Obama Seeks to Link Gun Control to Government Benefits

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

President Obama is seeking to expand gun control through executive action and the back door. All it takes is a phone and a pen to potentially strip the Second Amendment from millions of citizens who have never committed a crime. In fact, the President is looking to equate anyone whose monthly Social Security disability payments is being handled by another (Alternate payee) in the same classification as drug addicts, felons or illegal immigrants. After all, who needs Constitutional protections when you can reinterpret the law through executive action and deny people their constitutional rights?

05 itshouldnotbecalledguncontrol

The President is redefining the concept of gun control through expanded background checks by looking to existing federal law that restricts firearm ownership of citizens who are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

This is where it starts to get murky and dangerous for the Second Amendment. What does “marked subnormal intelligence” mean? Mental illness? Condition? Disease? The administration or any bureaucrat can tailor the definition of any of those terms to criteria that would strip millions of their 2A rights. And where would it stop? After applying the new criteria to those receiving benefits from Social Security who would be the next target?

Historical Perspective

The plan to expand background checks is not new, but was not expanded to Social Security for a reason. The 2007 Virginia Tech murders marked 32 deaths by a man who had already been declared by the courts to be mentally ill and ordered to undergo outpatient treatment. At the time, the court order was insufficient to warrant mandatory inclusion into the nation’s database. The database, NICS or National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is a system for determining whether prospective firearms buyers are eligible to legally own or possess a firearm. It was enacted in the early 1990s after being mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Act.

After Virginia Tech, Congress expanded the reporting requirements, but the Social Security Administration determined it was not required to submit records, according to LaVenia LaVelle, an agency spokeswoman. Now the President wants to force the Social Security Administration to do just that via executive action and without the input or consent of Congress.

Reasonably, there are a few naysayers; political spinsters from the gun control ranks that would accuse us of being radicals and conspiracy theorists. However, we can look to the government for our answers—specifically the Department of Government Affairs. How does the Department of Government Affairs define disease, condition or incompetency? It is not cut and dry, but certainly those suffering from mild forms of PTSD, stress or other traumatic injuries would fit the new criteria.

Currently, there are approximately 4.2 million adults receiving benefits that are managed by a “representative payees.” Taking that to a personal level, my grandmother who is in her 90s could no longer legally posses an heirloom firearm that belonged to my grandfather before he passed a few decades ago. A friend with severe arthritis who has his daughter handle his finances would be barred from ownership. The gentleman has not shot in probably 20 years due to his condition, but he is a semi-retired lawyer (i.e. he is still mentally competent to practice law) and has one helluva gun collection that is still growing. How is he suddenly incapable or unsafe to own a firearm?

Seal_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs

Gun Control v. Gun Rights

The only people in favor of this plan have preconceived gun control agendas. Critics—not just gun rights activists—including mental health experts and advocates for the disabled have blasted the plan stating an expansion of the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded and misinterprets the original meaning of the law. Difficulty balancing a checkbook should not be a reason to strip individuals of their Constitutional rights. Would we suspend their freedom of speech, protection from self-incrimination or force them quarter soldiers in their homes during peacetime under the same guise?

The law was designed to prohibit ownership from someone who has shown a strong tendency or suspicion of being violent, unsafe or dangerous. However, instead of increasing safety and security, the law would have the effect of pushing those seeking treatment or benefits into the shadows—or worse, away from treatment altogether. I have had the pleasure of hunting with dozens of disabled or recovering veterans on industry-sponsored trips over the years. Some had severe disabilities from combat—mental or physical—but all had a strong desire to overcome and regain a sense of normalcy. If President Obama’s plan comes to fruition, memories such as these would be a thing of the past.

 

Eric Hollen, a U.S. Army veteran and Paralympic athlete, competes in a 50-meter pistol competition.

Since when does a blanket decision regarding a disability bar an individual from gun ownership without due process?

A Ray of Hope?

Republicans have introduced legislation to change the policy. The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, now under consideration in the House, would require a court to determine that somebody poses a danger before being reported to the background check system. It is time to crank up the machine and remind your congressional representatives that you support the Second Amendment and our veterans.

