“The Obama rule established a process for identifying only Social Security beneficiaries who would be prohibited from possessing guns under existing law. It required that beneficiaries be notified of the prohibition, and it provided means to appeal the determination before an administrative law judge or a federal court. Such provisions would safeguard individual rights. But they offend the fundamental principle that drives NRA, and thus Republican, gun politics: Anyone should be able to get a gun at any time for any reason and bring that weapon, loaded, anywhere. As this latest foray in extremism makes clear, that principle applies even to the mentally incompetent.” – Guns for the Mentally Incompetent [via bloomberg.com]
“As this latest foray in extremism makes clear, that principle applies even to the mentally incompetent.”
Oh, really? Which court of law reviewed every single Social Security recipient that has someone taking care of their finances and adjudicated every single such recipient to be mentally incompetent?
Need I remind everyone that Communists love to declare large demographics of people to be “mentally incompetent” and thereafter seize the rights of those “incompetents”? What Obama did there with Social Security recipients was straight out of the Communist playbook.
The Obama rule was a cynical perversion of the RKBA. In effect, citizens would be stripped of the right, and then forced at great expense to prove their eligibility under the 2A. Any action that must be justified to a bureaucrat isn’t a right, its a privilege. And it certainly isn’t unalienable. .
“It required that beneficiaries be notified of the prohibition, and it provided means to appeal the determination before an administrative law judge or a federal court. Such provisions would safeguard individual rights.”
Sorry, in this country, you get your rights up front and the due process to remove them is done by a real judge BEFORE you lose them. Not after the fact.
I guess the founding fathers must have been ‘extremists’ when they wrote that pesky 2nd Amendment.
By today’s standards, they’d be labeled as nationalists and domestic terrorists.
They would be LITERALLY HITLER
If you’re using today’s standards…you forgot to mention their pigment.
“Powder Hitlers?”
Not necessary. Our enemies are most certainly White.
i.e.: Used to be Hillary, Bloomberg, Shannon Watts.
Blacks are slowly figuring out who is who and whether they need to take personal responsibility against the .Gov or gangbangers.
Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King taught non violent demonstration but they believed strongly in self defense.
This punishes those who don’t have children who will take care of their parent’s finances or those that don’t trust their children to do it. The great majority of the elderly who can’t or don’t want to handle their finances uses a child, friend or other relative to do it for them. They don’t tell the government and they can still protect themselves. My wife has taken care of her parents finances for years.
Further, it discourages people who need help with their finances from seeking that help for fear of losing their rights and their guns. And without that help, they suffer in multiple ways.
This is about the coin. Prove to government you cannot take care of your money, Social Security gives a higher payout.
But if you declare your impaired you loose the right to protect yourself with a gun.
http://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/daniel-zimmerman/the-va-was-actually-trying-to-help-that-idaho-vet/
Irrelevant. I don’t see a “mental competency” exception in the 2nd amendment.
No, but it clearly exists within both the 5th and 14th amendments.
I’m sorry, what part of “shall not be infringed” is ambiguous to you? It’s an absolute statement. Even the 1st amendment is limited to the authority of Congress, not a general prohibition.
That would be the part where the fifth and 14th make it clear that your liberty and property can be removed after due process.
Except that there are no absolute guarantees to liberty or property in the CotUS. The 5th amendment makes no mention of your right to keep and bear arms.
If the firearm is not your property then who’s is it? Or are you arguing that firearms are not property?
JWT: The due process clause does not provide for the taking of your property or limiting of your freedom. That must flow from another constitutional provision or a properly implemented statute/regulation that itself complies with the constitution. Due process provisions mean “no authority to confiscate property or otherwise limit a right may be imposed without providing due process of law.” But whether as procedural or substantive due process, those provisions are a limitation on the taking, not a authorization of it.
RopeDown…the exception being civil asset forfeiture. Money is property, and the average forfeiture is 2300 dollars, primarily use to fight drug transport. The bogey is the legislators, with lobbying from police, the way to skirt around your fourth amendment. The area around your vehicle is not private, so they bring drug dogs to sniff the perimeter. Handler cues the false alert then LEO can lawfully access your vehicle. If they find cash and a seed, meth, crack you loose your property.
To get the additional monies you prove to government your mentally disabled. As much as I subscribe to shall not be infringed, once one gets their coin, it effectively limits a right to keep and bare arms. In the eyes of the government cannot have it both ways.
The Government is out too get us, being a Vietnam Vet gives us a double whammy! Social Security wants to F**K us , also the Veterans Administration already F**ks those that have money Managers, the C**ck suckers just want to keep screwing the Vietnam era Veteran. Not too mention the EPA, BLM. IRS, and other government control freaks that have twisted leaders like Lois Learner, and the Two VA C**ts that stole 100s of thousand Dollars yet cant get fired, the Government slobs feed off the little guy! those that can get help outside of illegal immigrants, when I got out of the Service all the help I could get was Unemployment and food stamps yet the Vietnamese, got 5 years no taxes, free college for their kids, free housing, food stamps, free Medical and Dental, oh wait I got the decrepit GI useless bill
So ya I’m a little pissed at my Elected officials.
