Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns

[GMDino]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns/

Quote:The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.

The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.

My favorite two comments so far on this story:

Quote:voodkokk 2 minutes ago
Obama just made it illegal for 60% of Blacks to own a gun

Flag Share 5 Like Reply

and

Quote:mryummie 3 minutes ago
ONCE AGAIN OBAMA ATTACKS WHITE AMERICANS

Flag Share 4Like Reply

[StLucieBengal]

Problem is who gets to decide if they are ill...

These are nothing but back door attacks on individual rights. Are they going to limit those who live in the house with these people? Some are going after that....

Despite what obama yaps about this country needs more gun ownership within the law abiding public. If every home had a gun then that would be a good thing.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2015, 11:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:    If every home had a gun then that would be a good thing.

I liked you better befoe you turned into a comedy act.

[fredtoast]

See,s pretty simple to me.

if you lack the decision making ability to be trusted with your own money then you shoiuld not be trusted to own a gun.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-20-2015, 01:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: See,s pretty simple to me.

if you lack the decision making ability to be trusted with your own money then you shoiuld not be trusted to own a gun.

Don't argue with you on this point at all. But say I care for my elder parent who has some issues. Should they be able to take my guns if the elder parent is only living there for care?

I can agree with limiting guns for some who have legitimate problems ..... but the typical government overreach is what concerns me... Which will affect people who are law abiding and have zero issues.

[Toy Cannon]

I'm wondering how that would work.

Let's consider an older person with a collection of civil war guns, adorning one wall in his den.

He decides it's time to let someone else handle his finances, and notifies Social Security.

Is the ATF then sent to his home with a search warrant? Are his collectable guns destroyed?

What if his son lives with him and owns a couple of hunting rifles, are they confiscated? If they order the son to lock up his rifles, will they do surprise inspections to make sure they are kept locked?

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2015, 10:26 AM)Toy Cannon Wrote: I'm wondering how that would work.

Let's consider an older person with a collection of civil war guns, adorning one wall in his den.

He decides it's time to let someone else handle his finances, and notifies Social Security.

Is the ATF then sent to his home with a search warrant?  Are his collectable guns destroyed?

What if his son lives with him and owns a couple of hunting rifles, are they confiscated?  If they order the son to lock up his rifles, will they do surprise inspections to make sure they are kept locked?

It would work just like the laws already in effect for illegal possession of weapons.  

Generally if you have been convicted of a violent felony or domestic assault then you are not allowed to own a gun.  That means that if there are guns in your home owned by another person they must be secured in a way that you could not gain access to them.  

There are already lots of laws in place limiting the possession of weapons, and this new limit will not change any procedure.

[*michaelsean*]

You're not good with your money so you can't own a gun and receive Social Security? Because of Sandy Hook? Sure that all makes sense.

And you all think this is a good idea? Man I thought this would be a hanging curveball for you guys to knock out of the 'I don't agree with Obama on everything" park.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2015, 12:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're not good with your money so you can't own a gun and receive Social Security?  Because of Sandy Hook?  Sure that all makes sense.  

And you all think this is a good idea?  Man I thought this would be a hanging curveball for you guys to knock out of the 'I don't agree with Obama on everything" park.

I think they are extending a possible decent idea into a fearful one:

Quote:The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

Keeping guns out of the hands of those who cannot take care of themselves isn't necessarily a "bad" idea.  The question will always be where do you draw the line and who is drawing it.

Which is why we always fall back to its a right and everyone gets a gun who can pass the background check.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2015, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think they are extending a possible decent idea into a fearful one:



Keeping guns out of the hands of those who cannot take care of themselves isn't necessarily a "bad" idea.  The question will always be where do you draw the line and who is drawing it.

Which is why we always fall back to its a right and everyone gets a gun who can pass the background check.

I'm just reading what you guys wrote. Could it be that not being good with money could mean you can't own a gun?

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2015, 12:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're not good with your money so you can't own a gun and receive Social Security?  Because of Sandy Hook?  Sure that all makes sense.  