Where do you come down on the President’s attempt to expand background checks? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (201)

  • P.Od redneck

    |

    Getting him out of office will never happen, the people gripe about it but will never stand up and do anything. Their scared they will loose their easy way of life style if they had to go to war with the government to get him out. the constitution reads if a government is not working to the benefit of the people they have a right to abolish it and re-establish it to their benefit. The government wont do anything because their scared of a racial war and he is doing exactly what the gun control idiots want him to do and they are financing it all. stop crying about everything he is doing and grow a set and rally together and march against this unruley government. everybody is expecting one person to go do it for them so they can sit back and reap the benefits from the comfort of their easy chair. WONT HAPPEN. SO SHUT UP

    Reply

  • Lord Humungus

    |

    I am wondering what kind of collateral damage this may have. My wife is disabled by way of stroke, I am her representative payee. I have a vast gun collection including many so called “Assault weapons”. Can they take this as far as they have to be out of the house? I don’t know, but the implications are chilling.

    Reply

  • msm64

    |

    This is a very good spot to learn info, thank you all for your knowledge and viewpoints

    Reply

  • Sal

    |

    Were any of the shootings done by people who are receiving social security benefits? I just fine it so funny that he will try anything to push what he wants before he goes down as the worst president we ever had. If you read the 2nd amendment it’s there to protect us from an out of control government. I think were just about there. Our government is so hell bent on disarming its citizens and at the same time arguing for immigration rights not the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. There is really something wrong with that especially when they take an oath to protect our rights as citizens. Why is it that they always try to punish all of us for what only a few of us do. Where does it stop? Or will it ever stop?

    Reply

  • Gearmoe

    |

    Rather than make new rules and battle against the 2A obviously seeking to confiscate and disarm millions of lawful citizens, how about correcting infringements of the Constitution first? Allowing what the citizen is Granted as Rights in all the Land would be more leadership-like.

    Reply

    • Anne

      |

      I think we need to realize that this kind of thinking belongs in “fantasy land”. Wake up America. Study the results of any country that has had gun confiscation – This is simply a rouse to disarm Americans so we can’t defend ourselves.
      After immigration is passed the gov’t, backed by Big Pharma – can declare Martial Law because of the coming rampage. A disarmed, illegally overpopulated country can and will not stand. Classifications become the rule and freedom is shelved “for the good of the people” does any of this sound familiar? Grab a history book and read, read and think.

      Reply

  • Victor Hauk

    |

    When was it ever written into law that the president has the ability or the right or even the duty to write law? That right and ability belongs to Congress, and to the Senate. Who can originate a tax? Only the congress, not the Senate nor the President.

    So why are we allowing this president to write so many laws? And pass so many new taxes? And how can we not see that he, the president, is bypassing the legal authority given by the Constitution, with every executive action he takes.

    The only conclusion that one can have is that he is a law breaker, or lawless, or that he believes that he knows better than everyone else what is right and just.

    Did he not take an oath, twice, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? I seem to remember that this is part of the oath of office for the president.

    I think that he wants to be king.

    Reply

    • WilliamsLarry

      |

      Absolutely Victor you said most of it. Someone should put a stop to him, Gomer Pyle even with ‘Citizen’s Arrest’! After serving my country honorably in Veit Nam, I never dreamed this would happen. I realize it has to be done right down to crossing every “T” & dotting every “I” in order to clear up what he has done, BUT the Cronies all want us citizens to “donate” for this & that. My mailbox is crammed full of political mail every day, all wanting a donation. I think our Congress should reduce it’s size & clear this mess up tomorrow. NOW!

      Reply

    • Mchael

      |

      @ Victor Hauk.

      To date Obama has ONLY taken the Executive Order option 206 times, George W. make 291 such options. And a Presidential Memorandum is NOT an Executive Order.

      Reply

  • deerslayer

    |

    There are a lot of ex-military folks drawing monthly government checks for PTSD. Half of them are scammers, some who never deployed overseas.
    Those who really have PTSD should not have access to firearms, ie those who use PTSD as defense in their murder trials. The scammers need to be weeded out so the VA can fund those who really need help.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ deerslayer:

      You wrote: “There are a lot of ex-military folks drawing monthly government checks for PTSD.”

