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

[chipbennett]

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

Considering that, even here at INGO, some think that a medical diagnosis constitutes sufficient due process for denying a basic human right, do you understand my concern?

Maybe I'm voicing a mere "slippery slope" concern.

 

[longbarrel]

Sounds a little like Socialism?

 

[Leadeye]

I would be more concerned about them coming after our 401K money.

 

[jamil]

If this proposal is simply something that requires people who've been adjudicated as mentally deficient to be disqualified in NICS then it's not really any different than what we have now, except that the process would now require the adjudication for SSA benefits to be reported. It's sowing shut holes in the net.

However, that's a different discussion from whether or not all mentally ill people should be automatically disqualified. I'm going with BoR on this one. To be denied a right you should have to have gone through due process to specifically be denied that right. Using a general classification as a criterion to deny basic rights means some people who are able to safely own and carry firearms will be denied that right just because they're part of a group. Are all mentally ill people a danger to society? That decision should be made on an individual basis by a judge through due process. Saying that people who are mentally ill enough to qualify for benefits are also mentally deficient enough to strip their constitutional rights, is not describing due process. Due process for declaring one mentally ill isn't due process to deny them their 2A rights.

 

[MarkC]

If this proposal is simply something that requires people who've been adjudicated as mentally deficient to be disqualified in NICS then it's not really any different than what we have now, except that the process would now require the adjudication for SSA benefits to be reported. It's sowing shut holes in the net.

However, that's a different discussion from whether or not all mentally ill people should be automatically disqualified. I'm going with BoR on this one. To be denied a right you should have to have gone through due process to specifically be denied that right. Using a general classification as a criterion to deny basic rights means some people who are able to safely own and carry firearms will be denied that right just because they're part of a group. Are all mentally ill people a danger to society? That decision should be made on an individual basis by a judge through due process. Saying that people who are mentally ill enough to qualify for benefits are also mentally deficient enough to strip their constitutional rights, is not describing due process. Due process for declaring one mentally ill isn't due process to deny them their 2A rights.

In addition to this, I also believe it is imperative to avoid painting all mentally ill people with the same broad brush. There is a wide range of mental illness, varying greatly in symptom and severity. Also, the definition of "mentally ill" is ever expanding, especially with the latest version of the "handbook," the DSM-V.

As with any right, restriction must only be done with a strong eye toward due process. Otherwise, the right becomes less meaningful, and we all suffer.

 

[jamil]

In addition to this, I also believe it is imperative to avoid painting all mentally ill people with the same broad brush. There is a wide range of mental illness, varying greatly in symptom and severity. Also, the definition of "mentally ill" is ever expanding, especially with the latest version of the "handbook," the DSM-V.

As with any right, restriction must only be done with a strong eye toward due process. Otherwise, the right becomes less meaningful, and we all suffer.

Wait. Just thought of something. If someone is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, do they lose their gun rights?

 

[MarkC]

Wait. Just thought of something. If someone is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, do they lose their gun rights?

Daaaannnngg.... I think that thought might make some SJWs' heads explode, especially if the gender dysphoria is disabling, and renders them eligible for benefits!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

● 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

You are skipping over one important word. That word is and. And the two paragraphs that follow.

 

[Thegeek]

If you're taking money from SS because of mental disability, due process or not, you should get an NICS denial. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you're taking money from SS because of mental disability, due process or not, you should get an NICS denial. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

What other rights do you think should be subject to denial without due process, in violation of our Constitution?

I suppose that's a silly question, considering the NICS is itself in violation of our Constitution; in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[fundy87]

If you're taking money from SS because of mental disability, due process or not, you should get an NICS denial. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

and this is why we can't have nice things

 

[ilikeguns]

I am usually on the side of the "people"in all of these types of discussions, BUT, in this case I'm not too upset by the proposal. IMO, If YOU go to the the government and say hey, not only am I telling you I am mentally impaired and can't work, but I'm willing to submit to tests and procedures to prove it, then YOU are providing the"due process". And, in case some of you still have not read the proposal, or the cliffs notes BBI posted, you have to be judged impaired by a doctor AND a court. So you yourself,a doctor AND a court all agree you are mentally impaired, and that's still not enough due process? No wonder people outside the gun world think we're all nuts.

