Maybe all you high & mighty lawyers, bureaucrats & central planners might want to rethink this idea, hmmmm?
Posted on 02/12/2016 5:04:14 AM PST by HomerBohn
If you've got a gun and you receive Social Security, you are now being targeted by the Obama administration.
In the latest stealth effort by the Communist administration, the Social Security Administration is wanting to list the names of those who receive Social Security benefits to the National Instant Check System (NICS) as "prohibited persons." This would effectively ban them from being able to purchase a gun and would target those who already own guns.
It would also be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
The LA Times has the story:
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by 'representative payees.'
The Veterans Administration has been involved in this for years now, as they have sought to disarm our veterans, those who have fought to defend the very rights they are being deprived. My good friend Leon Puissegur seems to have been targeted in such a manner.
Just like the VA, the Social Security Administration would have no judicial oversight, which would mean they would end up violating the Constitutional rights of American citizens under the Second and Fifth Amendments.
We already know that the NICS system is being used to build a database, despite it being against the law to do so.
Owning a gun is not a crime. Being a veteran is not a crime. Being elderly is not a crime. Even being marked as having "subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease" is not a crime. Therefore, people's rights should not be infringed because a mentally ill, criminal usurper thinks they should be.
Any way this criminal administration can think of restricting or confiscating guns, they are looking to do it. Whether it is through the Veterans Administration, more background checks, or putting people on a random no-fly list, they are openly defying God, the people and the Constitution.
What Americans need to keep their eyes on is the simple fact that the united States Constitution does not grant any authority to DC politicians to write law nor impose by executive order the restriction of guns for citizens. Congress doesn't have that authority, the Executive Branch doesn't have that authority and neither does the Judicial Branch. This is a usurpation and always has been because every federal gun law is unconstitutional!
“”knee jerk FR reaction””
Knee jerk reaction on FR? Surely, you jest!!!
Thanks for checking it out more.
Not an autopsy, Goulish!
He’s still be alive, but without anesthetic.
Social Security Administration recipients who have a representative payee have not been deemed “mentally incompetent.†That is not a legal term recognized in federal law as it relates to prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms.
The federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to those “adjudicated as a mental defective.â€
Under the proposed new policy, individuals who have representative payees would lose the right to possess any guns they might currently own and would be prohibited from purchasing new firearms. (This is being pursued as new policy by Obama. Anyone who, for whatever reason receiving disability benefits who has a representative payee/trustee of sorts will have his./her guns taken!!!)
The term “adjudication,†refers to a determination made after a judicial-type process that includes various due process protections. In no case does the federal law describe or contemplate the type of prohibition by bureaucratic fiat exercised by the SSA in developing its guidelines for those with “representative payees†assigned to their accounts.
“”I have never heard of it either, but I am under the age of 65.””
My only advice to you is “STOP AND SMELL THE ROSES” so there will be more joy to growing old than making/keeping more doctor appointments than you ever did in all the other years added together. My husband and I retired at 70, relocated and the last 10 years have been a steady parade to/from doctors and hospitals. Before that, we saw doctors once a year for physicals and myself for the usual female checkups.
We were too conservative to enjoy the opportunities we had to have some fun. So listen well!!!!!!
Nah-But “O” is not convinced yet that we know just how f%#@ed up he IS-So he’s trying to get it across to us (satire)
Someone tell Clair Wolff that we’ve passed that awkward time...
Our local Cabela’s is having GREAT DEALS on handguns this week.
I’m trying to find ways to cut my bills so I can STOCK UP before I really get old and senile!
“I wants one of them, one of them, two of them, oh yea, one of them!” CHARGE IT!
They mean SSI,not basic SS.
The article,like many on The Web,is misleading.
It’s all bull anyway.
.
“applies to people receiving SS benefits who have a “representative payeeâ€; e.g. people who have acknowledged that they are not mentally competent to manage their own affairs and have asked/had someone else appointed to manage their finances”... I would also think they should also be declared ineligible to vote.
Maybe all you high & mighty lawyers, bureaucrats & central planners might want to rethink this idea, hmmmm?
Exactly!
I'll guarantee that most of Congress, the chattering class and the Hollywood elite have 'financial managers' to handle their incoming checks!
(ooops, bad example. Most of the above ARE 'mentally incompetent'!)
You mean, aside from both being an infringement upon an inalienable Right?
***
I note they don’t go after the one area where old age *does* play a detriment to the safety of the public at large...DRIVING.
IMO, it’s been asinine to allow licenses to be so easily re-issued after age 65 (I’m just throwing a # out there). Can’t see over the wheel, confuse gas w/ the brakes, 40MPH in the passing lane of the hwy, etc.
I’m not over 65, but lying to (denouncing and not cooperating with) Satan is not a sin.
From what source did you copy this from?
It has those crazy, worthless symbols indicating that the text hasn’t been washed.
(Furthermore, when is this website going to correct this problem? Many of us contribute good money to the maintenance of Free Republic.)
So have many so called Conservative Republicans.
In the entire Congress you will find only five true Conservatives.
I am happy in my choice to be a ‘far right wing conspirator’.
Can’t recall. May have been from the NRA or an email I received.
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.