Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Keeping Guns away from Seniors on Social Security

By: Faye Higbee

The government is planning to add the Social Security system to the national background check system (NICS). In effect, such a move could stop seniors from owning or purchasing guns if they are unable to balance their checkbooks and have someone else manage their finances.

The LA Times wrote,

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

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 move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.

Despicable Move

Aiming his gun control at Social Security recipients is despicable. Thousands of elderly people in the United States have guns. The administration believes it is plugging holes in the national background check system against “dangerous” people obtaining guns.

Have you ever heard of a senior going crazy and killing a bunch of people because they couldn’t balance their checkbook? Me neither. There was a story about a millionaire who killed his family, but he wasn’t declared “incompetent.” He was perfectly sane.

Banning guns from Social Security recipients is just another way of furthering the gun hysteria in America, and ratcheting down the control against the 2nd Amendment.

Read More: http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/k ... -security/

My Thoughts:
Think about it real hard. "UNABLE TO BALANCE THEIR CHECKBOOKS". WHO......IS......18 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!?

The Obamunists have thousands of highly intelligent operatives, who all draw high salaries funded by our taxes, whose job is to cook up ways to accelerate their Orwellian fascist state. This is one example.

Is it a mere coincidence that this thread sits right above the one about "Evil does not exist"?

The worst kind of evil dictator is the one who abuses power to force you to live as he wants "for your own good" because he is never satisfied and the more he does to you the better his conscience feels. That's a form of evil, right there.

This is easy to solve. According to the Social Security Administration website, and as of April 2014, there are about 38 million retirees collecting benefits.

If 1% of them drive those big busses around the country spending their kids inheritances, that's 380,000 of those big assed busses. Imagine the grid-lock in DC if half that number (190,000) descended on the Capitol! Just have to put the word out!

Retirees are the richest segment of society. They also whine the loudest! If half of those who show up are armed (95,000) what do you think MPD is gonna do? NOT A FRAKIN THING!

Let them try to withhold Social Security. It would be a breach of contract and open the door to challenge mandatory contributions.
It's not an entitlement these people paid into Social Security and if government can decide not to pay for this I believe you could use this in court to fight contributions.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Actually, the government is over $215T in debt when you roll in unfunded liabilities. Since they aren't able to balance their check book, I say we disarm them.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

So.... will this block SS recipients(declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary), from OWNING guns, or just buying new ones..? I read the article, & it didn't clarify.

Viper21 wrote:So.... will this block SS recipients(declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary), from OWNING guns, or just buying new ones..? I read the article, & it didn't clarify.

Eventually both,if Progressives get their progression (universal background checks).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Someone who is a progressive needs to explain how this is fair, and a good idea? Because it sounds like total utter bullsh't to me.

That's because it is.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

They've already done this to veterans who have a fiduciary for their VA disability check. Klinton did it years ago.

The problem is that these people are having a Constitutional, civil, and human right (to effective self defense) taken away without a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority (that) has made a determination that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
- Is a danger to himself or to others;
- Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs;
- Is found insane by a court in a criminal case;
or
- Is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 850a, 876b." (According to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4))

There was no judicial, or it's equivalent, due process given to the folks that have had administrative personnel (read: "bureaucrat") assign them a representative or fiduciary.

That is what is happening under the guise of "keeping guns away from the mentally ill."

And it's not just SSDI, it's anyone drawing from the SSA.

Oh come on, get a grip. There's a lot of gumming old fossils who shouldn't be driving cars either. They're not saying take them away from everyone, just those that might be no longer capable.

.......declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments.....

Seems reasonable to me, don't want them driving a car either. How many of these old fools run into crowds of people because they're "confused"? One of the issues we'll need to deal with as the boomers (of which I happen to be) continue to age. It's part of life, at both ends of they life cycle you really shouldn't be playing with sharp objects.

An example - we have a geezing old gunch who doesn't know what day it is on the sumpreme court.........how's that working out?

Bailey960 wrote:Oh come on, get a grip. There's a lot of gumming old fossils who shouldn't be driving cars either. They're not saying take them away from everyone, just those that might be no longer capable.

.......declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments.....

Seems reasonable to me, don't want them driving a car either. How many of these old fools run into crowds of people because they're "confused"? One of the issues we'll need to deal with as the boomers (of which I happen to be) continue to age. It's part of life, at both ends of they life cycle you really shouldn't be playing with sharp objects.

