PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on December 28, 2016, 08:06:41 PM
-
I don't know anything about the web site so I can't vouch for it, but:
Obama Administration Yanks Second Amendment Rights from SSI Recipients
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/28/obama-admin-yanks-2a-rights-from-ssi-recipients/?ref=yfp
-
AFAIK this is true. Another Obama overreach.
-
AFAIK this is true. Another Obama overreach.
Yes, it is true, and WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Totally illegal.
-
Do NOT ask the SS Administration to allow someone else to have access to your checks, benefits, or account to assist you with your financials.
-
I don't know anything about the web site so I can't vouch for it, but:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/28/obama-admin-yanks-2a-rights-from-ssi-recipients/?ref=yfp
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
Perhaps the Trump administration can fix this.
-
Hopefully someone will file a lawsuit over this. Either that or the Trump administration undoes it when he gets into office. Pretty soon the government will be deciding who is "mentally defective", not doctors, and taking more than just gun rights away. This is a very slippery slope.
-
The version from the LA Times:
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
-
The version from the LA Times:
because everyone knows managing finances is an excellent measure of having the ability to properly handle firearms. ::)
By that logic, the Federal government shouldn't have any guns.
-
The version from the LA Times:
Which like the New York Times, and 99% of other papers has a far left bias. If you miss manage your finances, you are mentally ill?
-
Yes. By fiat, Obama has declared that if you have someone else administer your finances then you are mentally incapable of owning a gun. Therefore you must be punished by being denied your SSA check.
I don't follow his leap from one sentence to the next but I don't think I missed anything.
Yet another thing that will be reversed in 23 days.
-
The link won't open for me, but the way the link reads to me isn't about SS, but SSI, which is completely different. A vast number of SSI recipients are receiving monthly checks because they've told the government that they are disabled because of alcohol or drug dependencies, others for other mental disabilities that they claim keep them from holding down a job.
Strange that they have the right to vote if they don't have a right to firearms. One seems more dangerous than the other.
-
The link won't open for me, but the way the link reads to me isn't about SS, but SSI, which is completely different. A vast number of SSI recipients are receiving monthly checks because they've told the government that they are disabled because of alcohol or drug dependencies, others for other mental disabilities that they claim keep them from holding down a job.
Strange that they have the right to vote if they don't have a right to firearms. One seems more dangerous than the other.
which link won't open?
in any case, you are correct that it is about SSI. But what does it really mean to receive SSI?
"SUMMARY: These final rules 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 these final rules, we will 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 who 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 will 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 will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. These changes will allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA."
-
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate that.
Seems right to me. If someone tells the government that they're TOO MENTALLY IMPAIRED TO WORK and therefore they should be receiving disability payments instead of working....seems right to me that person shouldn't have access to firearms.
-
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate that.
Seems right to me. If someone tells the government that they're TOO MENTALLY IMPAIRED TO WORK and therefore they should be receiving disability payments instead of working....seems right to me that person shouldn't have access to firearms.
On one hand, I agree with you. People accepting government handouts should have to sacrifice something. Perhaps it will give then an incentive to get off the dole.
On the other hand, I don't like the Federal government making arbitrary rules and decisions regarding who is deserving of "certain inalienable rights" and who is not.
-
So what does, "Shall not be infringed" mean. When the government decides to infringe, or is it a NATURAL RIGHT?
-
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate that.
Seems right to me. If someone tells the government that they're TOO MENTALLY IMPAIRED TO WORK and therefore they should be receiving disability payments instead of working....seems right to me that person shouldn't have access to firearms.
It's not the job of government to determine one's mental state. That's why we have health professionals who are trained to make that determination. The government is circumventing due process by a "rule" to deprive citizen's of their rights.
-
It's not the job of government to determine one's mental state. That's why we have health professionals who are trained to make that determination. The government is circumventing due process by a "rule" to deprive citizen's of their rights.
Just the idea of the government determining mental state by arbitrary legislation sends a chill up my spine.
-
Just the idea of the government determining mental state by arbitrary legislation sends a chill up my spine.