      Is that your gut instinct or do you actually have official facts and numbers to back up your claim?

      You wrote: “Half of them are scammers, some who never deployed overseas.”

      Is that another of your gut instincts or do you actually have official facts and numbers to back that one up as well?

      You wrote: “Those who really have PTSD should not have access to firearms, ie those who use PTSD as defense in their murder trials.”

      So which is it – anyone with PTSD, or only the ones that use it as a defense in murder trials? If it’s only the latter, by then it’s a little too late to deny them access to firearms since they’ve already committed the murder… don’t ya think? If it’s the former (anyone with PTSD), well in this country everyone has a right to a trial and must be adjudicated as incompetent by a court of law before a willy-nilly stripping of their rights may occur. Just a PTSD diagnosis is not enough to strip them of their rights.

      You wrote: “The scammers need to be weeded out so the VA can fund those who really need help.”

      It is not as though one can just walks in and claims PTSD. Combat duty is confirmed and then patients go through rigorous diagnoses by qualified doctors and psychiatrists with ongoing treatment. Would this process possibly be the “scammer weeding” you are referring to? Or could it just be these professionals are failing to do their jobs to meet your standards.

      And what should we do with the rest of the civilian population that also has PTSD from their professions as police, firefighters, paramedics, and E.R. trauma staff? But wait, there is also the PTSD suffered by those victims whom the previously mentioned professionals had to save; we mustn’t forget they are also now PTSD patients as well due to their traumas.

      Add to this the countless other PTSD victims of child abuse and rape, or anyone else that has experienced any type of life-threatening event or trauma and you will see why official stats reveal that 7-8% of the U.S. population will have PTSD at some point in their lives.

      I will assume by your strict opinion that they all should be stripped of their right to bear arms. I just don’t see how you really expect the police to do their duties if they aren’t allowed to carry firearms.

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ deerslayer.

      G-Man and me/I don’t see “Eye-to-Eye” on many issues, BUT I have to agree with him on this issue. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK IS PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY? People on PTSD, 3, 4, 5 Combat Tours. That will give ANYONE PTSD. I have friends that have it, All they they want to do, is “Rip the Brain’s” out of the Heads and Start Over. It’s a “Slow Spiraling Death March”, you want too reach out and help. But the only Help you can provide is YOURSELF. I don’t know where to go NOW, There’s more needed to be said. But, How Do You Describe a INTANGIBLE. Sorry Guy’s I can’t go on anymore, on this ONE. Sec…

      Reply

  • Ken Lynn

    |

    Odamnahead says our senior citizens and our wounded vets are national security risks. But he says the Muslim Brotherhood, whom other countries say are terrorists, are not??? Biblical prophecy says things will be up side down and wrong will be called right and right will be called wrong in the end times. L&L

    Reply

    • Judge Roy Bean

      |

      Oh Ken Lynn your comments could get you put on a gummint list as the Obayme administration has determined that white middle class citizens are “an emerging domestic threat”.

      Don’t worry too much…yet. The above definition is heavily caveated as it would sure cover a lot of people, but if the Obayme watchdogs suspect an internet blog is too far from “center” they can get the names of the membership (it’s being tested in court right now where comments said that some judges should be taken out and shot). Search it to get all the particulars.

      Reply

  • Lynn

    |

    odamnahead says senior citizens are a threat to national security. But the Muslim Brotherhood members he has put in charge of “our” national security aren’t ??? Bible prophecy says things will be upside down in the end times. L&L

    Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Lynn.

      It wasn’t about SENIOR CITIZEN’S! It was about SENIOR OFFICIAL’S inside the government!!

      Reply

  • CGI

    |

    You say that he cannot do this. Look what he is already done to destroy this Country. He is a Muslim through and through. He dose not stand for the United States of America, he is four muslim and he is trying to take our weapons away so they can take over the country. He needs to be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible if not sooner .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: