Obama Takes Parting Shot at Gun Owners with Social Security Disarmament Ruling

4_p071816ps-0408

All smiles? Just don’t need help with your finances, gentlemen… (Photo: The White House)

Making “good” on a warning issued in this column a year-and-a-half ago, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration issued its final ruling, reclassifying some of the most vulnerable citizens among us literally as “mental defectives,” and thus ineligible to own a gun. The ruling applies to recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and virtually ignores over 91,000 public input comments, most condemning the move.

“[T]he SSA did not attempt to answer most of the legal questions raised about its authority,” the National Rifle Association observed. “Incredibly, the SSA also brushed aside empirical evidence the NRA submitted suggesting that the proposed rule would have no public safety benefit … The administration further acknowledges that the rule would not provide those subject to its terms the ability to defend their suitability to possess firearms before the actual loss of rights took place.”

This can happen because a citizen”adjudicated” by SSA* needs help managing finances, something everyone unable to decipher all the various federal, state and county/municipal tax codes and reporting requirements and schedules could well admit to. That can now be used to make certain these citizens are defenseless.

And that must be viewed across the backdrop of recent headlines such as:

We could go on, but the point has been made. And would a gun have made a difference in any of these reported incidents? The question should be “Whose decision is that to make?”

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. Nor is it clear how rights could be restored, and how anyone in need of financial affairs assistance would even be able to afford a challenge or be in a position to try. Even less clear are incentives for “mental health professionals” to risk a liability lawsuit by giving officially-designated “prohibited persons” a clean bill of health – particularly noting the extreme anti-gun agenda dominating their profession.

What’s apparent is those in power positions representing themselves as “the government” want to disarm the citizenry and this is one way to make incremental gains toward that goal using a divide-and-conquer strategy. From the monopoly of violence point of view, disarming veterans makes sense, because these are people who have been trained to arms. And disarming all “civilians” of Social Security age who meet the arbitrary disqualifying criteria is another way to diminish a demographic that includes – or will include before too long – many, including Oath Keepers, who are among the strongest proponents of the right of the people to keep and bear arms

* Correction made in response to a Facebook critique by a former SSA adjudicator. I’ll be looking at this in light of that comment to see if further changes are warranted.

—–

UPDATE (Jan. 3, 2017):

Comment poster Kris makes several valuable clarifications about the way the process works from the perspective of someone who has worked as an SSA adjudicator. Per SSA’s final rule summary:
“We propose to implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under the proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We propose to provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibitions imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also propose to establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. The proposed rule would allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.”
That was linked to in the above discussion but not elaborated on. In retrospect, that could have been more clearly presented.  He’s also correct when  he says “SSA’s disability program is available regardless of age.”
 
Two statements he makes point to the crux of my objections: “In short, while not adjudicated by a *court*…” and “Whether these prohibitions should exist in the first place is a different argument entirely…”
The crux of his objection appears to be my use of the word “arbitrary” when there are systems and procedures in place to “adjudicate.” The sense intended is included in the Merriam Webster definition. I submit that a system where the federal government assumes undelegated powers to include the power to regulate or deny that which “shall not be infringed” approximates that definition.
He may, of course, be right, that we’re talking exclusively about “padded room corner droolers and virtual carrots.” If that’s the case, why SSA feels the need to “propose to establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication” becomes a meaningless sop rather than a serious policy consideration.
My main point is, that shouldn’t be a federal matter in the first place, and the determination needs to be made with equivalent protection of a jury trial. My follow-up point is that “getting ‘off’ the list once on and recovered from whatever disqualifying condition had taken place” has never been satisfactorily explained to ensure that it is just, affordable by all, and not subject to considerations including biases (arbitrary and otherwise) of those making such determinations.
I’m grateful for his insider perspective on how the process works. If and when this subject comes up again, Kris’ insights will definitely factor into how the information is presented.

About Author

David Codrea

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.

