all "mentally ill" people are too dangerous to own firearms either.

Most of us probably know people that we think are too dangerous to own a firearm. So what's the test for "dangerous"? And how do we reconcile whatever test we devise with "shall not infringe"?

 

[david890]

So what's the test for "dangerous"? And how do we reconcile whatever test we devise with "shall not infringe"?

I suspect current procedures would suffice in most cases. I wouldn't be against (and since IANAL, it may already be legal) allowing the accused to hire experts of his/her own to refute the claims of the other doctors/experts.

How do we reconcile a test with "shall not infringe"? By recognizing that there's no such thing as an ABSOLUTE right. SCOTUS has already ruled that certain forms of speech (hate speech, inciting a riot, etc.) are not protected, so extending similar logic to the 2nd isn't that great a leap.

Are you claiming that you support the right of anyone, regardless of their mental condition, to "keep and bear arms"? If not, then you acknowledge the right of the government, in certain cases, to "infringe".

 

[jamil]

I suspect current procedures would suffice in most cases. I wouldn't be against (and since IANAL, it may already be legal) allowing the accused to hire experts of his/her own to refute the claims of the other doctors/experts.

How do we reconcile a test with "shall not infringe"? By recognizing that there's no such thing as an ABSOLUTE right. SCOTUS has already ruled that certain forms of speech (hate speech, inciting a riot, etc.) are not protected, so extending similar logic to the 2nd isn't that great a leap.

Are you claiming that you support the right of anyone, regardless of their mental condition, to "keep and bear arms"? If not, then you acknowledge the right of the government, in certain cases, to "infringe".

Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about some sort of criteria to predetermine which people are ineligible to exercise a constitutional right. At that point, no one has done anything to abuse the right. This is not analogous to hate speech, or inciting a riot. We don't say that people who have mental disorders aren't allowed to speak at all because they might use offensive language.

You're suggesting that we support the idea that just any mental illness is a reason to deprive someone of their right, and that the burden of proof should be on the accused. I am certainly claiming to support that. To deprive someone of a right, the government should have to prove that the person is too dangerous through due process, rather than arbitrarily setting criteria and forcing the accuse to prove that he's not too dangerous.

 

[Paul30]

Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about some sort of criteria to predetermine which people are ineligible to exercise a constitutional right. At that point, no one has done anything to abuse the right. This is not analogous to hate speech, or inciting a riot. We don't say that people who have mental disorders aren't allowed to speak at all because they might use offensive language.

You're suggesting that we support the idea that just any mental illness is a reason to deprive someone of their right, and that the burden of proof should be on the accused. I am certainly claiming to support that. To deprive someone of a right, the government should have to prove that the person is too dangerous through due process, rather than arbitrarily setting criteria and forcing the accuse to prove that he's not too dangerous.

Not only that, but it will make Doctors who are not already anti gun biased scared to death to clear someone for fear of them committing a violent crime and being blamed / sued into bankruptcy for "certifying" the person A OK to own guns. You could not get many doctors today to certify someone to own guns who have done nothing, if there is a question at all they will likely err on the side of caution, which means everyone's RKBA would be at the whim of a doctor.

You are sitting at a stop light and BAM, someone texting rear ends you without even slowing down. You are dazed so you go to the hospital just to be safe, and that is the right thing to do. A doctor determines you have a mild traumatic brain injury from the wreck and should watch it. Bang, you might as well have gotten a domestic violence charge against you because according to some, that should be enough to disqualify you from gun ownership and it would then be up to you to find a doctor to put their entire career and life savings on the line to sign you off as safe to own guns again. You may have symptoms like getting mental fatigue where you get tired earlier in the day, but have no other symptoms but they will accurately label it a "Traumatic Brain Injury". Add to that the one person who actually does get signed off then shoots his spouse you will never get another sign off again. That doctor might as well have shot Cecil the Lion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is truly scary to have someone in law school who apparently subscribes to the belief as a matter of principle that the law including the Constitution is whatever at least 5 jackasses in black robes say it is at any given moment.

First problem is that this entire idea rests on the idea of punishing pre-crime which by its very nature exists outside of due process.