 

[Thegeek]

What other rights do you think should be subject to denial without due process, in violation of our Constitution?

I suppose that's a silly question, considering the NICS is itself in violation of our Constitution; in for a penny, in for a pound.

Who's giving up a right? You have to claim SS disability, you don't just get it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You are skipping over one important word. That word is and. And the two paragraphs that follow.

*sigh* Well, at least someone read the parts I put in the thread. Go ahead and read who is actually included. The quoted part is from who is specifically NOT included to allay fears of overreach.

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."

If you have never been adjudicated as mentally defective (and adjudicated means determined by a judicial process), then it is irrelevant as to how you can also be excluded later on.

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Adjudication: The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding;also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearingby a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates thatthe claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

 

[chipbennett]

If you're taking money from SS because of mental disability, due process or not, you should get an NICS denial. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Thank you for, once again, proving the point of my concern in my OP.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

*sigh* Well, at least someone read the parts I put in the thread. Go ahead and read who is actually included. The quoted part is from who is specifically NOT included to allay fears of overreach.

If you have never been adjudicated as mentally defective (and adjudicated means determined by a judicial process), then it is irrelevant as to how you can also be excluded later on.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Adjudication: The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding;also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearingby a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates thatthe claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Here is what the Feds consider adjudicated.

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) 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:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found 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.

I'm going to guess that virtually 100% of the people on SSI for mental disability have met (a) and the argument would be that they are categorized as (2). It does take a determination by a board to get SSI doesn't it?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Who's giving up a right? You have to claim SS disability, you don't just get it.

I'm aware of that. However, you said:

If you're taking money from SS because of mental disability, due process or not, you should get an NICS denial. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't think that having some condition preventing one from working should also preclude that person from the right of self-defense. After all, who is going to provide defense for a whole class of people who are disarmed by your policy, which rendered due process to be moot?

Your proposed policy suggestion reads to me to be vindictive and vengeful upon those who have the audacity to take money that is made available; it's kinda like what happens here or on any of several boards on the net when someone talks about the punishment due to a sex offender of some type: Everyone starts falling all over themselves, trying to find the most vicious and grotesque punishment they can imagine, trying to outdo each other.

I get it. You don't think people should claim disability. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that even as I disagree with that opinion. People have the basic right to the defense of their lives. Where your view falls apart for me is in the point that the NICS check is seen as an infringement upon the RKBA (which it is) right up until it's used to take the ability to lawfully exercise that right away from someone the person speaking doesn't think should have that right.

The 5A is clear in that taking (not surrendering) a right from someone, specifically the denial of the rights of life, liberty, and property, requires that due process of law be employed (more correctly, it denies government the power to do so without that due process of law.)

That a person makes a claim for disability, even on mental grounds, is not an exception to that individual right nor that governmental power and limitation on that power.

BTW, just as you can cite mental disabilities such as paranoid schizophrenia or homicidal mania, I can as easily cite Somatization disorder (which is the random page to which I opened my old copy of the DSM-IV) This disorder causes pain and/or dysfunction of at least four areas of the person's body, and is not constant but is also not predictable as to when it will "hit". A person so affected might be unable to work, but not be unable to provide for his own defense, at least most of the time.

Rights pertain to all or they pertain to none.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thegeek]

If you're so mentally disabled you can't work, do you have the capacity to be safe with a firearm?

 

[chipbennett]

If you're so mentally disabled you can't work, do you have the capacity to be safe with a firearm?

Who gets to make that decision, and how?

 

[jamil]

If you're so mentally disabled you can't work, do you have the capacity to be safe with a firearm?

If the decision to adjudicate a person as mentally defective specifically considers that point, I have no problem with it. Let a judge order that in addition to whatever else is being ordered for that individual, also order that the person may not own firearms. THAT's due process.

But then it's no longer attaching a ruling to an entire group of people without concern for individual circumstances. Just because a person is adjudicated as no longer being able to manage his finances does not mean he can no longer own a firearm safely nor is it a reason to automatically exclude him from a constitutional right.

Or, is your thing more an issue of punishment or retribution for qualifying for and accepting benefits? That's a whole different topic than this one.