Comments

  1. Hangfire 30 December, 2016, 17:56

    So how long before the government determines that anyone on disability who is dependent on H&R Block to do their taxes is sufficiently dependent upon others to manage their affairs and therefore, should not be in possession of firearms? This is just one more executive order that attempts to deny the rights of the citizens without due process. The people most harmed by this ruling are the ones least able to afford consul to assist in reversal. That God these types of draconian ruling will come to an end, and others reversed, in January of 2017.

    Reply this comment
    • moman 31 December, 2016, 08:36

      H&R Block provides a service for a fee,

      SSA, they automatically remove taxes as per locations tax codes and such.

      their logic behind it is circular and lacking. just because someone requires financial management assistance, doesn’t make them mentally adjunct. and SSA is a F*&%^ING pension we ALL paid into, receiving it does NOT make us reliant on the fed’s, it is much in fact, the other way around ever since they moved it to the general fund.

      Reply this comment
    • Jacqueline 2 January, 2017, 17:37

      Hangfire, Not H&R Block, but a citizen ‘adjudicated’ by ANY type of government aid would meet this SSA interpretation of ‘needing help to manage finances’ (rather comedic considering the source). The majority of those receiving disability or SSI income were successfully managing their finances prior to developing a MEDICAL (versus psychiatric) condition which left them unable to CONTINUE employment. A conclusion that loss of income reflects an inability to manage personal finances exhibits a gross fracture of logic. State laws require a court hearing before declaring an individual financially incompetent, but here we have a federal agency issuing a blanket ‘rule’ to that effect without verifiable, corroborating evidence of same… in the same vein as the recent CDC ‘rules’ granting themselves the power to medically detain an individual for merely ‘appearing’ to be sick or a carrier of the latest concocted infectious ‘pandemic’ disease… and then there are those state seizure laws. All are written fully cognizant of their unconstitutionality, but will continue to be implemented until one or more individuals, with the funds and fortitude, slap them into court to obtain a definitive ruling of constitutional violation and cessation of practice. The Mad Hatters are standing on their heads – leaving no doubt as to who truly wears the hats of mental deficiency.

      Reply this comment
    • Dave 2 January, 2017, 18:29

      Dave
      A real issue with saying people are incompetent to own fire arms without due process is the fact that anyone who hires an attorney has declared them selves incompetent (corpus juris sercundrum section 7) this includes the state and the government! Obama being an attorney knows this but most people dont. So the facts are we have incompetents passing rules for other incompetents. The whole bunch is incompetent to be law makers but the people would rather be told what to do than think for themselves.

      Reply this comment
    • Laurence Almand 3 January, 2017, 17:23

      Anti-gun do-gooders will use ANY excuse they can to deny the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Keep in mind that “mental disorders” and “mental disability” are favorite bureaucratic catch-alls for any excuse the mindless bureaucrats can think of to deny citizens rights.
      Arbitrary incarceration has become a big problem in our society, along with the arbitrary theft of property – “civil forfeiture” – merely for SUSPECTED criminal activity.
      The do-gooders are using SSA as merely a tool for their malicious agenda.

      Reply this comment
    • USMC0351Grunt 3 January, 2017, 17:38

      Or better yet, when is anyone going to realize that because the U.S. Government cannot manage THEIR finances, that the entire U.S. Government needs to be disarmed?

      Reply this comment
  2. WGP 30 December, 2016, 20:32

    I say tbese fools are more than welcome to pay that confiscation visit. After enough of those lefty cowards die behind the skirts of oath keeping deputies, those deputies will be less likely to escort their soft hairlessness to my door. Am eagerly standing by for thier arrival. See that I have served my country well and will with glee apply a punishment on those who step on our liberty so our sons will not experience the same.

    Reply this comment
  3. Kris 30 December, 2016, 22:02

    David: There’s a fundamental flaw in your argument (that I pointed out here, a year and a half ago when you first raised the alarm), namely that you don’t seem to understand the “arbitrary” criteria that would land someone on SSAs reporting to NICS. Please see those specific criteria here:

    https://www.ssa.gov/…/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm

    Understand that the adjudication process is not “arbitrary” and the prohibited person would not only have to meet/equal these disability listings (difficult to do unless *profoundly* mentally ill), but ALSO would then have to be additionally found incapable of administering their own finances… an entirely separate process requiring even further evaluation of an individual’s mental disability.