Second problem is that delegating one's finances to a third party--the criterion being held up as preemptively satisfying due process--does NOT establish that there is a f*cking thing wrong with someone's mind beyond not wanting to go to the trouble or perhaps reaching the point where one's attention to fine detail isn't what it once was. This is almost as bad as arguing that my inability to tell you what I ate for lunch on October 17, 1985 proves that I have Alzheimer's Disease.

Third problem is that even if one accepts this notion that rights are not absolute, which is suspect in itself, the limitations of the exercise of rights come in form of legal sanction for misusing those rights to harm others. For example, in the tired examples of inciting riots or shouting fire in the theater, you are punished after the fact for the harm you caused. They don't prohibit you from audibly speaking and cut your tongue out. Further, they don't make up a list based on horsesh*t speculations of people they think might yell 'fire' when there isn't one and preemptively act against them.

Fourth problem, as mentioned earlier by others, is that doctors may import their own politics or their responses to real or perceived intimidation or threat into their judgments leading to unjust infringements, assuming that they are ever part of the process. Remember, so far all the Kenyan thinks he needs is that you have your SS check delivered to a third party who is managing your finances. What next, require a degree in accounting if you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights?

Fifth, for people who actually believe in punishing pre-crime, government allowing you to have rights as opposed to Constitutional government in which the government is the party with the limited rights to only what it is granted in the Constitution, and believe that some jackass in a government office building knows how to manage your life better than you and your family do, I would like to recommend some other countries whose ideas are more in line with yours. The People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela come to mind.

 

[david890]

You're suggesting that we support the idea that just any mental illness is a reason to deprive someone of their right, and that the burden of proof should be on the accused. I am certainly claiming to support that. To deprive someone of a right, the government should have to prove that the person is too dangerous through due process, rather than arbitrarily setting criteria and forcing the accuse to prove that he's not too dangerous.

I'm making no such suggestion. The DSM-5 lists thousands of psychiatric disorders, but most would not be sufficient to prevent someone from owning a firearm. Bulimia is clearly a psychiatric issue, but it's highly unlikely someone suffering from this disorder would go on a shooting spree.

The burden of proof obviously lies with the doctor/hospital whenever any involuntary hospitalization is ordered. I have no doubt that, at some time, a doctor and the admitting hospital have been successfully sued for abusing their ability to have someone hospitalized. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that the accused is somehow forced to prove he or she is not a danger; I'm suggesting that it's probable the accused has the right to due process and can challenge the hospitalization.

Don't forget the role of the insurance companies in such cases! It would seem like the perfect money-making scheme to simply rule anyone who comes into the ER as a danger to him/herself/society and keep them locked up for days or weeks! However, someone has to pay for that! In case you missed it last night (8/2), "60 Minutes" had a segment involving psychiatric cases where coverage was denied despite the pleas of both the patient's family and personal physician! The segment suggests long-term hospitalization was denied about 90% of the time, so even if someone is held without being mentally ill, it's highly likely they'll be out in just a few days! It will suck for a few days, but you can pass the time thinking what your lawyer will do to that doctor & hospital and what you'll do with the big payday to come!

 

[david890]

Not only that, but it will make Doctors who are not already anti gun biased scared to death to clear someone for fear of them committing a violent crime and being blamed / sued into bankruptcy for "certifying" the person A OK to own guns. You could not get many doctors today to certify someone to own guns who have done nothing, if there is a question at all they will likely err on the side of caution, which means everyone's RKBA would be at the whim of a doctor.

Doctors are already scared, regardless of the mental state of the patient. They are routinely sued for any number of reasons, and I doubt the majority would be willing to risk a lawsuit with someone who may or may not have a mental illness. Keep in mind that the average doctor won't be the one to make the call; they'll refer the patient to someone with much more training in psychiatric issues.

I have no doubt doctors will err on the side of caution, but that caution is not getting sued by every patient they encounter! They'll pass off the patient to another doctor before making such a call (i.e., the patient can't own firearms). Finally, see my previous post about insurance companies denying coverage for long-term hospitalization despite overwhelming evidence of the patient's mental illness. The insurance companies have obviously done a Cost-Benefit analysis of the costs of long-term care vs. the costs of being sued by the victims of a patient, and at this time, they're happier - it's better for their bottom line - to kick the sick out on the street.