Eh…I used GI Bill benefits to earn a degree. I couldn’t use those benefits to live on, so I worked essentially two jobs (a professional job during the day, and rehabbed and rented foreclosed properties in my “spare” time) while attending school nights, studying nights and weekends. I had to work hard, but I appreciated the benefits I received. I did not partake of unemployment benefits or food stamps. At some point, I may let my children manage my small estate while I vacation, enjoy life, shoot guns, etc., so I hope the fact that I may relinquish the management of my affairs to others doesn’t affect my rights. It’s disappointing that Obama would paint a group of folks with such a broad brush. It shows you how out of touch the man was with America. I have no doubt he and his administration would ensure taxes were collected from those they would have denied their Second Amendment rights.
With the GI Bill I paid for college and two years of three in law school. I worked 20 hours a week through the whole bit. The GI Bill covered what tuition had cost me in college (state school) and nothing else. It nearly covered my law school tuition. When my step-father described his WWII era GI benefits (tuition at Columbia, rent, books) and pointed out that he hadn’t actually served in WWII, but stateside in 1948-9, I knew the unpopularity of the Vietnam war had provided an excuse for congress to royally shaft us. Remarkable. One day Washington will throw a war and no one will show up. Until that day, though, poor young people in need of a job other than running a cash register will keep on signing up. “Be All You Can Be!” You get home and they say “Was that all you could be?”
The ACLU was also opposed to this EO.
I have no doubt that many, if not all, of those publishing pieces decrying this reversal have enough wealth that they pay accountants to manage it, or at least pay a professional to prepare their taxes. Someone should explain to them that, by their own reasoning, they too are “mentally incompetent.” Why should anyone give a damn about the nonsensical ramblings of these self-professed lunatics?
To even pretend that Obama’s rule change was anything more than a spiteful power grab proves how disingenuous Democrats and their sycophants in the press are and how little it takes to fool many people.
Beware of the old guy who served and fought for his country and is ready to meet his maker.
And while I’m at it, F@@k the VA.
For the record, that sort of bullshit is why I got rid of my VA ID as soon as I got it. I get much better healthcare from my employer and don’t want to deal with the bullshit. Quite frankly, my time is worth more than any benefits I could possibly get from them.
The VA is no friend to the Veterans!
I hadn’t realized that electing to allow a loved one to handle my finances means I’m suddenly mentally incompetent.
“means to appeal the determination before an administrative law judge or a federal court”
So if President Obama decided to make this necessary for some citizens to vote (for example), that’d be a-ok cuz it’s not like their right was totally removed!
What does not being able to balance a checkbook have to do with responsible firearms ownership?
I haven’t balanced my checkbook in 30 years. Not worth my time or braincells.
“Anyone should be able to get a gun at any time for any reason and bring that weapon, loaded, anywhere. As this latest foray in extremism makes clear, that principle applies even to the mentally incompetent.”
As written the Second Amendment states exactly that. It makes special mention that you don’t need government permission to do it and that the government cannot set itself up in a position to require you to request permission.
As for the “…applies even to the mentally incompetent.” Yes, even Progressives and Liberals are entitled to their RKBA. Whether they exercise that right or not is up to them.
As an old guy who gets SS this really pizzes me off. Suffice to say tell nobody nothin’. Bury Soetoro-the bas###d who keeps on giving…
Disarm the hillary voters. They were crazy to vote for her..
Hmmm, my mother received a little over $800.00 a month in S. S. Luckily, it wasn’t the only money she depended on, for most of the remainder of her life, after my father died, twenty years ago.
However, if it was, how the heck would she hire an attorney to appeal this?
Get all the guns I want before retiring . Check.
Didn’t read the article, but that Custom Ruger SP101 with the black finish and cool angled grip is awesome! Would love more info on it. I have never wanted a Ruger revolver, I’m a S&W guy, but I want that SP101!
Trump is being forced to relinquish his management or ownership of all of his companies. And is over 65 and eligible for SS. Does that mean he can’t own guns?
“Anyone should be able to get a gun at any time for any reason and bring that weapon, loaded, anywhere.”
Sounds pretty good to me.
If the SS administration has the time and manpower to add this infringement to their workload, then they have too many bureaucrats. Time to right size this bureaucracy.
I always figured Social Security was a government guarantee that you’d have friends. If you outlived your real ones they’d send a replacement or two to make sure you didn’t get lonely. A social version of Visiting Angles or something.
Learn something every day.
OK, no really, there are a bunch of reasons I can think of that older folks might have someone handle their finances. None of them involve mental incompetence.
Further, as another poster pointed out due process means a fair and unbiased hearing before losing your rights or property. Or to restore them after such a process has taken place. It doesn’t mean “The government sent you a letter and you must comply but later you can appeal the administrative decision”.
Comments are closed.