Trump signs order loosening gun restrictions

[timjake]

The Latest: Trump signs order loosening gun restrictions | My Connection from Cox

"WASHINGTON --

The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times local):

7:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump has signed a resolution blocking an Obama-era rule that would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from buying guns.

The rule was part of former President Barack Obama's push to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut shooting.

It required the Social Security Administration to send in the names of beneficiaries with mental impairments who also need a third-party to manage their benefits.

But lawmakers, the National Rifle Association and even the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the rule, saying it unfairly stigmatized the disabled and infringed on their constitutional right to bear arms."

----
A rare thing - the NRA and ACLU on the same side.

[TexasArmed]

I read an article about this issue. There are elderly people
including veterans who cannot balance their checkbook who have a representative payee. The way it works now with the
VA in several northern states, is those individuals are wrongfully denied their right to self defense, just because they
have someone who handles their finances. The individual in
the VA's case has the right to contest this but by the time it is
resolved the individual could be dead if attacked. That's my
view. If they have a mental defect fine, let them prove it but
this blanket denial of veterans or elderly people the right of
self defense because they can't manage finances is unacceptable. As long as we have governors and mayors who
decide they don't have to obey federal laws relating to things
like immigration, I will decide which federal laws I will comply
with. I hate to be that way. I do not have anyone managing
my affairs by the way. If the government can decide this
based on a representative payee, then they can also decide it
if you gave someone power of attorney, or perhaps medical
power of attorney. It took years for our country to get in the
shape it is in with criminal illegals being imported along with
jihadists and jihadist sleepers. I personally plan to carry a
gun till I am no longer able to see or think clearly. Administrations change, so I don't like any administration deciding arbitrarily without a judge denying someone the right
to self defense, and if a judge decides to do that, then there is a responsibility that the individual being denied is safe from being assaulted by thugs who have been running wild in this
country for decades. That's my opinion

[Mike, SC Hunter]

Originally Posted by TexasArmed

I read an article about this issue. There are elderly people
including veterans who cannot balance their checkbook who have a representative payee. The way it works now with the
VA in several northern states, is those individuals are wrongfully denied their right to self defense, just because they
have someone who handles their finances. The individual in
the VA's case has the right to contest this but by the time it is
resolved the individual could be dead if attacked. That's my
view. If they have a mental defect fine, let them prove it but
this blanket denial of veterans or elderly people the right of
self defense because they can't manage finances is unacceptable. As long as we have governors and mayors who
decide they don't have to obey federal laws relating to things
like immigration, I will decide which federal laws I will comply
with. I hate to be that way. I do not have anyone managing
my affairs by the way. If the government can decide this
based on a representative payee, then they can also decide it
if you gave someone power of attorney, or perhaps medical
power of attorney. It took years for our country to get in the
shape it is in with criminal illegals being imported along with
jihadists and jihadist sleepers. I personally plan to carry a
gun till I am no longer able to see or think clearly. Administrations change, so I don't like any administration deciding arbitrarily without a judge denying someone the right
to self defense, and if a judge decides to do that, then there is a responsibility that the individual being denied is safe from being assaulted by thugs who have been running wild in this
country for decades. That's my opinion

x2000!..........

[Dennis]

"Due Process".

[jimbo728]

Im happy about this one.
For those who did not listen to the debates and watch the voting,
this was a lot more than a mental illness gun ban. It would have been much more broad scope and largely indiscriminate.
Jim

[Sconnie]

When the talk about denying 2A rights for people with mental illness started I knew it was opening a can of worms. What process would be put into place? Who gets to decide a person cannot exercise their 2A right? And once you are determined to be mentally incapable by the overseers could you ever recover and go back to having your 2A rights restored?

[Sconnie]

Originally Posted by BB57

I have to say though that I disagree with this executive order. People on SSI and SSDI have applied for this form of assistance, and given the difficulty of getting an application approved, if someone is on SSI or SSDI for a mental disorder or cognitive disorder, they are in fact pretty seriously impaired. And that's a slam dunk when SSA has rewired the individual to have a payee to manage their benefits. In short, it's a rigorous and well vetted process and they are not individuals who I want to have packing firearms.

The same problem as restricting people who are on a no fly list from owning or purchasing a firearm. Who decided that the person goes on the list, in this case the list for a payee to be assigned. A nameless, faceless bureaucrat gets to decide rather than a judicial process involving actual due process of law to deny a person the right to exercise their 2A right.

The people on SSI or SSDI are separate and unique individuals. Each person (we are talking people here not generalized concepts) should be adjudicated individually. The idea that a blanket law or order lumps them all into the same basket is a huge red flag to me.

If it becomes easy for the government to take the 2A right away, meaning no formal legal process we are all in trouble.

[gman51]

The main point is if you let them take an inch they might end up pushing it a mile.
Shall not infringe doesn't have an inch clause in it.

Besides since when has there ever been a mentally handicapped senior citizen been involved in a mass shooting? Yep many old folk do use a gun to commit suicide but you know what, they shoot horses suffering in pain don't they and consider it humane to do so.

[lrrifleman]

Just something to consider. How about the children that are too young to directly collect their SSD check because of a disabled parent? Those children receive their SSD check via a representative payee. Because those children received an SSD check via a representative payee, will those children come off of the list when they turn 18 to get full 2A rights, or would they have to fight to exercise 2A rights just because they were too young to receive their check? As I read the original edict, it was anyone that received an SSI/SSD check via a representative payee!

[hoc9sw]

There is a big difference in having someone else take care of finances for someone who is on medicare / SS and actually having a mental illness. Lumping people who are getting help together with those who are totally incapable was wrong.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by TexasArmed

I read an article about this issue. There are elderly people
including veterans who cannot balance their checkbook who have a representative payee. The way it works now with theVA in several northern states, is those individuals are wrongfully denied their right to self defense, just because they
have someone who handles their finances. The individual in
the VA's case has the right to contest this but by the time it is
resolved the individual could be dead if attacked. .../

/...If they have a mental defect fine, let them prove it but this blanket denial of veterans or elderly people the right of self defense because they can't manage finances is unacceptable.../

I've highlighted the bits that need to be discussed where there are inaccuracies or inaccurate assumptions.

1) The prior policy had nothing at all to do with individuals on social security retirement benefits, or even individuals with just a payee.

It was specifically limited to individuals who had mental impairments qualifying them for SSI or SSDI AND needed a third party payee.

In effect, you've created an issue and a group of victims that did not exist.


2) The EO Trump signed won't fix the VA's payee issues, and the prior policy did not require the VA to submit names (that was entirely on the VA when/if it happened).

In terms of individuals who applied for and qualified for SSI or SSDI due to a mental impairment the got there via a rigorous eligibility process involving extensive medical and or psychological documentation.

It's not at all like the no fly list where people can be placed on it for little or no reason and then have no way to appeal the decision.

Originally Posted by Sconnie

The same problem as restricting people who are on a no fly list from owning or purchasing a firearm. Who decided that the person goes on the list, in this case the list for a payee to be assigned. A nameless, faceless bureaucrat gets to decide rather than a judicial process involving actual due process of law to deny a person the right to exercise their 2A right.

The people on SSI or SSDI are separate and unique individuals. Each person (we are talking people here not generalized concepts) should be adjudicated individually. The idea that a blanket law or order lumps them all into the same basket is a huge red flag to me.

See number 2 above for why the no fly list isn't a valid comparison.

As for the rest, I'm inclined to agree with you about the risks associated with making entire classes of people prohibited individuals.

Except....we exclude entire classes of felons as prohibited persons and I'm entirely ok with that. Are you suggesting we assess each and every felon on an individual basis to determine if they should be allowed to own a gun?

Who is going to do that?

Who is going to pay for it?

Who is going to oversee the process to ensure that felons are not being excluded based on other class membership grounds, such as race or ethnicity?

[BB57]

Originally Posted by hoc9sw

There is a big difference in having someone else take care of finances for someone who is on medicare / SS and actually having a mental illness. Lumping people who are getting help together with those who are totally incapable was wrong.

I agree with you that had this been the case it would have been wrong.