 

[david890]

First problem is that this entire idea rests on the idea of punishing pre-crime which by its very nature exists outside of due process.

Are you suggesting that doctors and hospitals have not been coached or instructed by their own lawyers regarding the burden of proof when it comes to an involuntary hospitalization? I suspect that burden is far higher than you believe.

Second problem is that delegating one's finances to a third party--the criterion being held up as preemptively satisfying due process--does NOT establish that there is a f*cking thing wrong with someone's mind beyond not wanting to go to the trouble or perhaps reaching the point where one's attention to fine detail isn't what it once was. This is almost as bad as arguing that my inability to tell you what I ate for lunch on October 17, 1985 proves that I have Alzheimer's Disease.

Delegating one's finances was simply one criterion, not THE criterion for establishing an incapacity. It's a red flag in the paperwork, and I suspect much more investigation goes into the decision. I doubt anyone has had their guns confiscated SOLELY because they let their spouse handle the checkbook! As a former HS teacher, I've had students who were functionally illiterate and innumerate (can't do math), but no one is suggesting those people are somehow incapable of safely handling a firearm.

Third problem is that even if one accepts this notion that rights are not absolute, which is suspect in itself, the limitations of the exercise of rights come in form of legal sanction for misusing those rights to harm others. For example, in the tired examples of inciting riots or shouting fire in the theater, you are punished after the fact for the harm you caused. They don't prohibit you from audibly speaking and cut your tongue out. Further, they don't make up a list based on horsesh*t speculations of people they think might yell 'fire' when there isn't one and preemptively act against them.

True, it's not possible to stop someone from shouting out questionable things, but we can do our best to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are clearly a danger to themselves or others! Will that stop the determined psychopath from getting a firearm? No, but I would argue that is due to flaws in NICS reporting procedures and loopholes such as no checks whatsoever during gun shows.

Fourth problem, as mentioned earlier by others, is that doctors may import their own politics or their responses to real or perceived intimidation or threat into their judgments leading to unjust infringements, assuming that they are ever part of the process. Remember, so far all the Kenyan thinks he needs is that you have your SS check delivered to a third party who is managing your finances. What next, require a degree in accounting if you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights?

Doctors may also import their own politics/beliefs into their judgments regarding abortion or contraception, or treating someone of another race or religion! However, no one seems to care about those possible infringements!

Fifth, for people who actually believe in punishing pre-crime, government allowing you to have rights as opposed to Constitutional government in which the government is the party with the limited rights to only what it is granted in the Constitution, and believe that some jackass in a government office building knows how to manage your life better than you and your family do, I would like to recommend some other countries whose ideas are more in line with yours. The People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela come to mind.

That is one interpretation. The other is that the government is free to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Personally, I believe in the latter interpretation, as it should be clear to everyone that the Founding Fathers could not envision every possible issue and address them, item by item, in the Constitution. I have no doubt they knew technology would change over time, and that trying to establish limits on the unknown would be impossible!

If you're so upset at the state of affairs here in the USA, Dave, feel free to go elsewhere.

 

[jamil]

I'm making no such suggestion. The DSM-5 lists thousands of psychiatric disorders, but most would not be sufficient to prevent someone from owning a firearm. Bulimia is clearly a psychiatric issue, but it's highly unlikely someone suffering from this disorder would go on a shooting spree.

The burden of proof obviously lies with the doctor/hospital whenever any involuntary hospitalization is ordered. I have no doubt that, at some time, a doctor and the admitting hospital have been successfully sued for abusing their ability to have someone hospitalized. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that the accused is somehow forced to prove he or she is not a danger; I'm suggesting that it's probable the accused has the right to due process and can challenge the hospitalization.