An example - we have a geezing old gunch who doesn't know what day it is on the sumpreme court.........how's that working out?

Some are just math challenged. I've seen many a youth that can't balance a checkbook, and they got no better as they aged. That's a shallow criteria for depriving self defense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:I've seen many a youth that can't balance a checkbook...

What's a checkbook?! Makes you wonder how we ever got along without eletronic banking.

Fair assessment, though. How can the oligarchy pretend to judge what's 'best' for the SS recipients, while the teens and 20-somethings of today who have yet to experience anything on their own, can't manage to complete menial tasks without guidance? Send help. Reformation at it's finest for our elders.

Electronic banking requires the same skills as ever to check for mistakes on THEIR end...and it does happen.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:.......Some are just math challenged. I've seen many a youth that can't balance a checkbook, and they got no better as they aged. That's a shallow criteria for depriving self defense..........

I don't think it means "balance a checkbook" as the sole standard, takes a bit more than that to be declared incompotent. Balancing a checkbook may be a sign but being unable to manage one's finances goes a bit further. As I said a lot of these folks are beyond the ability to "work with sharp objects". The numbers will be HUGE with boomers - bonus for longer lifespans (like it's always a good thing).

Bailey960 wrote:

WRW wrote:.......Some are just math challenged. I've seen many a youth that can't balance a checkbook, and they got no better as they aged. That's a shallow criteria for depriving self defense..........

I don't think it means "balance a checkbook" as the sole standard, takes a bit more than that to be declared incompotent. Balancing a checkbook may be a sign but being unable to manage one's finances goes a bit further. As I said a lot of these folks are beyond the ability to "work with sharp objects". The numbers will be HUGE with boomers - bonus for longer lifespans (like it's always a good thing).

Barring a cash only existence, balancing a checkbook is the foundation of managing personal finances.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:........Barring a cash only existence, balancing a checkbook is the foundation of managing personal finances.......

Um, ah, you remember the change to the banking laws a couple of years back? The change to the overdraft rules & regulations? The primary reason was idjits who couldn't manage a checkbook. The whole +/- $$$ amounts escaped them.

I'd agree with you, it is a foundation but it seems many can't quite manage it.

And that is my point. A legal authority can, if overdrafts are brought to their attention, determine inability to balance a checkbook to be: "lacking mental capacity to manage or contract his own affairs"

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

"lacking mental capacity to manage or contract his own affairs", huh?
Raises the issue of what, exactly, constitutes “lack of capacity”; which in turn raises the issue of “what is capacity”; and “CAPACITY TO DO WHAT?”.

I guess at least some folks would maintain there are different standards for different acts.

DMV will pull your license for any number of reasons relating to capacity, But it doesn’t say anything in the Bill of Rights about tooling around in your ’74 caddy at 14 miles per hour.

I am reminded of a certain law professor’s favourite story about whether a deceased person possessed TESTAMENTARY capacity; which means enough mental capacity to write a valid will and give away his worldly possessions: Seems there was testimony that the old guy had regularly stood in the door of his New York City Brownstone house (about a story above the street) and urinated down the steps and onto the sidewalk even as pedestrians walked by. The Court remarked that this behaviour DID NOT establish lack of testamentary capacity, but opined that if he had been standing in the door and urinating INTO THE HOUSE, then PERHAPS that would have enough to convince the judge. So the bar isn’t set all that high on testamentary capacity.

The woods are full of folks who have been evaluated for mental instability and whether they are a danger to themselves and other and released. Some of them (like Sen. Creigh Deed’s son) promptly killed people because the standard they were held to wasn’t very high.

And if writing checks without enough money in the bank to cash them is grounds for being declared incompetent, then obviously the POTUS, all the federal bureaucrats, and both houses of Congress need to be disarmed and locked up.

This could go on and on, but I haven’t got the patience and y’all probably don’t either. The bottom line is that the fact that you can’t/don’t remember how much money you have in the bank isn’t a valid REASON to take your guns away; it’s just a convenient EXCUSE.

But the fact that the Obamunists expect to actually GET AWAY WITH this bullchit is more than a little scary to me.

They are getting away with it. That standard is already in use against Veterans. And SCARY it is.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]