Obama bans social security recipents from owning guns??

[Dosproduction]

Is this true... Chicago Tribune

 

[jamil]

Is this true... Chicago Tribune

Makes sense.

If only the Social Security Administration were reporting to NICS the tragic Shooting in South Carolina could have been avoided.

 

[Kutnupe14]

C'mon now Dos

 

[UNCLE HARLEY]

I'm safe. I lost all mine I boating accident this summer.

 

[warthog]

I don't get SSA. I get mine straight from my old state where I was hurt on the job. Unfortunately the state is IL.

 

[Litebow]

Sigh, a new attempt at infringement every time I go online it seems. I just got my Medicare card and I have been following the gun control debate since I got my NRA card in the mid sixties. I did a research paper on gun control my junior year in high school. I thought it was a good paper, but I got a D, I have always believed because of the subject matter. I am weary of the constant assault on gun rights and the demonizing of gun owners. I think I have Post Traumatic Gun Control Syndrome. I home they don't propose taking my guns for that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ill go on record, and say that on the surface it doesn't seem bad. If a person has been deemed incompetent, then yeah, I don't see the issue.
"More than half of the names on the VA list are of people 80 or older, often suffering from dementia, a reasonable criterion for prohibiting gun ownership."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's sort of true. Simply getting SSI payments doesn't make you a prohibited person. Being declared mentally incompetent as the reason to get SSI disability can.

The devils in the details, of course.

 

[MCgrease08]

Ill go on record, and say that on the surface it doesn't seem bad. If a person has been deemed incompetent, then yeah, I don't see the issue.
"More than half of the names on the VA list are of people 80 or older, often suffering from dementia, a reasonable criterion for prohibiting gun ownership."

The case of the veteran highlighted in the article is a perfect example of why this is bad news.

Just because someone lets their spouse control the financial decisions, doesn't mean they are a danger to themselves or others. It certainly shouldn't result in their loss of a right to buy a gun.

 

[Leo]

The case of the veteran highlighted in the article is a perfect example of why this is bad news.

Just because someone lets their spouse control the financial decisions, doesn't mean they are a danger to themselves or others. It certainly shouldn't result in their loose of a right to buy a gun.

Even in the most mentally competent, strong marriages, one spouse or the other usually takes over all family financial matters. The one with the best financial skill set, best market understanding, most discipline or simply possessing time and interest takes care of the daily operations and long term goals. That is not a valid reason to revoke Constitutional rights.

 

[AutomationEngineer]

Sounds to me like the lesson here is to get all the guns you want to purchase before you turn 65!

 

[El-Cigarro]

C'mon now Dos

Comon, WHAT?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Even in the most mentally competent, strong marriages, one spouse or the other usually takes over all family financial matters. The one with the best financial skill set, best market understanding, most discipline or simply possessing time and interest takes care of the daily operations and long term goals. That is not a valid reason to revoke Constitutional rights.

That's also not what is happening. Letting someone control the checkbook is not the same as declared mentally incompetent by a court or the like.

 

[SSGSAD]

Even in the most mentally competent, strong marriages, one spouse or the other usually takes over all family financial matters. The one with the best financial skill set, best market understanding, most discipline or simply possessing time and interest takes care of the daily operations and long term goals. That is not a valid reason to revoke Constitutional rights.

I have been married 4 times, and I will NEVER again, let the wife handle the check book !!!!!

 

[BugI02]

Ill go on record, and say that on the surface it doesn't seem bad. If a person has been deemed incompetent, then yeah, I don't see the issue.
"More than half of the names on the VA list are of people 80 or older, often suffering from dementia, a reasonable criterion for prohibiting gun ownership."

Kut, why not ban them from owning/driving cars. I'm not familiar with the exact number of octagenarians who have committed mass shootings but I think its pretty low. Older drivers suffering 'unintended acceleration' or otherwise losing control and driving into crowds seems much more common. Why is it only the older shooter we need to be protected from.

 

[Vigilant]

Shoot, I own a business, and lack the mental competence to deal with my Financials, so I pay someone to do it. Are accountants going to have to report too?

 

[DRob]

Just curious. Has everybody who posted in this thread actually opened the link and read the article? There should be a requirement!

 

[Leo]

I see the "reasonable intents". It all sounds good, at least the media released, sanitized version. Remember Polosi smiling and saying "we have to pass it to see what's in it". I am against it. The NICS has plenty of other tools in the law enforcement tool pouch.

What I have also become painfully aware that every time another agency gets involved in something that is outside their original purpose, things tend to esculate in the wrong direction, with no ability to apply checks and balances. The leash that every rogue agency has is money. That is how the Feds force the States into submission. Once the camels nose is under the tent, things go down hill really fast. The EPA, IRS, various agencies give away money, and other runaway agencies have hurt Americans far more than any foregin enemies, at least up to now. Centralized (Federal controlled) government is just as harmful as centralized banking.

 

[17 squirrel]

I see the "reasonable intents". It all sounds good, at least the media released, sanitized version. Remember Polosi smiling and saying "we have to pass it to see what's in it". I am against it. The NICS has plenty of other tools in the law enforcement tool pouch.

What I have also become painfully aware that every time another agency gets involved in something that is outside their original purpose, things tend to esculate in the wrong direction, with no ability to apply checks and balances. The leash that every rogue agency has is money. That is how the Feds force the States into submission. Once the camels nose is under the tent, things go down hill really fast. The EPA, IRS, various agencies give away money, and other runaway agencies have hurt Americans far more than any foregin enemies, at least up to now. Centralized (Federal controlled) government is just as harmful as centralized banking.

One of the problems with NICS is that as of now, most States and the Federal Government don't report mentality ill people to NICS. And without the Feds and States reporting issues with INCS peolle that in some cases should not be approved are getting approved.
HIPPA laws prevent alot of patients information being released.
In Maryland when you buy a regulated firearm, handguns and certain rifles ect
You sign a waiver allowing the state police to search your records. Criminal and health. Maryland only does NICS at the dealer with some rifles and shotguns.

They are entering a slippery slope with this if its implemented.

 

[BugI02]

And I would extend the 'older driver' analogy even further. Just as knowing when it's time for the older driver to give up the keys, can we not rely on family to help make the surrender decision for firearms too? Government has NO business getting involved in these matters.