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)

  • Will

    |

    @ G-Man & steve b:
    Damn…I think this crow needs a little salt.. BUT…..I STILL think the #1 requirement for POTUS should be prior military service…..Preferably with some Command Experience in wartime/combat areas. Someone like IKE. Right or wrong, it’s what I think.

    WILL

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ WILL,

      On that we both agree. I will always expect the person responsible for ordering our troops into battle to have at least some experience in the military. Otherwise they are not qualified to sit as the Commander in Chief over our military.

      This is especially important given the Presidential authority to unilaterally order military action without always having the consent of Congress. At least when Congress does it, we can be assured some of the voting members have some military background to assist in their decisions.

      Likewise, military experience is just as important when ordering troops out of battle. Obama severely lacked such experience which is why he failed in Iraq for pulling troops out way too soon.

      So after Obama’s blunders, I can accept Trump over Hilary any day should the people be so inclined to make him President.

      Reply

  • steve b.

    |

    Will=since when is not being an asshole a requirement for POTUS?John McCain is a her for what he endured but his performance as Senator leaves something to be desired. As for military experience we need someone who understands the military-Geo.Washington,H.Truman-and understands the threats ,both foreign and domestic.

    Reply

  • RetiredCW4

    |

    Just call him deferment Donald. He is right up there, in my books, with “I had other priorities in life” Cheney…

    Reply

  • WILL

    |

    @COLONEL TERRY: RE; Federal Registry; If you believe that the Gov’t. is NOT keeping a Firearms Registry–in violation of Federal Law… Then you are as ignorant as those who think the Gov’t. is “looking out for their best interests”
    They’re full of BULLSH!T and so are you.

    Reply

  • Colonel Terry

    |

    It should be noted that on December 21, 2012, In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.

    He then lambasted the government, stating: “How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?” he asked.”

    Turns out, many states are ahead of him: at least 38 states require or authorize the use of certain mental health records for use in a firearm background check, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits gun sales to individuals who have been committed to a mental institution or “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

    The federal law pretty much says that anyone who has been involuntarily committed or anyone who has been determined by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, those two categories are prohibited from possessing firearms; also included would be other individuals, falling into those categories, who may also be receiving disability benefits, not because of the receipt of benefits, but only if they are incompetent, suffer from a debilitating mental disorder and require a responsible person to receive and administer their benefits because of such a disorder. These provisions were enacted some 40 years before Obama became president.

    Obviously, no one wants dangerous mentally ill persons to harm others with an improperly obtained firearm, and we must make certain that any database, including the state and federal databases currently in use, or any new database under consideration, must not improperly dessiminate adverse information regarding any individual on disability, or not, who is qualified to possess a firearm.

    Reply

    • Frank

      |

      Well stated.

      Reply

  • steve b.

    |

    of course Trump scares the crap out of them. He is the example of American Success.he loves the Military,he creates JOBS, he builds America rather then tearing her down,he owns a GUN, he isnot bought,he is brash and outspoken,he Loves America ,he is from Scottish blood,he respects the Constitution,he admires our Allies,pays homage to our history, is proud of his success{ME TOO},can read a balance sheet,is responsible for a huge payroll,deals with corrupt unions and corrupt government.In short is everything the flop in the white house is not

    Reply

    • WILL

      |

      @ steve b: Part of your [spewing] of praise of CHUMP TRUMP may be correct, BUT, when he bashes and disrespects a dedicated and decorated member of our Military… Then he’s nothing more than an A$$HOLE and shouldn’t even be in consideration for running. What does HIS DD214 say? HUH? What’s that? Does he even have one?
      The FIRST requirement for POTUS should be:
      #1; Are you a veteran of any branch of the U S Military?
      YES?– Proceed.
      NO?– SORRY CHARLIE ! NEXT!

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ WILL,

      I don’t mean to jump in here, but I find it hard to resist. I implore you to reevaluate the actual dialogue between these two men (Trump and McCain), but without the military pomp.

      McCain insulted Trump and his supporters first after a Trump rally in Phoenix when thereafter he (McCain) publicly called them all “crazies”. That is unacceptable and quite irresponsible for a senior Senator to refer to any supporting constituents as “crazies”, as well as intentionally insulting.

      I don’t care what kind of war hero a man is, he is not entitled to such respect after he abuses his position to immaturely insult and degrade the public as McCain so carelessly did.

      As for Trump’s retort, it was appropriate given McCain’s deplorable behavior to start. But let’s examine exactly what Trump said back, “He’s a war hero ’cause he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

      As harsh as it sounded, Trump spoke the truth. The act of being captured does not entitle anyone to the labeled of “hero”. After all, it is only civilians that make downed pilots into heroes, but from a military perspective you’ve actually screwed up if you got yourself shot down; which is what McCain did.

      I suspect that Trump is wise enough to have researched the real story behind what McCain did wrong that day which led to his capture. And thus, Trump’s comment, “… I like people that weren’t captured”, is quite fitting.

      When one is as competitive as Trump, it is not hard to see why he views the rest of the pilots that actually completed their bombing runs that day to be the true heroes for their success, and McCain as a failure. Especially when McCain has admitted he failed to follow proper procedure that day.

      Just smothering veterans in a blanket of honor without question, as I feel you have done here, is inappropriate. It clouds judgement and prevents proper examination of the real person. I blame McCain for another very serious failure in his life that has affected mine and millions of others, that being the fact he is responsible for putting Obama in the White House.

      In closing I wish to make a few disclaimers here – I am a veteran and so I comment with a military mindset. I do not personally know Donald Trump, but have worked with Senator McCain on several occasions and feel he is out of touch and way past time for him to retire.

      Reply

    • Mikial

      |

      @G-Man,

      As always, spoken with reason and consideration.

