AdvocacyCriminal Behaviorcrooks and liarsFeaturedGun RightsHelp & Support

Obama Administration Yanks Second Amendment Rights from SSI Recipients




From PJ Media — Last week, the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion put the fin­ish­ing touch­es on a new pol­i­cy that would deprive recip­i­ents of dis­abil­i­ty insur­ance and Sup­ple­men­tal Secu­ri­ty Income (SSI) of their Sec­ond Amend­ment rights. The admin­is­tra­tion will now char­ac­ter­ize those cit­i­zens as “men­tal defec­tives,” there­by hav­ing their abil­i­ty to own a firearm sub­ject to the fed­er­al Gun Con­trol Act.




Sup­ple­men­tal Secu­ri­ty Income helps blind, dis­abled, and elder­ly peo­ple with lit­tle to no income.  Pre­vi­ous­ly, it was under­stood that “men­tal­ly defec­tive” referred to one’s men­tal health. Cit­i­zens who have been insti­tu­tion­al­ized against their will are restrict­ed from own­ing a firearm. The new def­i­n­i­tion of “men­tal­ly defec­tive” has noth­ing to do with being men­tal­ly ill.

The Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion released its final deci­sion after a peri­od of open com­ments that drew more than 91,000 respons­es, includ­ing a response from the NRA. Although Oba­ma likes to emp­ty out Guan­tanamo Bay of dan­ger­ous ter­ror­ists and com­mute the sen­tences of crim­i­nals guilty of break­ing fed­er­al firearms laws, he doesn’t like law-abid­ing Amer­i­can cit­i­zens to pos­sess firearms.




The NRA sub­mit­ted com­ments to the Social Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion, but the issues raised by the gun rights asso­ci­a­tion were ignored.

For exam­ple, the SSA did not attempt to answer most of the legal ques­tions raised about its author­i­ty, instead defer­ring to an over­broad and prob­lem­at­ic ATF reg­u­la­tion defin­ing who counts under the fed­er­al Gun Con­trol Act as a “men­tal defec­tive” and to Depart­ment of Jus­tice guid­ance on report­ing. The SSA did not explain why, some two decades after the fed­er­al back­ground check sys­tem came online, it was revers­ing its ear­li­er deter­mi­na­tion about its report­ing respon­si­bil­i­ties and only now assert­ing a man­date to do so.

Incred­i­bly, the SSA also brushed aside empir­i­cal evi­dence the NRA sub­mit­ted sug­gest­ing that the pro­posed rule would have no pub­lic safe­ty ben­e­fit. “We are not attempt­ing to imply a con­nec­tion between men­tal ill­ness and a propen­si­ty for vio­lence, par­tic­u­lar­ly gun vio­lence,” the SSA wrote. “Rather, we are com­ply­ing with our oblig­a­tions under the NIAA, which require us to pro­vide infor­ma­tion from our records when an indi­vid­ual falls with­in one of the cat­e­gories iden­ti­fied in 18 U.S.C. 922(g).” This would seem to be the very def­i­n­i­tion of the sort of arbi­trary and capri­cious rule­mak­ing pro­hib­it­ed by the Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act.

Most notably, the new rule does not make clear how an indi­vid­ual could appeal the agency’s deci­sion to deny Sec­ond Amend­ment rights. Writes the NRA, “The rule would not pro­vide those sub­ject to its terms the abil­i­ty to defend their suit­abil­i­ty to pos­sess firearms before the actu­al loss of rights took place. In oth­er words, it offers no due process on the ques­tion of los­ing Sec­ond Amend­ment rights.”

Instead, a vic­tim of the new reg­u­la­tions would have to peti­tion for his con­sti­tu­tion­al right to own a gun because he pos­es no threat to the pub­lic safe­ty. Has it even been estab­lished that SSI recip­i­ents are respon­si­ble for the “gun vio­lence” the admin­is­tra­tion has been tar­get­ing? Do we know what per­cent­age of gun crim­i­nals are on SSI?

Previous post

NYT praises globalist European gun control, calls for "stronger federal control"

Next post

Speaker Ryan Considers Fines to Prevent Gun Control 'Sit-In'

ER1C ☠

ER1C ☠

Dedicated Second Amendment Advocate, At-Home Gunsmith, Designer, Blogger, Video Guy, Author, Business Owner & ReloadOne Member.

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.