And you all think this is a good idea?  Man I thought this would be a hanging curveball for you guys to knock out of the 'I don't agree with Obama on everything" park.

It has noting to do with Sandy Hook.  I just happen to think that only mature, responsible adults should be allowed to own guns.  

If a person does not have the decision making skills to manage his own money then he should not be allowed to own a gun.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2015, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm just reading what you guys wrote.  Could it be that not being good with money could mean you can't own a gun?

Not  "not good with money".  That's not what the quote says at all.

Edit: If that was a requirement Trump couldn't own a gun.

[*Nately120*]

(07-21-2015, 12:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not  "not good with money".  That's not what the quote says at all.

Edit:  If that was a requirement Trump couldn't own a gun.  

I was going to say that the people I know who own the most guns tend to blow all their money on Budweiser, Marlboros, and scratch-off lottery tickets.

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2015, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  Could it be that not being good with money could mean you can't own a gun?

Why exactly would a person "not be good with money"?  Don't you think that is a valid indicator of poor decision making skills?  

"Not being good with money" is not the same as being "bad at math".  Instead it is an indication that a person is not capable of making mature, reasonable decisions.  The overwhelming majority of people who have been appoimted a guardian by the Social Security Board have mental illness or drug addiction issues.

[Rotobeast]

(07-21-2015, 10:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It would work just like the laws already in effect for illegal possession of weapons.  

Generally if you have been convicted of a violent felony or domestic assault then you are not allowed to own a gun.  That means that if there are guns in your home owned by another person they must be secured in a way that you could not gain access to them.  

There are already lots of laws in place limiting the possession of weapons, and this new limit will not change any procedure.

Just wanted to add that if it's a Federal Felony (which given we are talking about the Federal Govt here), they require that there are no firearms or explosive materials within the household.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-21-2015, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If a person does not have the decision making skills to manage his own money then he should not be allowed to own a gun.

Why? So every person that makes poor financial decisions will also make poor decisions with firearms?

You know, what? Screw it. I agree with fred. If you make poor financial decisions, your 2nd Amendment rights no longer apply to you. While we're at it, I think people who make poor financial decisions should not be allowed to vote, either. And they certainly are not allowed to go to church.

[SteelCitySouth]

(07-21-2015, 01:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why? So every person that makes poor financial decisions will also make poor decisions with firearms?

 And they certainly are not allowed to go to church.

Careful Phil.  That might solve some of their poor financial issues.  

[*PhilHos*]

(07-21-2015, 01:28 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Careful Phil.  That might solve some of their poor financial issues.  

No, it won't. Whatever they can't spend on guns, they'll spend on booze or the confederate flag or whatever.

[GMDino]

(07-21-2015, 01:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why? So every person that makes poor financial decisions will also make poor decisions with firearms?

You know, what? Screw it. I agree with fred. If you make poor financial decisions, your 2nd Amendment rights no longer apply to you. While we're at it, I think people who make poor financial decisions should not be allowed to vote, either. And they certainly are not allowed to go to church.

How about you take a deep breath and think about it?  No just anyone who makes poor decisions...a few who CAN'T make decisions for themselves.

Say, Saint Ronnie at the end of his life?  Should he be allowed to walk around packing when he may not know where he is?

And, again, I don't know WHO would make those decisions or how they would be enforced so I'm not saying "pass this now!!!!".  I'm saying common sense rules would make sense, but no one will agree who will set eh line or who will make sure it isn't being abused.  So nothing will change.  Same as always.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-21-2015, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It has noting to do with Sandy Hook.  I just happen to think that only mature, responsible adults should be allowed to own guns.  

If a person does not have the decision making skills to manage his own money then he should not be allowed to own a gun.

Just going off the article.  It says part of his efforts following Sandy Hook.

So is our CINC going to discharge soldiers not good with their money?  Pink slips for cops?

I really can't see how money handling skills and gun skills are in any way connected, and to violate people's rights on what doesn't even amount to a hunch is just ridiculous.