Social Security Issues Final Rules Removing Beneficiaries’ Gun Rights

Via The New American

Social Security Issues Final Rules Removing Beneficiaries’ Gun Rights

The Social Security Administration (SSA) announced on December 19 that it had “finalized” its rules regarding who will have their names added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This was after the proposed rules published in April received more than 90,000 responses, mostly negative, from the public. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the proposed rules for numerous reasons and urged its members to protest them.

The new rules now allow the SSA to add to the NICS anyone over 18 but under retirement age who is diagnosed with a “mental disorder” and receives benefits through a “representative payee.” Open to question, as pointed out by The New American in June, is just how “mental disorder” is to be determined, as well as how the agency can override the right to due process protected by the Fourth Amendment and infringe upon the “right to keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

The agency failed to respond to complaints that there is no provable relationship between using a payee to help manage an individual’s financial affairs, and their propensity for gun violence. What it did, however, was explain that it was just doing its job — called the Nuremburg Defense (“We’re just following orders, sir!”):

We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence.

Rather, we are complying with our obligations under the NIAA [NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007], which require us to provide information from our records when an individual falls within one of the categories identified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)  [“It shall be unlawful … for any person … to deal in firearms.”].

This is circular reasoning of the first order. The SSA first determines that a “mental defective” must have his name submitted to the NICS, which then results in his automatic inability to deal in, possess, or keep or bear arms.

Just how does the SSA determine that an individual is a “mental defective”? It took some digging into the 41-pages of proposed rules, but as The New American reported earlier this year:

Under the proposed rule, we [SSA bureaucrats] would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who received Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act … or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under Title XVI of the Act.

And just how would identification take place, exactly? On Page 19 the question is answered in part:

If we have information that the beneficiary has a mental or physical impairment that prevents him or her from managing or directing the management of benefits, we will develop the issue of capability.

And what is this “issue of capability”? That is found in a footnote at the bottom of page 19, referring one to the rules by which said SSA bureaucrat determines whether said beneficiary is capable of handling his or her own affairs, or not:

Does the individual have difficulty answering questions, getting the evidence or information necessary to pursue the claim, or understanding explanations and reporting instructions?

If so, do you think this difficulty indicates the beneficiary cannot manage or direct the management of [his or her] funds?

Once that determination is made by a nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat buried deep inside the walls of the SSA, precious rights guaranteed under the Constitution disappear.

The final rule is estimated to impact negatively 75,000 people every year. But what’s to keep the SSA from expanding its rule to include everyone receiving any benefits (not just Disability or SSI) through a “representative payee” — i.e., bookkeeper, associate, family member — or expanding the definition of mental illness to include anyone who disagrees with the rule?

The NRA has been following these developments and is currently preparing proposals “for corrective action” for the incoming Trump administration to consider. Said the NRA:

In the meantime, this is one more reminder of the petty, partisan politics of Barack Obama, and one more reason to be thankful that in a few short weeks he will no longer wield the power of the presidency against the nation’s law-abiding gun owners.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
23 Comments
Brian Reilly
Brian Reilly
December 29, 2016 8:23 am

These people will never stop until the private possession of any sort of weapon is illegal. They will use any means, any pretext, any fact or falsehood to advance their cause to enslave every citizen. They will never, ever stop.

Anonymous
Anonymous
December 29, 2016 8:34 am

This seems to apply to those who are receiving SSA benefits for a mental disability and are under the care of others that handle their affairs since they are unable to because of their mental disability.

Hard to tell for sure since most of the information here is not directly quoted and used out of context to the entire rules involved making it an opinion article rather than a fact reporting one (no link is provided to the actual document and following the only link it uses is to another opinion article which leads to a 14 page government document, and that makes it rather difficult to read the page 19 rules referred to in this article).

I prefer to read the original documents containing the information claimed they contain than take someone’s opinion about what it says and what might happen in the future concerning it.

Original documents and rulings outweigh secondary opinions in my scheme of things. I don’t like being told what I should think about them without being able to refer to them.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Administrator
December 29, 2016 9:04 am

Give me a link to it, the article doesn’t and pursuing the only link it has seems to refer to a document that doesn’t have the pages or the information it talks about.

It’s really hard to read page 19 of a 14 page document which seems to be offered, indirectly through another article, in support of the authors position.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Administrator
December 29, 2016 9:40 am

Ok I found the link, it clearly limits this strictly to seriously mentally defective people under the age of retirement on SSA mental disability who are a clear and present danger and as required by law since they are prohibited persons (and adjudicated as such by virtue or their SSA status).

The article is misleading at best, and implies a lie at worst.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Administrator
December 29, 2016 10:03 am

“Why would someone who is a clear and present danger be allowed in public?”

A good question and one I’ve asked myself many times.

But we see on an almost daily basis that they are, and almost always well known to both mental health. legal, and LE authorities.

