Posted on 07/21/2015 9:48:20 PM PDT by Perseverando
It began with letters from the Veterans Administration informing returning veterans they were being declared incompetent and someone would be appointed to handle their financial affairs.
The veterans then were told they, consequently, could no longer own weapons.
Now the same plan is being considered for recipients of Social Security, the Los Angeles Times said.
The paper said 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 report describes to the letter the VA plan reported by WND.
Michael Connelly of the United States Justice Foundation has been working on the VA case since several veterans contacted him to say they had been determined incompetent without so much as a hearing and wanted to fight back. According to the Social Security plan, the federal benefit recipients would be told they are incompetent and can no longer have weapons. Then their names would be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is used by governments to try to keep weapons out of the hands of felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and others.
Targeted would be Social Security beneficiaries who have “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”
An estimated 4.2 million adults get Social Security payments that are managed by “representative payees.”
The Times said the move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to strengthen gun control.
After Congress shot down virtually every legislative change Obama wanted, the president began to makes changes through rewriting rules and definitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Simple. Don’t comply.
And if they attempt to grab, shoot.
This has been out a couple of days and simply being discussed at present. The problem I see....if you do the gun angle....I don’t see how you don’t take the second step and deny the same guy the right to vote. At that point, you start to get some folks disturbed about denying voters. But the legit question to ask....since we are bulking up on ‘crazy’ people getting disability payments...where is the dividing line? If you were legit crazy....normally in the south....your relatives would come over and just remove your guns from the house, in the interest of protecting you and relatives.
I don’t see this happening because it just opens up other doors...2.5 million are suggested in the numbers of this affecting....all people on social security disability, for mental issues. Might be curious to ask of the 2.5 million....how many are registered voters?
let’s not also overlook....
1. all dangerous dictators try to disarm the sheeple as a first priority order of business, by any means they can get away with
and
2. many elderly people (subject of this latest BHO gun-grab proposal) tend to vote more conservatively, too (and so are perceived by BHO as ‘enemy’ to be neutralized in all ways possible)
so for BHO’s gang, disarming the elderly would be a double-dipping success, like sort of a political double orgasm for them
(no pictures available sorry)
There is also talk of requiring pharmacies to report everybody taking certain drugs for the purpose of confiscating more firearms.
Congress and the states need to pass laws immunizing citizens from any prosecution for shooting, injuring, or killing any official who is acting on orders to confiscate firearms.
The effort to increase the numbers of people forbidden from possessing firearms is included in that bill, BTW.
Only on nutcase conspiracy sites which you evidently frequent.
Picking up a 22 magnum small pistol tomorrow. I get social security and I’m getting that pistol and no liberal piece of x, like Obama, is going to stop my getting it.
I knew this was coming a few months ago when I read Obama was writing new orders to crack down on gun buyers beginning in November.
Note “disease” is one of the criteria to keep older people from getting a gun. A “disease” can be anything they want it to be - higher than normal blood pressure, higher than normal cholesterol, type two diabetes, ingrown toe nail, baldness, seafood allergy, dust allergy, arthritis, obese, skinny, fallen arches, wrinkles, big feet, small feet, vitamin C deficiency, sunburn, sleep too much, sleep not enough, use a cane, colored hair, eat bacon, wears funny clothes, wears no clothes (okay not that one), etc., etc.
Shouldn’t we put ALL criminals in jail permanently? After all, if they are out walking around, they might commit a crime. Same thing. Obama and his Nazi ‘RATS suck!
That’s right. They wouldn’t need the pharmacy data—they’d only have to look at your Obamacare records and know what you were prescribed. Then it would be up to you to prove you didn’t take it.
Make assumptions often?
I am one of those social security recipients that would have my right to bear arms taken away because of mental illness. I personally have no weapons because of my mental illness. that is a choice I made and a good choice but the government using the social security disabilities list to remove the right to bear arms is troubling because the purpose is not to protect the public but to impose control on society. Ib think that before anyone’s rights are ever taken away by the government at the very least a hearing is needed and some : incapacity to handle the responsibility of weapon ownership should be shown not just the fact that they suffer from a mental illness. looking twice at some one with bi-polar or schizophrenia should happen but it should not be automatic they loose there tights.
Come and take them you sons of bitches!
anyone going to a shrink.
anyone who says they are depressed.
anyone going through a divorce.
anyone who just lost a job.
they could do whatever.
nobody on ‘our side’ stands up against this bullsh1t
Where does state vs. federal control of 2nd Amendment rights figure into this? In my state, it is fairly difficult to lose gun rights — basically only if you are a felon or involuntarily committed (and a few other things like certain domestic violence). This article seems to imply the feds can supersede the state. You could be perfectly clean with the state yet the feds grab your guns.
Whatever excuse they use we’re gonna have the same party when they come.
A slap to the face.. by Obama...
This may not end well..
Of course it will be tied to voter registration. If you vote Republican you can’t be trusted. You fly a confederate flag? Obviously you can’t be trusted. Your white? Well come on.
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.