See Number 1 above - an individual was not reported unless they had both a documented mental illness AND had a third party payee assigned.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by lrrifleman

Just something to consider. How about the children that are too young to directly collect their SSD check because of a disabled parent? Those children receive their SSD check via a representative payee. Because those children received an SSD check via a representative payee, will those children come off of the list when they turn 18 to get full 2A rights, or would they have to fight to exercise 2A rights just because they were too young to receive their check? As I read the original edict, it was anyone that received an SSI/SSD check via a representative payee!

It was a total non issue as they would have never been reported as prohibited individuals in the first place.

Unless those kids had their own documented mental health impairments that qualified them for their own SSI or SSDI case, separate from SSA benefits paid to dependent children of disabled adults, they would have never made the list.

[Diablo982]

Originally Posted by hoc9sw

There is a big difference in having someone else take care of finances for someone who is on medicare / SS and actually having a mental illness. Lumping people who are getting help together with those who are totally incapable was wrong.

I strongly agree with this. Which is why the EO only impacted the severely mentally ill who needed a representative payee; not either or.

[TexasArmed]

[QUOTE=BB57;139488647]I've highlighted the bits that need to be discussed where there are inaccuracies or inaccurate assumptions.

1) The prior policy had nothing at all to do with individuals on social security retirement benefits, or even individuals with just a payee.

It was specifically limited to individuals who had mental impairments qualifying them for SSI or SSDI AND needed a third party payee.

Now this is what I want to dispute, based on the following.
The VA has used Payee Status as criteria in the past.
The following link.Social Security Recipients Barred from Owning Guns?

This link shows that the VA has a procedure in place to appeal
the determination made by the VA.

""But as of April [2015], just nine of 298 appeals have been granted, according to data provided by the VA. Thirteen others were pending, and 44 were withdrawn after the VA overturned its determination of financial incompetence""

It appears to me that 298 appeals were filed based on this information, and 13 were pending, 44 withdrawn after the VA
overturned its determination of financial incompetence. We know how fast the VA is in handling things for many veterans
don't we? So it seem to me if the VA withdrew its own determination, veterans were being denied their right of self
defense inappropriately. I would hate to be waiting for three
months without a gun in my home when a thug can kick the
door in based on someone's determination at the VA. So no,
I dispute the assertion that it only applied to mentally deficient
veterans and did include some who should not have been included. I really doubt that the government provided them
protection or put them into a high rise building with armed
protective services.

This entire link I referenced I read and I do have concerns that
while a due process procedure may be in place for such person
to regain their right of self defense, it appears to me that
mistakes will be made. No person should be denied the right
of self defense without due process, and that should include the
right of due process by a judge in my opinion or a court, not by
some decision by a VA official. I don't think the situation is any
better for social security recipients who may have appointed
a payee, if the decision is made by an official other than a Judge.

[TexasArmed]

I am having a bit of a problem separating your quote from mine. But according to the snopes link the VA has used the
criteria of representative payee in submitting information on
veterans for background check, and as you can see a number
were denied and filed appeals. While waiting for such an appeal
I can see where one of them could be murdered by a thug taking advantage of the fact that the person had been disarmed. And as you can see the VA withdrew the determination in a number of cases, which to me means that
the VA no longer contested their mental incompetence. I think
determination of incompetence ought to be made and presented
in court before depriving someone of their rights of self defense.

At any rate the link I posted provides evidence of persons who appealed the determination,
numbers of those where the determination was withdrawn. I do not consider this method of
depriving someone the right of self defense to be right. This link dealt with clarifying the facts
about the executive order which President Obama had issued.

[TexasArmed]

Originally Posted by Sconnie

The same problem as restricting people who are on a no fly list from owning or purchasing a firearm. Who decided that the person goes on the list, in this case the list for a payee to be assigned. A nameless, faceless bureaucrat gets to decide rather than a judicial process involving actual due process of law to deny a person the right to exercise their 2A right.

The people on SSI or SSDI are separate and unique individuals. Each person (we are talking people here not generalized concepts) should be adjudicated individually. The idea that a blanket law or order lumps them all into the same basket is a huge red flag to me.

If it becomes easy for the government to take the 2A right away, meaning no formal legal process we are all in trouble.

Exactly, it becomes too easy for the government to take the
2A right away. It appears to me that the VA in 298 cases
had a number of cases where after taking the 2A right away
the VA restored it, but during the waiting process, (which is
not immediate), the individual could have been harmed.
I believe this is the reason that the NRA opposed the executive
order issued by President Obama, although I am not privy
to their motivations. Perhaps the objective was to prevent
mentally impaired persons from being armed but the end
result invariably included those who were no danger to themselves or others. So if rights are going to be taken away
from someone why not by a court determination?

[Diablo982]

Originally Posted by TexasArmed

I am having a bit of a problem separating your quote from mine. But according to the snopes link the VA has used the
criteria of representative payee in submitting information on
veterans for background check, and as you can see a number
were denied and filed appeals. While waiting for such an appeal
I can see where one of them could be murdered by a thug taking advantage of the fact that the person had been disarmed. And as you can see the VA withdrew the determination in a number of cases, which to me means that
the VA no longer contested their mental incompetence. I think
determination of incompetence ought to be made and presented
in court before depriving someone of their rights of self defense.

At any rate the link I posted provides evidence of persons who appealed the determination,
numbers of those where the determination was withdrawn. I do not consider this method of
depriving someone the right of self defense to be right. This link dealt with clarifying the facts
about the executive order which President Obama had issued.

I also do not like the VA criteria of only being "unable to manage" their own affairs. SSA required a combination of severe mental illnesses AND the inability to manage their own money.

For clarification, SSA and VA are totally different programs. The SSA regulation was lifted; the VA plan was not affected by Trump's EO.

[Sconnie]

I will always be of the position that a person has their 2A rights intact until a formal legal proceeding in front of a duly elected or appointed judge hears the case and makes a determination to strip the person of their rights. Period.

If there is some immediate threat then the system needs to get right at it to address the issue immediately and appropriately within the framework of established, clear and precise statutory law.

And those decisions come with the same right to appeal as any other judicial ruling.

Doctors, mental health professionals and social workers get to present their case in court to a judge. Not decide in their office based on some general blanket measure that gets interpreted and reinterpreted by folks who may be great in their fields but know nothing about our Constitution.

Seems simple to me...

Oh and a path to restoring a person's 2A rights needs to be in place also.

[TexasArmed]

Originally Posted by Diablo982

I also do not like the VA criteria of only being "unable to manage" their own affairs. SSA required a combination of severe mental illnesses AND the inability to manage their own money.

For clarification, SSA and VA are totally different programs. The SSA regulation was lifted; the VA plan was not affected by Trump's EO.

Yes Social Security and the VA are two totally different programs but the VA utilizes information from Social Security
and from Medicare. For example when the VA was making a
determination that a veteran's payee status of having a representative payee, that is information the VA had access to
from Social Security. It then referred those veteran's names
to the background database system making them ineligible to
buy a gun. It is my understanding that the 298 some odd people mentioned were primarily in States up north, and they
utilized the payee status of Social Security as their basis. The
VA collects lots of information, such as living will, whether you
have designated someone with power of attorney or medical
power of attorney.

To me its not a partisan issue, presidents come and go. But
sooner or later if the government does not want us to have
guns they will use information to accomplish that objective.
To the extent that the VA utilizes payee status in determining
if a veteran's information is going to be sent to a background
check) what the President did with an executive order pertaining
to Social Security also directly impacts the VA. I take absolutely
no pain medications either except aspirin or ibuprofen. That's
another can of worms, which could impact someone's gun rights. I just believe that any action by the government to
deprive someone of gun rights ought to require a determination
in court by a judge.

[tlay]

I am disabled and on SSDI. Does anyone really believe that they were only going to take gun rights from the severely disabled? Who decides how disabled one should be to take away a right? If this were to stand today it would be one thing and tomorrow you would have your rights taken away because you served your country in a time of war!! A blanket policy is discrimination at its worst! Don't judge me by what someone else has done but judge me for what I have done.

[Mac!Gettothechoppa'!]

Originally Posted by Sconnie

When the talk about denying 2A rights for people with mental illness started I knew it was opening a can of worms. What process would be put into place? Who gets to decide a person cannot exercise their 2A right? And once you are determined to be mentally incapable by the overseers could you ever recover and go back to having your 2A rights restored?

You ask "what process would be put in place?" Easy, just use the same standards employed by the military and law enforcement. It's not perfect but it does weed out a lot of violent head cases.