Social Security Database to be used in Background Checks?

Wyatt Burp

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
6,787
Reaction score
17,738
Location
Northern California
Admin Edit-
Link to the article-
Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

While we discuss it, stay focused on THIS issue.
We won't be discussing general politics or critiquing modern government beyond the 2A issue at hand.

READ the article.
COMPREHEND what you read.
It is not strictly about age.
It is about mental competency. Many people who are not old collect SS due to mental disability or incompetence.
I doubt anyone wants a 30 year old bi-polar paranoid schizophrenic who's been collecting SS for 10 yrs to be packing a gun.
The obvious thing we need to fear is how broad will the classification be?

/////////////////////

original post-
Obama now wants to make background checks include checking to see if a potential gun buyer is on Social Security. If other people handle your finances, if you're considered to have a bad memory, if you don't balance a checkbook correctly, that means you are too incompetent to buy a gun and might be a danger to others. This could mean that anyone who grants a trusted son or daughter power of attorney for some reason, is considered unable to take care of themselves. The type of medication you take and the info they would force your doctor to tell them could all effect this. I don't want to sound all paranoid, but this is being cooked up right now. Whether it goes anywhere, who knows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register to hide this ad
But what constitutes incompetence to them? Are you perfectly fine yet gave a trusted relative power of attorney for some reason? Living Trust that gives a son or daughter the right to handle your finances IF you can't later on? Demanding doctors inform them what medications you might take? It's ridiculously far reaching.
 
I think their target is the disabled Vet.
Namely, those listed as disabled due to
some mental disorders due to their service.
It is a broad paintbrush that I doubt will fly.

Whoever their target initially was we know it is just getting their foot in the door.There have been numerous articles over the last year where practically anyone can have you checked out based on mere hearsay.You will have a hard time getting your firearms back while the anti-gun people are already looking for their next victim.

Frankly I think this is just a way of seeing if we're paying attention to what's going on behind our backs.
 
We have mental health background checks in NJ. If you are sane there's no problem and if you're not, it's probably not a bad idea that you not be issued a purchase permit. Trouble is as we all know is it's not the permitted owners who are the problem.
 
The SSA does not recognize power of attorney, since it differs from state to state. If someone that receives Social Security benefits (SS retirement, disability, SSI) is unable to take care of their benefits, a representative payee is appointed. Generally, a doctor must fill out a form and send it the SSA.

Some of the folks that have a RP don't need to have a gun. However, it doesn't need to be a blanket denial just because someone has a RP.
 
Just trying to wrap my brain around this article...

Is this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Were any of the mass shootings over the last twenty years done by someone on either social security or disability benefits that would warrant this action? Even if you could find one example it wouldn't substantiate making a case to subject everyone to this scrutiny.
 
Just trying to wrap my brain around this article...

Is this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Were any of the mass shootings over the last twenty years done by someone on either social security or disability benefits that would warrant this action? Even if you could find one example it wouldn't substantiate making a case to subject everyone to this scrutiny.

This is a very interesting question. Anyone have information on this?
 
I believe these things are better handled by the family and local community than the Feds.

It's not a perfect word, stuff happens. But I'd prefer to take my chances relying on good Americans doing what they think is right at the local level dealing with mental deficiency than the Feds meddling in all this.
 
There it is. The "broad brush". Under medication? What are the potential side effects of said medication? (Pharmacological companies are very careful to list many psychological side effects now, due to lawsuit / liability). So is that muscle relaxer for your old back injury a disqualifier? How about that patch to help you stop smoking....."suicidal tendencies" right there on the side effects.....

Ever attended a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous? Any 12 step program that involves admitting insane behavior?

It's more than just the camels nose, amigos.

And there are those who immediately discount this as "another chain internet letter","conspiracy theory" etc.
That's exactly why it has gotten so far. Nobody wants to believe what some of us have already seen.
 
I suspect that the logic they would use is that a person no longer able to manage their affairs may at the same time not be able to manage who has access to their firearms. The justification was the kid who did the shooting with guns his mom bought. But she would not have fallen in this group anyway, so it is a bit of a false justification.

If it were presented based on the actual logic of "are you in control of your possessions", it could make sense. Could, not would.

In the context we can see, it is just another attempt to find a crack in the wall.
 
What bothers me the most is how things would probably be handled.I believe there were instances of flat out confiscation of ones firearms with no relief.

A person should be afforded the opportunity to transfer their firearms to either a family member or someone else of their choice.If that isn't an option then hopefully there would be an LGS (or similar) that would take the firearms on consignment.

Unless one commits a crime it is still your personal property and should be respected as such.

I'm finished...
 
What they can do, they will do, whether through the front door, or the back. I don't trust politicians or their minions, to get it right.
What they can take, they will take, it was never bureaucrats that gave rights, it was the Constitution.
Be prepared to fight for your rights, in court, because you may be next.:mad:
 
Last edited:
I believe these things are better handled by the family and local community than the Feds.

It's not a perfect word, stuff happens. But I'd prefer to take my chances relying on good Americans doing what they think is right at the local level dealing with mental deficiency than the Feds meddling in all this.

Well, yes. But of course the issue here is that this appears to target those people who are getting FEDERAL disability benefits because they have convinced Social Security (which is a federal agency dispensing your and my tax money) that they are mentally disabled enough that they can't work and need disability. You don't want the Feds handling it, don't take my money.
 
Back
Top