    Please also understand that the folks adjudicated this way *wish* to be on this list to receive their SSA disability stipend.

    In short, while not adjudicated by a *court*, the prohibited person most certainly would fall under the 27 C.F.R. §478.11 definition of “adjudicated mentally defective” (for the record, SSA disability adjudications are the purview of federal Administrative Law Judges), and the SSA ruling in no way creates a new class of prohibited persons. The ruling here simply expands/clarifies the reporting to NICS of profoundly mentally disabled persons by the SSA… folks who are already prohibited persons according to the criteria found on the 4473.

    Whether these prohibitions should exist in the first place is a different argument entirely, but your conclusion (“…disarming all “civilians” of Social Security age who meet the arbitrary disqualifying criteria is another way to diminish a demographic that includes – or will include before too long – many, including Oath Keepers, who are among the strongest proponents of the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is crying wolf even if the discussion is about “incremental” encroachments. I expect that kind of sensationalism from the NRA, not from you.

    SSA’s disability program is available regardless of age (and in fact cuts off once a payee hits retirement age), and the demographic you’re referring to (the folks affected by this ruling) are currently drooling in a corner, in a padded room, or so hopped up on anti-anxiety meds as to be a virtual carrot. That may sound like unkind hyperbole, but it is closer to the truth than your description.

    Let me repeat this so I am crystal clear: The folks who would be reported to NICS from the SSA as prohibited persons due to an adjudication of mental defectiveness and representative payee status are coloring-books-for-christmas mentally ill. They would have a hard time writing their name and address on a 4473 let alone not being able to write the check to pay for a firearm. They are *already* prohibited persons, and the new reporting policy doesn’t change that.

    If you were to focus on the process (or lack thereof) of getting *off* the list once on and recovered from whatever disqualifying condition had taken place, that’s a perfectly valid gripe, but your current article relies on the reader’s ignorance to raise their ire. It’s yellow journalism, and you’re better than that.

    -Sincerely, a former SSA Adjudicator.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 31 December, 2016, 05:27

      Below is my Opinion based entirely on the US Constitution, our LEGITIMATE government and to which we here are Oath bound, the framers, debates at the time, etc. This is not the opinion of oathkeepers, though some may agree with me. I encourage you to do the research, read the US Constitution, show me where you, that agency, etc has the authority delegated to them in writing.

      If you still believe that which you said above then you have not done a couple of things when you were SERVING within our government, and now, nor have you been paying attention to what is going on today.

      First, YOUR Oath is to the US Constitution, to support and defend it BEFORE the orders of superiors and BEFORE the duties of the position you occupied.

      Why does this apply? When SS was conceived of, it was an agreement, contract that was done with the consent of the people. Why are you, and others who SERVE WITHIN/did serve within the SSA Oathbreakers? When the SS was changed to be given to other people who did NOT pay in to it, etc; when the SS ID card which was guaranteed to be/to remain private for one’s account started being required as ID; etc the contract was broken by those who serve within our government – you, your co- workers, your “bosses”, etc. Though it was not a part of the US Constitution to which you are bound, it was an agreed upon contract with one party being the people who paid into it, and the other party being those who were supposed to see to it that those funds were NEVER used for anything else and kept for those who paid into that account. Ignorantly or not, you were a part of the destruction of our nation by following color of law and not keeping the required Oath.

      The supreme law and your supreme contract required that you know the difference between what the US Constitution allowed those who serve within our government are allowed to do (agencies, branches, offices, military, enforcement, etc).

      Since that (SS) was a lawful contract at the beginning, but null and void contract later, lawfully every single person who serves within that department is personally responsible for the money that was paid into it by the people (who were mostly forced to contribute). That action was against the people with whom the contract was made, and it became Misappropriation of Funds, and other things, but is a crime. Be thankful that most of us would not come after your ‘stuff’. BTW, statutes do NOT overpower the US Constitution, but are mostly “color of law”.

      Breaking the Oath is a felony and the crime of Perjury – and truthfully, brainwashing, propaganda, etc does not really count… But it is time for YOU personally, and others who are Oath Takers to start KEEPING your Oath. Worse, those you send to enforce those unlawful things are made into *terrorists being used against the American people.

