SSA proposed NICS rule

[jr45]

As some of you may know, Obama’s SSA is looking to report tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousand, to NICS as prohibited individuals under the disguise of keeping firearms away from the mentally ill and public safety. Please take a look at the proposed rule. There is also an open comment period.

https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=SSA-2016-0011

Link to the full rule in PDF
https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPRM--Implementation%20of%20the%20NICS%20Improvement%20Amendments%20Act%20of%202007%20(NIAA).PDF

Article by the NRA
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160429/social-security-administration-releases-proposed-rulemaking-on-disability-related-gun-ban

 

[danez71]

Im not advocating it but after reading the 41 pages in the 2nd link, it seems narrowly focused on mental deficiencies.


I don't understand why you say "under the disguise of keeping firearms away from the mentally ill and public safety"

Could you please elaborate?

Finally, the regulation requires that the
individual lack the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs “as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” Consequently,
the basis for the individual’s inability to manage his or her own affairs must therefore be the
“result of” his or her mental impairment. As a result, individuals whom we are required to report
to NICS will be a subset of the universe of individuals for whom we have appointed a
representative payee.

 

[jr45]

In short, if you have a disability and receive SSA benefits, need for a representative payee, age 18yrs old but below retirement age, then SSA will act as the adjudicating authority to find you defective. This is what VA did to thousands of our vets. As seen in that disaster, the disguise of public safety was used, just as SSA is using it now...bad news for hundred of thousands of Americans to lose their rights without due process...Big problem, we are all next and we must not let this stand. All of those affected need the same legal protections that given to any one of us but. They want you to believe this will only affect the "mentally ill" and all of us say well, this is not too bad.

 

[yugorpk]

Its guise.

If someone if receiving social security benefits for being "mentally defective" why would it be a stretch to say they could not own a firearm?

 

[jr45]

That is exactly what they want you to believe. The same thing was done to our vets...what happened to due process?

 

[jr45]

Also, when was ssa authorized to adjudicate those as mentally defective? Where in this proposal are those affected given a chance to defend themselves before being stript of their rights?

 

[yugorpk]

Due process? You have to fight to get social security benefits. People hire lawyers and spend years trying to get them. Its not something that happens to you. You ask for it. Its a paycheck. Are you saying that that hard won disability for mental defects ruling shouldnt be considered when determining if you are mentally capable to own a firearm. What should be used in that determination then?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Due process? You have to fight to get social security benefits. People hire lawyers and spend years trying to get them. Its not something that happens to you. You ask for it. Its a paycheck. Are you saying that that hard won disability for mental defects ruling shouldnt be considered when determining if you are mentally capable to own a firearm. What should be used in that determination then?

You have to fight (although not very hard any more) to get social security disability, but not social security retirement.

 

[yugorpk]

You have to fight (although not very hard any more) to get social security disability, but not social security retirement.

Yes, thats what I mean to write. SS disability is not something that is forced upon you.

 

[jr45]

SSA benefits are for anyone who is eligible for it. Are you you saying that since you fought for and receive ssa they should give up your rights? I'm sure our vets beleive they would lose their rights when they went to va for the help they were promised before they signed up.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

I don't understand why you say "under the disguise of keeping firearms away from the mentally ill and public safety"

Read it very carefully - that's not all that's being said.

What exactly constitutes "...subnormal...condition or disease"?

As an example. Let's say you have arthritis, a bad hip, scoliosis, or other crippling condition and you're confined to a wheel chair.

Mentally, you're fine, it's just that your physical conditions limit what you can do. To make it easier on yourself and reduce trips to and from various destinations - like the Social Security Office, bank, etc. - you're allowing a family member to manage your affairs.

What this says is that no matter the reason someone else is managing your affairs - you're incompetent to own a gun. It's then up to you to prove you're NOT incompetent.

What they're attempting to do is prohibit you, by default, and using a single metric of their own invention to stop you from owning a gun. In fact, by definition, you are automatically a criminal if you do own a gun - until you can jump through how ever many hoops they feel like setting up to make you prove you're not mentally incompetent.

You're being made guilty simply by the SSA definition of having someone manage your affairs, which in and of itself, proves NOTHING as there are many reasons other than mental incompetence for having someone manage your affairs.

Now do you understand the problem?

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

SS disability is not something that is forced upon you.

Disability is totally different than having someone else manage your affairs.

Do not conflate disability with having another person manage your SSA account.

