Posted on 07/20/2015 4:50:39 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action: "As the LA Times reported on July 18, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is currently developing a program to strip the Second Amendment Rights of over four million Americans currently receiving SSA benefits through a 'representative payee.' Not only would this amount to the largest gun grab in American history, but according to the published report," in the LA Times, "would take place without any due process protections for recipients, amounting to a nullification of Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans who don’t pose a threat to themselves or anyone else.
"This new program appears to have been instigated by the SSA in response to a memorandum issued by Obama in January of 2013 which directed all federal agency executives to 'improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).'" The Obama "memorandum required all agency heads to submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a plan for 'sharing all relevant Federal records' for submission to the NICS."
"This new program appears to have been instigated by the SSA in response to a memorandum issued by Obama in January of 2013 which directed all federal agency executives to 'improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).'" The Obama "memorandum required all agency heads to submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a plan for 'sharing all relevant Federal records' for submission to the NICS.">
Now, apparently Obama's Social Security Administration bureaucrats read 'all relevant Federal records' to mean all Social Security recipients who have a 'representative payee' assigned to their accounts to help them manage their payments and receipts. Obviously, many individuals swept up in this egregious case of bureaucratic over-reach would not otherwise be prohibited from owning, possessing, or acquiring firearms under federal law." So here we have, in essence, what's gonna happen here, these four million people to start -- this is just the beginning, as it always is -- are going to have to give up their Second Amendment rights as a prerequisite for receiving Social Security benefits.
They are going to have to voluntarily turn in their guns and their ammo in order to get Social Security. Now, again, this is initially for around four million Americans who get Social Security benefits through a representative payee. But Social Security "is not alone in this directive. The [Obama] memorandum names several agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and 'such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.'
"Potentially, bureaucrats in all these agencies could be working hard to identify and forward 'all relevant Federal records,' to the NICS pursuant to the Obama mandate. In total, this program could easily grow to include many more millions of Americans who have any connection to the Federal government through the various agencies named in the memorandum." It's a surreptitious way to disarm people, starting with seasoned citizens who are going to be threatened with turning in their guns in order to continue receiving benefits.
Now, this proviso here of "representative payee." I'm sorry, I don't know what that means and I got the story late. I got this story after the program started. I have not had a chance, so I don't know what a "representative payee" is. Some of you on Social Security might know what it is. But whatever it is, it limits to four million recipients those originally first impacted by this. It's not every Social Security recipient. It's only the four million who are thought to receive their benefits through a "representative payee."
Now, "payee" is who you write your check to. So if you write a check to the power company, they are the payee. I don't know. Not the payor. You are the payor. The payee is the name on the check. So we'll figure this out, find out what this means. The real question is: How many people gonna resist giving up their guns? How many gonna resist giving up their guns and not get their checks? This would include Social Security disability checks, too.
Okay, here it is: "A representative payee is defined as an individual or organization appointed by the Social Security Administration to receive Social Security and SSI benefits for somebody who cannot manage or direct someone else to manage his or her money." So it's basically somebody that doesn't know what they're doing and has somebody else receiving the check for them and minding it and managing it, organizing it. Those people are the first to be told, "If you have a gun, you're not getting benefits. You've got to give up the gun and your ammo or your benefits gonna be cut off." Again, the LA Times is the source on this, with the NRA discovering it and essentially retweeting it.
Bttt.
I hope old people shoot social security administrators when they come for the guns.
If the govt chooses to interpret third party financial handling of SS checks as auto deposit financial institutions, then everyone who gets a SS check will have to surrender their guns.
Catch-22: You must accept auto deposit there are no other options.
Before you say this is outlandish remember the tactics of the anti-smoking lobby. Over the years the goalposts crept from "Our own section in a restaurant" to "It's a crime to smoke in your own home".
It would be interesting to know just how many of those who have “their SSA benefits managed” actually own guns. How many of them are having someone manage their money as a convenience as opposed to those who are actually mentally incompetent. What is bothersome is that there is absolutely no determination as to mental competence.
I second that!
Another 4 million “Gun-Free Zones”!!!!
And Obama is going to release countless felons, because #BlackLivesMatter, or some-such insanity.
Talk about a perfect storm.
An examination of notable shooting in the last few years, including Chattanooga by an Islamic terrorist, Ft. Hood by an Islamic terrorist, DC Naval Yard by a probable Islamic terrorist, the Aurora, CO movie shooter (now an Islamist) and the Newtown school shooting, absolutely none were done by Social Security recipients with third party payees. Obama is an idiot.
Just google "When they first came for the Jews, I did nothing because I was not a Jew..."
And discover where that eventually led.
I just cannot see how they plan on carrying a gun grab like this out.
First, they have no idea who even has guns or how many or where they are kept etc, unless it’s some lefty haven where such records are kept on the citizens.
Will the SSA be able to get search warrants??
This may be in the works, but it will not happen during the current presidency. If Satan gets Hitlery elected, then maybe the guns are gone, but so is the country.
This is how it starts.
Having been a rep payee for hundreds of clients I can tell you that probably 60 percent of them were perfectly capable and could own and handle a gun. Most of them could not handle their affairs because they had thieving lying relatives and/or caregivers.
I will. Should I survive the initial encounter, I'll hunt down the ones who sent them.
You can rest anything you want, but not your brain, because you don't have one.
Hence the petty irrelevant delusional pronouncement.
People need to understand a representative payee is not like a conservator. When you have a conservator you probably couldn’t and shouldn’t handle a gun. Not the same thing at all.
They are just trying to get there a communist foot in the door.
That is why they go the “psychiatry” route-—it is pseudo-science and subjective.
It is like with D’Souza——the State will just assign a “doctor” to state that you are mentally ill and it will take thousands of dollars to “prove” you are not and most people will not have the time and money to fight this fascism like D’Souza has-—who is STILL getting burned. .
It is Stalin’s government tactics-—true Marxism-—State dictates if you are sane or not or competent.
We can never allow pseudo-science decisions to be in the hand of the State, which this is.
That was my first thought. Direct deposit means it goes “first” to your bank in that it manages your account
Citizen: “You want to live? Then don’t mess with our guns”.
Well, I can still pee in the pool I own if I want to - you may not like it, and may not want to frequent my pool, but I can still do it.
But the nanny state has said that I can't allow smoking in a business I own, irregardless of my say in the matter.
So yes, yes there is a difference. And, if you're advocating government interference of individual property rights, you're on the wrong site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.