New Rule Uses Social Security Records to Block Second Amendment Rights

The Social Security Administration is using beneficiary records to restrict gun ownership. (Photo: SSA/Facebook)

The Social Security Administration, or SSA, issued a new rule that will block certain Social Security beneficiaries from buying guns. The new policy will classify these beneficiaries as “mental defectives” receiving disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits. This new policy is in-line with the White House’s promise to deliver new gun control policies through executive action.

The rule was proposed back in May of this year and will take effect on Jan. 18, 2017. The controversial new policy is part of the White House’s Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer plan.

“On Monday, Barack Obama’s SSA issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and SSI recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as ‘mental defectives,'” explains the NRA-ILA. “The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.”

“The Social Security rule is the final version of a proposal that we reported on earlier this year,” reads the statement. “Public outcry against the proposed rule was fierce, and the comment period drew over 91,000 responses, the vast majority of them opposing the plan.”

“The NRA itself submitted detailed comments, taking the proposed rule to task for its many legal problems, its lack of empirical support, and the way it would politicize the SSA’s functions and stigmatize its beneficiaries.”

The NRA-ILA adds that policymakers made no attempt to answer any of their legal questions surrounding the sweeping new policy. The SSA even acknowledged that the new policy was not tied to reducing violence or crime.

See Also: Social Security Admin Releases New Rule, 75,000 Beneficiaries May Lose Gun Rights

“We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence,” said the SSA. “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 [the law].”

The NRA-ILA described the change as “arbitrary and capricious” and they’re not alone coming out against the policy. The National Association for Gun Rights, or NAGR, came out hard against the new rule.

“No excuse justifies stripping law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights without due process and trial,” said NAGR president Dudley Brown. “The procedures set forth by the Social Security Administration are a gross violation of the Constitutional right to due process and separation of powers.”

“First they came for the gun rights of perfectly healthy military veterans who have served honorably. Now they’re coming for the rights of sound and healthy senior citizens and others least able to fight back against oppressive Federal bureaucrats” said Brown. “Congress and President Trump must put a stop to it.”

“[Trump] can reverse this anti-gun executive action immediately upon taking office on January 20.”

Until this policy is repealed or corrected, beneficiaries affected by the new rule will have to petition to have their rights restored before they can continue to exercise their Second Amendment rights. How much this process will cost beneficiaries is not known. And what may be a “reasonable” expense to the SSA may be prohibitive for the people affected by this rule.

{ 208 comments… add one }
  • Sam January 22, 2017, 12:08 am

    I really am quite disturbed by the number of ignorant people making comments to the effect of that ALL people with a mental disability are either dangerous or stupid. It is highly ignorant and offensive, and they always have some example to tell about how some “crazy” person they know that has done this or that, or they just don’t trust them with a firearm. I’m sorry, but the ignorant person making their own judgments about disabled people in on them, it’s their own mental insecurities and not the other way around.

    Lets get to the heart of this ruling, this SSA ruling has nothing to do with locating dangerous people, and the SSA even comes out and says this. Nor are the looking for people that are so mentally challenged that they cannot take care of themselves. They admit this as well, they basically admit that they are doing what they are told by reporting ‘relevant’ records to the attorney general. Now no one would argue that someone that is a danger to themselves or other should possibly have their access to firearms looked at, but you simply cannot take John Doe, 40, with a clean criminal history’s second amendment rights away without due process because he has OCD, or social phobia, or sleep disturbance or any long list of qualifying mental disabilites and receiving SSDI just because he has someone handling his money for whatever reason he has them doing that…the guy might just be illiterate.

    There as so many damn factors to take into consideration when it comes to taking a constitutional right away to protect someone, that this is why due process of law is absolutely necessary here, and this SSA ruling does not do this by any means. If someone wants to continue to be ignorant and stigmatize a disability, and demand that these people have their right to self defense taken away based on a false stereotype, than you my friend are the one that either needs psychological treatment yourself because you are dog nuts, or you need education because you are ignorant, or you need someone to knock your damn teeth out for being an asshole, then you need to pick yourself up, and leave our country because you don’t even deserve to call yourself an American! Makes me sick.

  • bill January 11, 2017, 5:12 am

    The article says “LAW ABIDING” so this is where I have the problem. If these ppl had violent records, specifically a felony, or a domestic, then yes, by all means, but they should ONLY lose their Rights on the merits of an individual case, where said persons broke the law. This is obviously an opportunity for the gun grabbers that have sat around the round table just trying to think up ways to take our (Americans) Rights away. I don’t have issues, but GOD forbid someone lost their family member, or anything that could drive one into having some TOTALLY NORMAL mental issues, and with proper treatmeqnt and time, will most likely go away in a relatively short period of time. Then what…they’ve lost their Constitutional Rights for life, or have to prove to some Governmental panel that they are now mentally fit to be able to protect themselves and family again?! HOGWASH! The Left is overstepping their power on this one and these LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DO NOT DESERVE THIS SORT OF TYRANNICAL TREATMENT! People need to standup and fight against this one!!!