As it should. The determination should be determined by a medically qualified doctor not a bureaucrat .
-
I wonder how far this line of thinking would go if we substitute "right to vote" for right to "bear arms"?
-
Oh, please. We're not talking about a heavy-handed government bureaucrat claiming someone is too mentally instable to own a gun. We're talking about people of their own free will telling the government that they're too mentally ill to work and should be paid with tax money.
And I think I'd rather have non-violent felons retain their 2a rights over someone who claims to be mentally unstable. No one here is jumping up and down about the government stripping felons of their right to firearms. <= = and I'm not either. I'm just saying that if someone says he's too mentally imbalanced to work----then he's too mentally unbalanced to carry a gun.
-
Oh, please. We're not talking about a heavy-handed government bureaucrat claiming someone is too mentally instable to own a gun. We're talking about people of their own free will telling the government that they're too mentally ill to work and should be paid with tax money.
And I think I'd rather have non-violent felons retain their 2a rights over someone who claims to be mentally unstable. No one here is jumping up and down about the government stripping felons of their right to firearms. <= = and I'm not either. I'm just saying that if someone says he's too mentally imbalanced to work----then he's too mentally unbalanced to carry a gun.
So not able to keep up with finances = mentally unstable? My mother has never kept finances. She probably could but my father charged me with the task when he passed. Because my mother is old fashioned, are you saying that she is mentally unstable? Or because my father put me in charge, does that make her mentally unstable?
You and Obama are jumping to conclusions that are not logically conclusive.
-
Like ALL progressives ours here constantly redefine things to suit their agenda.
-
And I think I'd rather have non-violent felons retain their 2a rights over someone who claims to be mentally unstable. No one here is jumping up and down about the government stripping felons of their right to firearms. <= = and I'm not either.
That's because due process has already been applied.
-
That's because due process has already been applied.
Exactly. These people were tried, and convicted, or accepted a plea deal, and plead GUILTY. Not managing your finances is not a de facto mental illness. The Federal government defining who is mentally ill, and denying them their natural rights is RIDICULOUS.
-
A radical idea - but should laws (and I suppose executive orders) also have to pass USSC approval before taking effect? Not judging whether they like the law or not, but a stamp of approval that the law or order is Constitutional prior to execution. It really does little to say "this is unconstitutional" and then spend the next 5-10 years trying to prove AFTER your rights have been infringed.
Yes, it would be an amendment. Good one or bad one?
-
Oh, please. We're not talking about a heavy-handed government bureaucrat claiming someone is too mentally instable to own a gun. We're talking about people of their own free will telling the government that they're too mentally ill to work and should be paid with tax money.
And I think I'd rather have non-violent felons retain their 2a rights over someone who claims to be mentally unstable. No one here is jumping up and down about the government stripping felons of their right to firearms. <= = and I'm not either. I'm just saying that if someone says he's too mentally imbalanced to work----then he's too mentally unbalanced to carry a gun.
There could possibly be some justification for your statement, if it is true. Can you show where it said they were restricting only those that are "too mentally imbalanced to work"? People get in SSI for many reasons that have nothing to do with mental impairment.
But I will go along with the fact that there are way too many people drawing SSI or other disability payments that shouldn't be. I don't object to those people being denied certain rights, although I think the right to own weapons shouldn't be on of them. I prefer the idea someone else had about restricting their right to vote instead.
-
My wife is on SSI and I pay the bills. I guess she can't buy a gun. ::)
-
Oh, please. We're not talking about a heavy-handed government bureaucrat claiming someone is too mentally instable to own a gun. We're talking about people of their own free will telling the government that they're too mentally ill to work and should be paid with tax money.
And I think I'd rather have non-violent felons retain their 2a rights over someone who claims to be mentally unstable. No one here is jumping up and down about the government stripping felons of their right to firearms. <= = and I'm not either. I'm just saying that if someone says he's too mentally imbalanced to work----then he's too mentally unbalanced to carry a gun.
It is hilarious to watch you and other agenda driven progressives twist, spin, turn and spit out the stupidest arguments to promote gun confiscation.