Disability can be for any number of reasons like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Any condition that prevents you from holding a job may qualify you for disability which is a percentage of Social Security benefits until you reach retirement age, at which time the disability payment automatically converts to SSA benefits at whatever payment rate you've qualified for based upon money paid in over the number of years you've worked.

 

[agtman]

So if the dude's nuts, what happens?

 

[jr45]

You never give up your rights for receiving ssa or va benefits however; this exactly what is happening here. They are trying, and in cases succeeding, to convince the masses this is for public safety and only applies to the mentally ill who have no rights.

 

[jr45]

So if the dude's nuts, what happens?

He is given due process like anyone else.

 

[yugorpk]

SSA benefits are for anyone who is eligible for it. Are you you saying that since you fought for and receive ssa they should give up your rights? I'm sure our vets beleive they would lose their rights when they went to va for the help they were promised before they signed up.

If you sign up for SSA mental disability checks dont expect that you are going to be able to own a firearm. There is a difference between getting SSA checks for having a bad back and for being ruled mentally ill. I DONT WANT THE MENTALLY ILL TO OWN FIREARMS EVEN IF THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL IN THE VA SYSTEM .

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

So if the dude's nuts, what happens?

Then it should be up to the SSA, through due process, to prove the person is mentally incompetent.

I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is AUTOMATICALLY denying everyone who has someone else managing their affairs the ability to own a gun WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

There is a difference between getting SSA checks for having a bad back and for being ruled mentally defective.

This HAS NOTHING TO DUE WITH DISABILTIY CHECKS.

Stop conflating disability with having someone manage your affairs.

That's NOT what the point of the new ruling would be.

You obviously have NO idea how Social Security works or the difference between disability and having a second party manage your affairs.

 

[yugorpk]

They went through due process to get their disability rating. What if they go through the due process again and are ruled NOT mentally ill. Should they stop receiving benefits? I think they should.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

I DONT WANT THE MENTALLY ILL TO OWN FIREARMS EVEN IF THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL IN THE VA SYSTEM .

FINE - THEN LET THE SSA AND VA USE DUE PROCESS TO PROVE YOU'RE MENTALLY INCOMPENTENT.

That's NOT what's being proposed. You really DON'T understand what the SSA is proposing.

Again - it has NOTHING to do with getting disability payments.

Stop conflating disability with SSA account management.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

They went through due process to get their disability rating. What if they go through the due process again and are ruled NOT mentally ill. Should they stop receiving benefits? I think they should.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DUE WITH GETTING DISABILTY PAYMENTS

It has to do with someone else managing your SSA account.

 

[yugorpk]

Have you read the proposal? It has everything to do with getting disability payments and due process. You cannot receive disability payments for being mentally ill unless you are mentally ill. If you receive disability payments for being mentally ill you have been given due process already.

"Under the proposed rule, we would 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 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 propose to provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney
General on not less than a quarterly basis."

 

[jr45]

This rule is nothing more than a gun grab with the intention of tricking the masses that what they are doing is legal and for public safety. As for the comment that someone has gone through due process to losing their rights by receiving ssa benefits...lol I hope folks don't stand for it.

 

[jr45]

Still, what authority gives ssa to be the adjudicating authority? Also, when are these affected folks given their day in court before losing their rights?

 

[gc70]

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DUE WITH GETTING DISABILTY PAYMENTS

It has to do with someone else managing your SSA account.

It helps to actually read the proposed rule.

§ 421.110 Identifying records relevant to the NICS.

(a) In accordance with the requirements of the NIAA, we will identify the records of individuals whom we have “adjudicated as a mental defective.” For purposes of the Social Security programs established under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, we have “adjudicated as a mental defective” any individual who meets the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) – (5) of this section.

(b) During our claim development and adjudication process, or when we take certain post-entitlement or post-eligibility actions, we will identify any individual who:

(1) Has filed a claim based on disability;
(2) Has been determined to be disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments (12.00 et seq.) under the rules in part 404, subpart P of this chapter, or under the rules in part 416, subpart I of this chapter;
(3) Has a primary diagnosis code in our records based on a mental impairment;
(4) Has attained age 18, but has not attained full retirement age; and
(5) Requires that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined, under the rules in part 404, subpart U of this chapter, or the rules in part 416, subpart F of this chapter, that he or she is incapable of managing benefit payments as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease.

All five factors listed above must be present.