      No more “just following orders” and “just doing your jobs” like what was done in Nazi Germany, Stalinist/Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China, etc. Your Oath told you what was most important, and, it sounds like that when you were serving you failed miserably and assisted in the downfall of our nation. Start stepping up to the plate and KEEPING your Oath.

      So now it is time for you to stop thinking of the US Constitution as government did/does, because without it there would be NO GENERAL (FEDERAL) GOVERNMENT. From it comes the authority to act in the name of the people, of the USA. Read it with out the pre-programmed that was fostered upon you with governmental schooling and governmental “jobs”. Your oath, just like the US Constitution, means exactly what it says, and if you did not take that Oath then you had NO lawful authority at all in the duties that you performed when in a governmental position. Not to read a paper, not to make claims, not do talk “business” on the phone, not to receive a paycheck. That requirement to be bound to the US Constitution is in writing, it was/is your supreme and FIRST contract above and before any other that you agreed to – and in governmental positions that is important to always understand – and that Oath reminds you.

      There is NO unwritten Constitution. It is NOT up for the courts created by it to interpret it; nor for any agencies to make laws/codes/regulations/etc that they enforce, etc. That authority was not, IS NOT in that document. YOUR duty was/is to support and defend the US Constitution as it was written and with its meaning when written.

      There is not authority delegated to any one, to any group, to any branch who serves within our government over the people and weapons – NONE. It is made clear in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and in the US Constitution that our governments here were created to PROTECT and DEFEND those rights and our liberties. THAT was/is your duty, our duty. It is forbidden for those that serve within our government to make any decision over weapon ownership – that is left to the people themselves.

      I have found that the hardest thing is to get over those governmental preconceptions that they control everything, and they do not question their own authority. IT is in writing, and it is LIMITED. The items to which the general (federal is really the who she-bang) government is the MOST limited.

      This is decent description from Publius Huldah: “In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
      – Military defense, international commerce & relations;
      – Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
      – Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
      – With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

      As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States or The People….
      What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress? It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
      – immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
      – mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
      – Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
      – post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
      – patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
      – federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
      – military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
      – the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
      – [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

      Do you get the idea? The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.” (end quote)

      Since no one who serves within our government has any LAWFUL authority over the people and their *constitutionally REQUIRED weapons, are actually forbidden in writing to even require a holster, etc – and that is NOT up to a “judge” to decide, they were NOT given that authority – there is nothing that anyone in that agency who would not be acting against our legitimate government, against the American people, by even considering that as a “proper law/statute/regulation/etc”. YOU, the agency, the branch, the offices within a branch, etc WERE NEVER DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY; it was FORBIDDEN TO YOU/ETC IN WRITING.

      Until you understand that, and do not feel alone, I argue and disagree with others here , and elsewhere, who are as brainwashed and propagandized as you are. READ the US Constitution to which, as an ex governmental employee, you are required to be bound.

      The American people needs you awake, not still controlled. The US Constitution needs you awake, aware. But that is up to you. I will fight for our nation with you or against you if need be. Freedom, the US Constitution – that concept yet to be absolutely and fully put into action, America and her people are worth my life. I hope that it is worth yours. Re-educate yourself.

      Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

      *Militia

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      God Bless and Stay Safe All

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      Reply this comment
    • David Codrea Author 31 December, 2016, 09:43

      I asked Kris to post his Facebook comment here. I’ve already made one correction as noted by the asterisked footnote update. I’ll be saying more on this, but several factors are going to keep me off the internet for most of the weekend.

      Reply this comment
    • Greg K 31 December, 2016, 11:51
    • Henry 31 December, 2016, 19:13

      “SSA’s disability program is available regardless of age (and in fact cuts off once a payee hits retirement age), and the demographic you’re referring to (the folks affected by this ruling) are currently drooling in a corner, in a padded room, or so hopped up on anti-anxiety meds as to be a virtual carrot. That may sound like unkind hyperbole, but it is closer to the truth than your description.”

      The first time we find an example that is not, will you agree that we can torch your house?

