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.
“We can never allow pseudo-science decisions to be in the hand of the State, which this is.”
My father used to say: “Internists know everything and do nothing. Surgeons know nothing and do everything. Psychiatrists know nothing and do nothing!”
The initial phase was pointless as you said but they never quit. The anti-smoking lobby just kept on demanding more until they exercise excessive, nearly absolute control in individual lives.
The gay lobby has used the same technique by assigning "hate" status to anyone who simply disagrees with them. Now they are set to destroy any opposition financially. The next step will be a firing squad.
Yet anther reason you shouldn’t want the Government managing anything. They tend to act in accordance to the various interest of political leaders rather than your interest. Thus suddenly your retirement plan and your healthcare suddenly become contingent upon a host of other unrelated demands.
Don’t be shocked at all when Obama ‘encourages’ IE orders ‘insurance’ plans to ‘discourage’ gun ownership, before moving on to strip other freedoms in the name of Washington’s political interest.
Keep control of theses things yourself and nobody can uses them against you. Let Government have control and they will be used against you when ever politicians see fit.
You would hear the screams straight across the Atlantic
I believe that
Not everyone receiving S.S. benefits through a representative payee are old people, many of them are minors.
Do you know how many Veterans receive Social Security Benefits. 65 is the age limit some start receiving it and most Viet Nam vets are in, or very close to that age.
Anyone know if they’re going to come after the guns of the representative payees, too?
If so, they’d be in some deep doo-doo.
“Most of them could not handle their affairs because they had thieving lying relatives and/or caregivers.”
So they need a gun even more!
I think it would be hard to confiscate guns, but easy enough to prohibit them from buying new guns.
I imagine trust fund type things, or LLC’s that manage for retirement would also be included.
What government could deem a person incapable of owning a gun for mental reasons and then convict them for "venting" (all sorts of puns waiting in the last)?
An ‘older’ white man involved in a national news shooting in Louisiana- boy is that convenient..
He wasn’t a senior citizen though at age 58
When can someone begin getting social security?
I ask because I don’t know. Can someone get social security if their spouse was a senior citizen?
Again, I am not near the age so don’t know.
I suspect they would know what medications this guy was on. I haven’t caught up on the story today so some of this may already be known
Guns will not be their only problem.
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.