Don't forget the role of the insurance companies in such cases! It would seem like the perfect money-making scheme to simply rule anyone who comes into the ER as a danger to him/herself/society and keep them locked up for days or weeks! However, someone has to pay for that! In case you missed it last night (8/2), "60 Minutes" had a segment involving psychiatric cases where coverage was denied despite the pleas of both the patient's family and personal physician! The segment suggests long-term hospitalization was denied about 90% of the time, so even if someone is held without being mentally ill, it's highly likely they'll be out in just a few days! It will suck for a few days, but you can pass the time thinking what your lawyer will do to that doctor & hospital and what you'll do with the big payday to come!

I'm not going to go back and dig up the entire conversation but it did seem you were supporting the current disqualifier for mental illness. It is an arbitrary preemptive criterion.

I think getting what you're suggesting here would be a step in the right direction. It at least acknowledges not all mental illnesses are associated with violence. Instead of naming disqualifying disorders though, I'd rather that the person be adjudicated through due process as too violent to own a firearm.

 

[david890]

I'd rather that the person be adjudicated through due process as too violent to own a firearm.

Let's go back to the first paragraph of the article:

"...the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs...". Later, the article states that, "...a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary."

So, it would appear that the VA is already following a "due process" method, given that the person has been declared incompetent to manage their own financial affairs. Is that enough to justify removing firearms from their home or person? I'd wager the answer to that would be, in most cases, yes. I have no doubt there are exceptions (e.g., someone who suffers a stroke that impairs or destroys their ability to read, but does not harm their vision), and I have no doubt there is a "due process" for challenging the initial finding of incompetence. Yeah, it sucks for those few who have to fight to get their guns back, but isn't the general welfare of society of greater value? Lots of guns out of the hands of TRULY incompetent people at the cost of a very few people having to go to court to prove they are competent? AFAIK (and IANAL), you have the right to challenge a legal ruling, regardless of which court handed it down.

I'm wondering what your "due process" might entail. Who is the authority - a judge or a jury? Does the person have right to publicly-funded counsel? How long will it take? What happens if the police come to the home of an obviously mentally ill person, and his family tells the cops there are guns in the house? Is "due process" required in this case?

I am IN NO WAY suggesting that we not have a "due process" procedure for getting one's guns back, but you must accept that there will be times when immediate action is required, be it the involuntary hospitalization of a person (and removal of firearms from their home before that person returns) or the confiscation of firearms from the home or person of someone in acute mental distress.

 

[jamil]

Let's go back to the first paragraph of the article:

"...the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs...". Later, the article states that, "...a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary."

So, it would appear that the VA is already following a "due process" method, given that the person has been declared incompetent to manage their own financial affairs. Is that enough to justify removing firearms from their home or person? I'd wager the answer to that would be, in most cases, yes. I have no doubt there are exceptions (e.g., someone who suffers a stroke that impairs or destroys their ability to read, but does not harm their vision), and I have no doubt there is a "due process" for challenging the initial finding of incompetence. Yeah, it sucks for those few who have to fight to get their guns back, but isn't the general welfare of society of greater value? Lots of guns out of the hands of TRULY incompetent people at the cost of a very few people having to go to court to prove they are competent? AFAIK (and IANAL), you have the right to challenge a legal ruling, regardless of which court handed it down.

I'm wondering what your "due process" might entail. Who is the authority - a judge or a jury? Does the person have right to publicly-funded counsel? How long will it take? What happens if the police come to the home of an obviously mentally ill person, and his family tells the cops there are guns in the house? Is "due process" required in this case?

I am IN NO WAY suggesting that we not have a "due process" procedure for getting one's guns back, but you must accept that there will be times when immediate action is required, be it the involuntary hospitalization of a person (and removal of firearms from their home before that person returns) or the confiscation of firearms from the home or person of someone in acute mental distress.

No. It's not. My idea of due process looks a whole lot like the criminal justice system. The burden should be on the state to prove the person is too dangerous to own a firearm. Making people ineligible to exercise a constitutional right just because they fit some criteria that some panel predetermines is not due process, even if you provide some kind of due process to appeal. But I can see using that kind of criteria to flag an investigation, and once evidence is gathered that proves the person is too dangerous to have firearms, bring the charges, prove the person is dangerous it in court, let a jury or judge decide, then execute the ruling.