      Because unless you have actual skin in this game, your statement is about as dependable as “You can keep your doctor if you like him,” or “The Obamacare penalty is not a tax.”

      Reply this comment
  4. Linda 31 December, 2016, 06:37

    As correctly stated in the fb discussion, an agency cannot constitutionally adjudicate and due process overrules. Without due process (aka in a court with a real judge), the actions by the agency (SSA) are un-constitutional and unlawful.

    Despite Kris’ claim of the SSA doing nothing more than what has been done since 1968 (quote): “…The rule as promulgated by the ATF for a decade has “adjudicated mentally deficient” by a government agency. The SSA’s determination meets that criteria. It doesn’t matter why the determination is made, if the outcome results in a finding of mental deficiency, it therefore renders the person prohibited by law…” reveals exactly WHY this is wrong.

    It’s wrong because the ATF and 1968 laws are wrong. Wholly unconstitutional.

    If the SSA is going by an unconstitutional law, it is unlawful behavior by the government. The government is in violation of the Constitution.

    Even if it’s ideologically as wrong as two boys kissing, it isn’t really any sort of expansion of prohibition further than what we’ve had since 1968.

    Reply this comment
  5. Linda 1 January, 2017, 05:54

    (quote): “…Even if it’s ideologically as wrong as two boys kissing, it isn’t really any sort of expansion of prohibition further than what we’ve had since 1968.:”

    This is the sentence that should be deleted from my comment. It is Kris’ words, not mine. Thank you.

    Reply this comment
  6. runner1 2 January, 2017, 08:09

    Cal; great response. yes ans to many of our prob is in the US Constitution. govt agencies today should not exist for they are not listed in the constitution and now have huge regulatory power. it is astounding that SSA has any power to remove anyones firearms except the power the mr unconstitutional himself, B H Obama gives. He also has zero power to remove anyones gun right. God not him or anyother person has the right. It would also b nice if obama followed the constitution and enforced the laws.

    Reply this comment
  7. Gman50 2 January, 2017, 08:36

    I hope President Trump wipes-out every single one of Empereur Obama’s imperial decrees.

    Reply this comment
  8. Chuck 2 January, 2017, 10:44

    What is the logic behind this, for one social security is not welfare you paid into it, with not option to not pay into it, thus I do not see the government’s right to place limitations onto it. Secondly just because you are older does not give the government the right to strong arm you into submission of your second amendment rights. When will we stop allowing the government the ability to alter enaliable rights. deminishing of said rights is intallorable and must not be allowed!

    Reply this comment
  9. Bobbo 2 January, 2017, 11:36

    Surprised? NO. Disgusted? YES. Birds of a feather flock together, as do bottom feeders. Sadly, I don’t feel we’ve voted the bums out. As I remember Reagan, both Bush’s, Ike, Nixon were all alternatives. Not.
    Big business oligarchs run the show, select the candidates & count the votes. A lose lose proposition.
    Does the current morass in the Middle East remind anyone else how the Viet Cong ran a terror campaign? Then the oligarchs here created Gulf of Tonkin (w/LBJ’shelp). Then patriots were f****d by the oligarch puppets in LBJ & the Tricky one’s admins? Sound familiar (nowadays we have songbird McCain)?
    As important as Neighbor hood watches are now becoming, the need to get involved in the political process also is.
    We do need a guide…..not a leader….we need principled leaders, who follow the US Constitution! As in ‘Old Ironsides’!
    Becoming a precinct committeeman carries weight. Nearly 50% of these seats are vacant in the USA. Politicians listen to these people! Imagine Constitutional precinct committeemen in conjunction w/Constitutional Sheriffs…. Waffling or glad handed politicians are shown the door. Or a rail to ride, w/tar & feater ensemble. You can run for this office or contact your county executive committee to get appointed w/o running for election. Takes less than 100 hours a year, way less. There are lots of you tube videos covering these positions. Cold Warrior a good start.

    Why do I harp on the US Constitution? Look @ O Bomber has done the socialist program of Social Security….. Totally unconstitutional & seemingly benevolent, SS subsidizes druggies, drunks, broken homes, illegals, H1 & L1B visa recipients & soon ME hordes. Now this asshat wants to keep seniors from being able to protect themselves! Follow the Constitution, no socialism. Throw SS out? No! PHASE it out. The current workforce pays for it. Stop screwing them.

