“Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others,” The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. “There is no simple way to identify that group, but 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.
“About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by ‘representative payees,’” The Times notes.
The move to disarm veterans is one Gun Owners of America has taken point on issuing warnings against.
“For nearly twenty years, GOA has been telling you about the anti-gun atrocities being performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Justice Department against law-abiding veterans,” the group explains. “When a veteran, as a result of a traumatic experience abroad, seeks disability benefits and/or counseling, VA moves to appoint a guardian to manage his financial affairs. Under illegitimate Clinton interpretations by ATF, this ‘inability to handle his financial affairs’ would make the veteran ‘mentally defective’ under 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (4), and hence legally barred from owning a gun or ammunition.”
The bottom line is, Americans who have not been adjudicated as posing a danger to themselves and others are being denied a fundamental right without the due process that would be afforded criminal suspects. Taking the lead from government administrators or from “professionals” with financial interests hardly qualifies. Nor is it clear how rights could be restored, and how anyone in need of financial affairs assistance would even be able to afford to try. Less clear is who would risk a liability lawsuit giving a previously negatively-diagnosed person a clean bill of health.
What’s apparent is the government wants to disarm the citizenry and this is one way to make incremental gains toward that goal using a divide-and-conquer strategy. From the government monopoly of violence’s point of view, disarming veterans makes sense, because these are people who have been trained to arms. And disarming “civilians” of Social Security age is another way to diminish a largely Second Amendment-sympathetic demographic. Think about it: If you’ve gone to a Tea Party event, how many graying heads did you see in attendance? Didn’t age representation diminish among younger people?
A New York Times/CBS News poll from a few years back concluded “Supporters of the Tea Party movement are more likely to be men, over the age of 45, white, married, and either employed or retired.”
Ever impatient to force their will upon those they would rule, “progressives” aren’t content to wait for Constitution-minded gun owners to die out or to be replaced with “pathway to citizenship” naturalization of immigrants brought in to culturally terraform the Founders’ Republic. If they can hurry the process along, they’re going to, and the establishment media will be right there to cheer-lead for the betrayal.
David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.