      I agree . . McCain performed like a hero in captivity, but he has not performed like a hero as a Senator. He, IMHO, is a RINO.

      Too many times has he acted like someone who does not have the best interests pf patriotic Americans at heart . . . and no, I’m not going to enter into a debate with anyone over this.

      I voted for him against Obama in 08, and to tell the truth, so many of the things he said let his supporters down and helped Obama win. Again, water under the bridge, but he has let us all down too m,any times to be a hero beyond his time in Nam.

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Mikial.

      I have Respect for Lieutenant Commander John S. McCain, III., USN. Naval Pilot, POW, Squadron Commander and Vietnam War Fighter. But I have absolutely NO respect for Senator John S. McCain, III. Next Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, McCain has to be one Most Crooked Politician on Capitol Hill. Racking in MILLIONS in Defense Contract’s, Off-Shore Bank Houses. He DOESN’T Support any Party I know off. And Represents Himself, and ONLY himself, he’s NOT even a RINO…

      Reply

    • John W

      |

      Y

      Reply

    • John W

      |

      Well first you can respect McCain for his military service. That’s a given. Anyone who serves deserves respect but ALL people deserve respect. Being a Vet is NOT should NOT be a requirement for president. Trump has his accomplishments. McCain as a politician as far as I am concerned is a flop. What we need is to get rid of these career politicians. VOTE them out. Their big salaries and fat retirements at the expense of tax payers. By the way I am a vet and yes I posses a DD214.

      Reply

  • Obama Hater

    |

    when is this worthless SOB going to get put down like the dog that he is? how can he keep breaking the law and not be in prison??? at least impeach this animal.

    Reply

    • deuelr

      |

      I agree wholeheartedly! Where does this feckless coward get the right to dictate who should and shouldn’t have guns, I thought he was a Professor of Law, not a dictator. Actually he doesn’t have the right to enact laws anyway!

      Reply

  • Colonel Terry

    |

    First, let’s consider what La Pierre said:

    “Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction — except those between criminals — will somehow make us safer. That means forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one — standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners —to tax them or take them.

    Without getting into a philosophical argument about gun laws or rights, the issue here is whether of not La Pierre’s facts and words are true.

    Obama has not proposed a federal gun registry, which is currently barred under federal law. But LaPierre’s words–part fact, part falsehood, part paranoia–are counterproductive, not helpful to the cause of gun rights.
    His hyperbolic and over the top misrepresentations turn off reasonable minds and ultimately, by fanning the flames of his targeted audience, inflaming ever more conspiracy and angry irresponsible words, he does himself, NRA and the cause of gun rights a harmful disservice.

    Reply

    • John W

      |

      Colonel in respect to gun rights the Constitution in the 2nd Amend spells out citizens have the right to own guns. The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens are protected by the 2nd to own guns. The attack on the 2nd by Democrats has always been the focus of the party. The Democrats have passed all federal laws pertaining to gun/crime control in this country. The NFA 1934, the GCA 1968 and the Assault Weapons ban of the 90’s. ALL passed to “control crime”. No! It does more to infringe on the rights of citizens. But then if the Democrats are so concerned about crime why not enforce and prosecute existing laws? It appears that laws are passed but not enforced. The failure of our government is enormous. They have failed with the VA Admin, Social Security, Medicare and the list goes on. Is this really what we need more government oversight? I DON’T THINK SO!

      Reply

  • Michael J

    |

    this POTUS has to go! Barrak Obama is destroying this Great Republic and our Constitution. Congress and the senate is allowing it to happen because these filthy rich self interest groups lobbyist are lining their pockets and it is the hard working Americans who actually break their backs to give nearly half of their paycheck to keep this Government running who are the ones suffering the consequences I am so sick and tires of these career politicians trying to ruin our lives and I don’t think I am alone. If we continue to sit on our hands and continue to stay silent we will soon be living in a place that resembles the third Reich. or communist Russia.

    Reply

  • A US Citizen

    |

    Here is an interesting fact that no one – and not a single ‘gun rights’ PAC – wants to publicly address: There is a reason why our founding fathers decided that the Bill of Rights should be a document itself rather than mixed in with the rest of the Constitution. That reason is to put those Rights ‘outside’ of government. To frame them as ‘red lines’ that the government can not cross for any reason. In plain english, even where there is a ‘legitimate interest’ in achieving any given goal or result – the government is constrained to do so in a manner that leaves all of our Rights completely untouched. If a thing can not be done without in any way effecting the free exercise of said Rights, the government is in practice forbidden from doing that thing. What this means with regard to the 2nd Amendment is simply this: Since our Rights derive from Citizenship and not any other thing (except perhaps Natural Law), the government is actually in practice forbidden from prohibiting ANY US Citizen from buying, owning and enjoying their 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. This is supported further by the fact that no US Citizen can be arrested and charged with a crime for doing nothing other than freely exercising a Constitutionally protected Right. The only way that a Citizen can be deprived of that or any other Right is to be stripped of Citizenship through due process of law – and currently the only crime which carries that potential penalty is treason. Like it or not, every US Citizen who is not actually incarcerated is free to legally buy and own a gun. Havine a criminal record for any reason can not be considered suffucient to strip a Citizen of their Rights. That is how it actually is. And I am waiting for the day that ALL the ‘gun rights’ PAC’s out there stop helping the government illegally disarm Citizens and start publicly repeating the facts I have posted above. No one needs a ‘license’, a background check (government permission), or to register their purchase or themselves as owners of their personal property. Likewise no one requires any license or permission from the government to sell firearms to other US Citizens. And since on top of all this, ‘gun control’ is an utter and total failure on its face, it is clear that we need to put a stop to these actions of a government gone just about completely bad.

    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: