SSA to Propose Rule to Add SS Disability Recipients to NICS No-Buy List

[chipbennett]

Social Security moves to block the mentally ill from purchasing guns | TheHill

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is proposing to report people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system.


The proposal, which stems from a memorandum that President Obama issued in 2013, would essentially block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns.


The SSA, which will propose the rule in Thursday's edition of the Federal Register, says it plans to notify disability beneficiaries who might be reported and establish a process for them to appeal their placement in the FBI’s background check system.

Just like the VA tried to do. Due process? We don't need no stinkin' due process...

 

[Rookie]

Just a little bit at a time...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As relevant to ourprograms, the Federal prohibition on the possession or receipt of firearms or ammunition applies
to a person who, in the language of the statute, “has been adjudicated as a mental defective."

Due process:

A determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person,as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition
or disease:
◦ Is a danger to himself, herself or others; or
◦ Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.
This includes (1) a person found to be insane by a court in a criminal case, and (2) a
person found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental
responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 76b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
10 U.S.C. §§ 850a, 876b.
(2) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board,
commission or other lawful authority. This includes commitment to a mental institution
involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness or commitment for
other reasons, such as for drug use. It does not include a person in a mental institution for
observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.


Please note the following four important things about this prohibitor:
● First, ‘mental institution’ includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals,
sanitariums, psychiatric facilities and other facilities that provide diagnoses by
licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a
psychiatric ward in a general hospital.
● Second, ‘mental defective’ does not include a person who has been granted relief
from the disability through a qualifying federal or state relief from disability
program as authorized by the NIAA.
● Third, ‘mental defective’ also does not include a person whose adjudication or
commitment was imposed by a federal department or agency, and:
◦ The adjudication or commitment has been set aside or expunged, or the
person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory
treatment, supervision or monitoring;
◦ The person has been found by a court, board, commission or other lawful
authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of
the adjudication or commitment, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated
through any procedure available under law; or
◦ The adjudication or commitment is based solely on a medical finding of
disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or
other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental
defective consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), except that nothing in this section
7
or any other provision of law shall prevent a federal department or agency from
providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was
adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental
responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
● Fourth, agencies that conduct mental health adjudications must provide both oral
and written notice to the individual at the commencement of the adjudication
process. Such notice must include:
◦ Notification that adjudication of the person as a mental defective or
commitment to a mental institution, when final, will prohibit the individual from
purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting a firearm or
ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) or § 922(g)(4);
◦ Information about the penalties imposed for unlawful possession, receipt,
shipment or transportation of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); and
◦ Information about the availability of relief from the disabilities imposed
by federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment,
transportation or possession of firearms.
Relevant

So we're mad that if you're committed to a mental facility by a court there's no due process and you should be allowed to buy a gun? That a federal agency can't simply declare someone mentally deficient, and that medical records alone aren't enough either? Sure sounds like due process.

 

[MarkC]

Due process:



So we're mad that if you're committed to a mental facility by a court there's no due process and you should be allowed to buy a gun? That a federal agency can't simply declare someone mentally deficient, and that medical records alone aren't enough either? Sure sounds like due process.

Nah, you're overthinking this. Due process gets in the way of good government, right?

Just another example of a government body implementing an agenda, and going with "we'll try it until a court tells us to knock it off." Much like the "Dear Colleague" letters in higher education implementing the Administration's vision of Title IX.

 

[chipbennett]

Due process:

So we're mad that if you're committed to a mental facility by a court there's no due process and you should be allowed to buy a gun? That a federal agency can't simply declare someone mentally deficient, and that medical records alone aren't enough either? Sure sounds like due process.

FTA:

According to Grassley, 99 percent of the people the FBI prohibits from owning guns because they are considered “mentally defective” come from the VA.


Now, the SSA is proposing to take similar precautions with people who receive disability insurance because they are unable to work due to mental health disorders.


“It appears that just like the VA, SSA’s regulatory action will not require the government to first prove that the individual is a danger to self or others,” Grassley wrote last July in a letter to Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Is the claim that every person who receives SSA disability insurance due to mental health disorders has been formally adjudicated? If not: where is the due process?

 

[MuttX7]

FTA:



Is the claim that every person who receives SSA disability insurance due to mental health disorders has been formally adjudicated? If not: where is the due process?

If you follow this link in the article https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm#12_01 , which is in this paragraph and highlighted in blue:

Some of the mental conditions the SSA screens for include schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, personality disorders, intellectual disabilities, anxiety-related disorders, substance addiction disorders and autistic disorders.

you will find what all is included in the evaluation process. From what I have read of it, I would feel safe to say that anyone accepting disability from the SSA has went through a lengthy process to be judged as having a mental disorder. I don't think you can just walk into an SSA office, say "I'm crazier than a **** house rat so give me money". Furthermore, if you accept the money then you accept the findings that you have a mental disorder that keeps you from being able to work. You are probably either seeking treatment, being treated, or one of the people who take the money but skip the treatment. I see no problem with these people not being allowed to own a firearm.

 

[chipbennett]

If you follow this link in the article https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/12.00-MentalDisorders-Adult.htm#12_01 , which is in this paragraph and highlighted in blue:


you will find what all is included in the evaluation process. From what I have read of it, I would feel safe to say that anyone accepting disability from the SSA has went through a lengthy process to be judged as having a mental disorder. I don't think you can just walk into an SSA office, say "I'm crazier than a **** house rat so give me money".

A "lengthy process" is not equivalent to legal adjudication.

Furthermore, if you accept the money then you accept the findings that you have a mental disorder that keeps you from being able to work. You are probably either seeking treatment, being treated, or one of the people who take the money but skip the treatment. I see no problem with these people not being allowed to own a firearm.

"Not being able to work" is not equivalent to not being able to defend oneself.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is the claim that every person who receives SSA disability insurance due to mental health disorders has been formally adjudicated? If not: where is the due process?

Did you actually read the rule proposal that you posted?

 

[MuttX7]

A "lengthy process" is not equivalent to legal adjudication.



"Not being able to work" is not equivalent to not being able to defend oneself.

So you are advocating that not only should these people have to go through the process with the SSA, but they should also have to have a judge pronounce them mentally disabled?

 

[LPMan59]

lol.

 

[chipbennett]

Did you actually read the rule proposal that you posted?

No, so if you were quoting from the rule proposal, then that would be useful information. I'm still not sure that I'd trust bureaucrats not to try to work around it once implemented, though.

So you are advocating that not only should these people have to go through the process with the SSA, but they should also have to have a judge pronounce them mentally disabled?

In order for the State to infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms, by denying them the ability to purchase a firearm?

Hell yes; that's exactly what I'm advocating.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No, so if you were quoting from the rule proposal, then that would be useful information. I'm still not sure that I'd trust bureaucrats not to try to work around it once implemented, though.

C'mon, you're upset about something you haven't even read yet? I even posted the part for you that says SSA isn't able to decide who's "mentally defective" based solely on that being your disability claim.

● Third, ‘mental defective’ also does not include a person whose adjudication or
commitment was imposed by a federal department or agency,

No federal department or agency can declare you mentally defective. That includes SSA.

Can doctors declare you mentally incompetent? NO. Also not sufficient if:

The adjudication or commitment is based solely on a medical finding of
disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or
other lawful authority

Go back and read the proposal, then see if you're still upset based on what it actually does and not what you think it does based on the headlines.

 

[chipbennett]

C'mon, you're upset about something you haven't even read yet? I even posted the part for you that says SSA isn't able to decide who's "mentally defective" based solely on that being your disability claim.

No federal department or agency can declare you mentally defective. That includes SSA.

Can doctors declare you mentally incompetent? NO. Also not sufficient if:

Go back and read the proposal, then see if you're still upset based on what it actually does and not what you think it does based on the headlines.

I was going with the text of the article, not merely the headline.

 

[Double T]

If you read the stuff about what is being restricted, it's not really that bad IMO. A person with MRDD, should they be able to buy/own a firearm if they have the mental capacity that their diagnosis suggests? To be diagnosed MRDD your IQ is equal to that of 70 or below with impaired physical and cognitive abilities that originated before age 18. The bottom 2% of all IQ tests are that low. Profound MRDD is considered to have even lower. Source: IQ Classifications - AssessmentPsychology.com

Psychological disorders aside, paranoid schizoaffective disorder with symptomatic paranoia IMO would be a NO GO for buying guns.

Are you really arguing that someone who is mentally retarded, and has no safety awareness, should be able to buy a gun? That's like letting 5 years olds or younger buy guns. I will wait.

 

[chipbennett]

If you read the stuff about what is being restricted, it's not really that bad IMO. A person with MRDD, should they be able to buy/own a firearm if they have the mental capacity that their diagnosis suggests? To be diagnosed MRDD your IQ is equal to that of 70 or below with impaired physical and cognitive abilities that originated before age 18. The bottom 2% of all IQ tests are that low. Profound MRDD is considered to have even lower. Source: IQ Classifications - AssessmentPsychology.com

Psychological disorders aside, paranoid schizoaffective disorder with symptomatic paranoia IMO would be a NO GO for buying guns.

Are you really arguing that someone who is mentally retarded, and has no safety awareness, should be able to buy a gun? That's like letting 5 years olds or younger buy guns. I will wait.

And I'll wait for you to incorporate the issue of due process into your question.

 

[Double T]

And I'll wait for you to incorporate the issue of due process into your question.

Due process? They are medically diagnosed as incompetent to make safety/health/life choices. At what point should they be sold a firearm? Due process is involved, you just aren't understanding the hoops that MD's go through to actually diagnose these patients, nor have you seen someone who honestly has no business around a firearm. What would you rather? We spend **** loads of money to drag each of these people before a judge and jury for them to be deemed mentally incompetent? We've already spent countless dollars diagnosing, treating, and more often than not housing these people. Let's spend some more for theatrics to make you feel better about due process.

The due process is the diagnosing criteria and tests. If you disagree, then go talk a psychiatrist or MD into letting a profound MRDD person handle a loaded firearm. Again, I will wait.

 

[Double T]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPxIibhcKY&list=PLP23XfLwon6cQNGjZoM20jCXG1CREvbvA&index=2

Steve, is that you?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Medical diagnosis alone is insufficient. It requires court recognition. Read it.

 

[LPMan59]

Starting to wonder if someone in this thread should have the adjudication hearings started

just a a joke for those of you wanting to hit the report button

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not discussing the SSA rule, as I've not read it, but addressing the issue of rights: The 2A does not define mental incapacity as a denier of the right. The 5A does require due process of law for rights to be denied. I could be mistaken, but I think that requires a judge to evaluate each person, not a whole "class" of people all at once. To do so would seem to me to relegate those people to "second class". There is a point when a person is not safe to be out in public. At that point, I would think that that person would be adjudicated unsafe to be allowed to exercise that and other rights, requiring a caretaker... but again, that would be each person, not a whole group. I don't think it's a big step to go from "profound retardation" to eliminating "profound" from the phrasing, and then saying developmentally disabled, etc.

It should be very difficult to deny a person the lawful ability to exercise his rights, IMHO.

You have the right of self-defense, even against the profoundly retarded.



Blessings,
Bill