Prescriptions to psychoactive drugs, SSRI’s and such, in the general public and compared to police records indicate the extent of the problem.

But that is something no one likes to talk about, better to keep it out of public discussion.

Brian
Brian
  Administrator
December 29, 2016 6:48 pm

Mission creep. Just look at the guy who is dealing with a DUI for caffeine. Do you really think this SSA stuff will not be expanded or misinterpreted to take in people it was not originally meant too? WAKE UP AND GROW UP!

SSA is a major gateway to losing your rights. Not just guns but your income as well.

TPC
TPC
  Anonymous
December 29, 2016 9:46 am

My wife was diagnosed with a litany of mental issues when she was in high school. It turns out she had a severe auto-immune illness that was treatable through some simple medication.

Unfortunately, due to how wonderful our information relay is in this nation, she is still stuck with all of those false diagnoses. Under this law, my perfectly normal and mentally sane wife cannot own a firearm.

Under this ruling we are all one irritated doctor away from losing our second amendment rights.

Given how readily our doctors dole out psychiatric recommendations I would think you would be alarmed.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  TPC
December 29, 2016 10:07 am

Why is your wife on SSA for a mental disability?

That’s all this law deals with, the broader federal gun laws dealing only with court ordered mental health treatment (even a voluntary self commitment doesn’t count).

Alter Boyz
Alter Boyz
  Anonymous
December 29, 2016 10:46 am

“It’s really hard to”

FUCK YOU

TampaRed
TampaRed
  Anonymous
December 29, 2016 12:40 pm

Anon,it’s irrelevant.If a person is not safe enough to possess a firearm they should be locked up,whether in a prison for criminals or a mental institution for the mentally ill.
If a person is safe enough to walk the streets they are safe enough to have a gun.

Wip
Wip
December 29, 2016 10:31 am

Federal court rules police can shoot a barking dog when entering your home.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/federal-court-rules-police-shoot-162939226.html

constman54
constman54
December 29, 2016 10:51 am

It serves to fuckers who abuse the system for disability benefits right. If you want to get into bed with Uncle & suck on the taxpayers tit then play by uncles rules. Just get rid of the SSA and there will be no problem. Never and I mean NEVER apply for the benefits. There are always ways to take care of oneself apart from Uncle.

Pay your taxes; keep you head down and prepare for a future that is not dependent upon Uncle to pay your bills.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  constman54
December 29, 2016 11:56 am

Especially don’t apply for the benefits on the basis of mental disability, and even more so one severe enough to require someone else to manage your affairs.

ragman
ragman
December 29, 2016 11:25 am

constman: what planet are you living on? After “contributing” over 250,000 FRNs I’m supposed to give all of that to some asshole that just floated up on a raft? I didn’t volunteer for the program, I had no choice. I’d be happy to get a check for said 250K, no interest. Will that ever happen? Hell no! I’m not “sucking on the taxpayers tit” until I exceed that amount and at the rate I’m being “paid back” it’ll take a very long time.

i forget
i forget
  ragman
December 29, 2016 7:47 pm

bahump bugs madoff…”contributing” admits reality & simultaneously blows your argument (“argument”?): it was taken from you by force or threat of force – & you want it back, no questions asked (which is to say taken from others by force or threat of force – & given to you).

bernie’s marks/victims would like to have their “contributions” back, too…& it’s all the same, big, happy planet….

Anonymous
Anonymous
December 29, 2016 12:16 pm

Yet Each gov agency is now armed to the teeth while removing your gun rights.One man with a gun can control 100 without.

Anon
Anon
December 29, 2016 3:12 pm

I have a radical idea – lets get back to the constitution. What does said constitution say about firearms hmmm – 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How complicated is that, and what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is unclear.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy
December 29, 2016 4:36 pm

It always comes down to who is watching the watchers ! I have experienced caring for gun owners in my family who due to their age and series of infirmities , dimensa being the ultimate curse of the aged required me to take action at the first sign of trouble by removing the firearms and denying access the same with their car and driving permit !
Families who operate like loving families do not need government to interfere but it can and will regardless and that’s when the true law of the land should prevail . Stand up be an adult and command the situation with no equivocation or reservation and generally bureaucrat shit for brains twisting laws and authorities that are limited at best to justify their existence usually back down when they encounter someone that refuses their assumption of control !
I understand there may arise a situation with an individual but these are limited and can usually be resolved by some person with an IQ ABOVE WAHLE SHIT ! Rendering any authority to any government agency that is not close to the actual situation is irresponsible by any measure and should be scrutinized closely !

overthecliff
overthecliff
December 29, 2016 6:41 pm

“shall not be infringed”.

Anonymous
Anonymous
December 29, 2016 10:23 pm

Polosi said if we can not go through the fence we will go around the fence…