    Bitching won’t cut it.

    Reply this comment
  10. Vinny 2 January, 2017, 13:02

    If I ever hear the name Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah again in my life I promise to puke in the spot I am standing. I am so sick of hearing about that Islamo – Marxist punk, his “parting shots” and carnage he has left in his wake. In my almost 80 years on this planet, the last 8 years have put more “mileage” on me than the previous 72 combined. As a US Navy Korea Vet, Oath Keeper and full blooded American, I only desire to live out the “remainder” of my time in an Independent, Free Standing, Sovereign, Constitutional Republic. Excuse my tirade ! God Bless America.

    Reply this comment
  11. Jeanette 2 January, 2017, 13:11

    If the “globalists/ elite/ Cabal/ Illuminati/ shadow government/ fill-in-the-blank” really do intend to reduce the world population from 7 billion to one half of one billion (500 million) as per Agenda 21/2030 and the Georgia Guidestones, then disarming the most helpless would give them a start on their murderous campaign.

    Reply this comment
    • WGP 7 January, 2017, 14:57

      … a global war the criminals are starting with Putin that never ends, liken the middle east conflicts, reduces those numbers…

      Reply this comment
  12. Jaque 2 January, 2017, 13:58

    The OBAMA regime has followed the handbook of Joseph Stalin. While OBAMA has not murdered millions of US citizens he has used federal agencies as his personal henchmen to chop away at his enemies, both political and ideological. He has also armed these agencies with sufficient arms to carry out sustained operations against the American people. I have no doubt that there will be cross checks of SSD files with the government database of firearms owners, the database that is prohibited by law but we all know that exists. No one deemed unfit need fill out a 4473 as many firearms owners possess guns that were inherited or purchased before the GCA of 1968 required gun the buyers name. For those cases will SSA agents raid every home of the disabled searching for guns ? Or will rouge SSD minders arbitrarily check the box declaring the mentally sound and disabled as MENTALLY IMPAIRED so as to confiscate more guns. Both Stalin and Hitler had political enemies declared mentally unfit and thrown into prisons to die. Don’t think the same cannot happen here in the US. Look up the name ” Brandon Raub.” His case proves my point. The Federal Government is not your friend. The Federal Government under the management of Despots and Gangsters has become unmanageable and unaccountable It no longer serves the people as we are mere subjects. OBAMA has abused the power of his office repeatedly and faced no meaningful consequences. The next OBAMA will be even worse unless that Congress is chaired by men with balls. I have little hope of seeing future men with balls considering the gender bending cupcakes being generated by today’s colleges, future leaders of Amerika.

    Reply this comment
  13. Rick 3 January, 2017, 07:45

    I am not among those who will be harmed by this communist/fascist ruling by a bunch of federal government jerks. However, even if I was, NOBODY has to comply with such rulings. They are unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral. Use your guns for the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution in the first place. Guns in the Good Guys hands equal Government Goons Gone.

    Reply this comment
  14. Marine first 3 January, 2017, 09:56

    I don’t own a gun and don’t like them, halving saying that I am a marine that fought for Americans right to have and own a fire arm.
    This right was put in place to protect the people from a corrupt and dangerous government.
    If anyone thinks for a second I will not go and buy as many guns I want when they tell me I can’t are very wrong

    Reply this comment
  15. hewilson2 3 January, 2017, 11:57

    I’m a big 2A advocate and defender but allow me to play contrarian here for a moment. A goodly number of folks on Disability are on it for psychiatric reasons. Is it not reasonable to have some firearms ownership rules for persons on psychiatric disability?

    Reply this comment
  16. Kris 3 January, 2017, 12:09

    David, thanks for the update.

    I disagree with the sentiment that these are arbitrary decisions (even by your linked definition), as the requirements for finding of disabled via a severe mental impairment are established by congress; and the representative payee decision (a majority resulting from an *existing* court decision of incompetence, but sometimes initiated by the claimant’s treating doctor, and when the claimant has no clear ability to make change or operate a check book, NOT when they need to hire H&R Block for their taxes) needs to go in front of an ALJ hearing (who is an Article 1 judge, equivalent to a military courts martial jurist, internet opinion notwithstanding) if challenged, and with two further levels of federal court appeals as options, each with all doubts required to be viewed towards a presumption of claimant competency.

    I’m sure a lot of my disagreement has to do with the fact that I’ve seen the process from the inside, and understanding exactly what is required to meet the SSA’s narrow definition for reporting from that perspective (it’s not easy).

    The requirement for a relief process was written into the NIAA. You’re absolutely right it needs to be delineated better, but a careful reading of the adopted rules shows that it available at any time, and would go before a circuit court if contested by the SSA.

    On that topic, being taken out of payee status (i.e. a claimant having their benefits terminated) is an affirmative defense to the disqualification and SSA’s disability cases are supposed* to be reviewed on a one year, three year, or seven year basis (depending on the condition and likelihood of improvement).

    *SSA’s disability adjudicators are currently backlogged to a ridiculous level, so those reviews (“diaries”, in disability speak) generally don’t happen on-time at this point.

    Either way, current recipients of benefits wouldn’t land on a NICS list until their diaries were up, and they continued to meet the criteria for inclusion. The SSA rules as published also state that a person will automatically be removed from NICS if/when representative payee status ends, or they no longer have an impairment that meets their requirements – no appeal required.

    That all of this is an unconstitutional infringement to begin with we also agree on, however I think my initial point stands:

    While the current president may have directed SSA to get their agency in line with the statutory requirements of the NICS Improvement Act by EO after Newtown; the act itself that spawned this was NRA supported-legislation signed by Bush after VT dating back almost a decade now. No new class of prohibited persons is created, as SSA’s adjudicative decisions fall in line with the GCA68 definitions of persons who are prohibited due to being “adjudicated mentally defective” (and further meeting the “lacks the mental capacity to contract or order his own affairs”). It’s a stretch to blame this on Obama or the SSA, unless they’re mentioned in the same sentence as Bush and the NRA.

    Again, I think we agree that GCA68 is horribly unconstitutional – just like every other infringement – and this new reporting will likely have no discernible public safety benefit; however the characterization that this rule somehow reclassifies previously eligible purchasers of firearms as prohibited is off the mark. This is simply an agency reporting already disqualified individuals, which is what the NRA demanded the federal government to do years ago.

    Unintended consequences suck.

    Reply this comment
  17. USMC0351Grunt 3 January, 2017, 17:24

    Anyone that recalls David Sarti, The Prepper in Tennessee that was one of the stars on the series Doomsday Preppers, who often did You Tube videos giving most excellent ideas of ways for people to prepare themselves for ANY crisis, also giving excellent information for communications and protection of that gear by use of a faraday cage as he is also an avid HAM Radio operator, was raided by the FBI, ALL firearms stripped from him as he was adjudicated as mentally unstable, then “seconded by a second judge whom only read the first judges’ findings”.

    David needs our intervention. We need to start mounting cases to aid and assist the people being affected by these outrageous violations of rights, liberties and pursuits.

    PS: I was able to aid the capture of 13 illegals on 1 January they tried to enter our country by Presidio, Texas. Things are heating up if anybody is a hard-core, SERIOUS advocate of closing our borders? Contact me directly by TEXTING ME at 432-295-1363 OOH-RAH and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    Reply this comment
  18. USMC0351Grunt 3 January, 2017, 17:53

    Bring it, Bitches!

    Reply this comment
  19. Gun Safe 23 May, 2017, 10:10

    Ohh Great, Obama take parties from gun owner, I think obama also take some training for self defense, Obama is great

    Reply this comment
  20. Omer Kiyani 23 May, 2017, 10:15

    Hello Obama is great Why can’t President Trump over turn obama back door bull sh*t why does it have to go thru the Senate and House. If obama can do this why not President Trump. I am tire of how obama can screw over the country and the people of this country by just signing his name. It is time that all of these idiot signing just be gone with the signing of one paper by our President Trump.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*