  • Mark From Bristol January 2, 2017, 9:43 pm

    Early on during the Barrack Hussein administration, there was a picture in all of the newspapers that showed Barrack Hussein, crazy Uncle Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton walking, crossing a street together on their way back to OUR white house having just had lunch nearby somewhere. I studied that picture in the paper and wondered, “Where is a runaway speeding Mack truck with no brakes when you need one?”. Nearly eight years later and I still scratch my head at that missed opportunity.

  • Scott January 2, 2017, 9:20 pm

    What is missing from this story and others about this Presidential decree is what type of mental health treatment is being labelled “mental defective”? Not all mental health issues are permanent. Most are episodic. Which means many, many problems can be corrected thru treatment. Permanent problems which may have a biological element and most certainly those with genetic origins can only be managed. I fear that Obama will throw in correctable conditions with those that can only be managed. This short-sightedness in policy will only make the problems of mental health treatment even worse because you run the risk of seeing a doctor for problem and you take the risk of having your constitutional rights removed. Who in their “right mind” would take the risk? Having worked with many, many mentally health challenged patients, I can tell you that the risk assessment functions of the brain are some of the most primitive and least likely brain functions to be affected by mental illness, hence even a “crazy” person can determine the risk in seeing a doctor for a problem and will avoid the risk, letting a possibly correctable problem go untreated rather than let their rights be violated.

    • bill January 11, 2017, 4:50 am

      So, he’s saying ppl that have mental challenges aren’t allowed their Second Amendment RIGHTS and aren’t allowed to protect themselves and family against things like home invasions, car jackings, or in ANY situation that poses an eminent threat to them?! SOUNDS LIKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. MEN SUCH AS OBAMA ARE THE VERY REASON OUR FOUNDERS PUT GUN RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO PROTECT OURSELVES AGAINST TYRANTS….UNREAL!

  • Keith January 2, 2017, 5:29 pm

    The level ignorant, racist, paranoid nutbaggery on this blog is simply astounding. Misinformed disinformation author’s stirring the bottom of gene pool in order to garner the most clicks among their coconspirators…. The funny part being the bottom feeders that just keep slurping it up until their bloated carcasses float in euphoric bliss from the excessive amounts of methane generated by the crap coming from their mouths via the lump of chit that passes for their brains….. Simply amazing…..

    • Robert January 2, 2017, 7:10 pm

      I read your post a couple of times searching for the subject matter and all I found was “excessive amounts of methane”

      I suppose replying to the specific quoter’s post(s) was to much to handle?

  • Johnny boy Davis January 2, 2017, 5:29 pm

    What a crock of shit thank god obummer is outta here mental defectives on SSI …well I would hope a mental health doctor had decided that was the case allowing them to claim their SSI. But how does that disallow the purchase or ownership of a firearm? I never saw that flagged up on my receipt when purchasing a weapon.

  • xringJoe January 2, 2017, 12:49 pm

    Well, I have to put my 2 cents into this discussion To the all-knowing citizens If all the arms are taken, The NRA will still be with us. Associations are always going to find a cause to rally. The National Rock Association. Crazies will kill with what ever they have at hand. A boxcutter took out more citizens than we could ever imagine. Not long ago a car and knife got a few more. Just keep our rights intact or leave for Canada with the rest of the people who said they were going but didn’t. Ha Ha HA. Too simple I guess.

  • CHARLIE AYCOCK January 2, 2017, 11:32 am

    This is unconfirmed but rumor has it that the folks over at the Chinese embassy gave Obama a new alias. He is now known among the folks there as “COON GONE SOON”. Our would be puppet leader will indeed be gone soon. Whatever anybody says about Trump, nobody ever called him a puppet. What about Obama? Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing their idiot.

    • CHARLIE AYCOCK January 2, 2017, 12:01 pm

      sorry, my Chinese is a bit rusty, that should have been, “COON SOON GONE”. I don’t much care for their government. I, along with many others on here spent time in Vietnam killing their comrades but never underestimate them. They are pretty intelligent & many of them share our dislike for the communist regime they live under. Remember, they are not allowed to voice their opinion & opposition. Obama is not what we have to worry about. Think about it, he is nothing from nowhere. He was put there by people behind the scenes that have money & they spent their money to reap a return. Obama is a puppet on a string bought & paid for, a mouth piece as the mafia calls it. Trump turned the political arena on it’s head & it needed to be! Trump is definitely no puppet.

  • Jimmie Martin December 31, 2016, 10:08 pm

    I own a gun and am a Vietnam veteran. The way I look at it is take my s.s.i. away and I can use my gun to get what I need. So go ahead and make my day….

    • Manosteel January 2, 2017, 9:48 am

      If you use your gun to “Get what you want” I hope you stock up on a lot of soap on a rope and butt lube. You’ll need it where you’re going!

  • Jim December 31, 2016, 5:27 pm

    They never pulled my rights to own a firearm even though I am disabled and part of it was a brain injury that really hurt my short term memory, names & numbers mostly. It would have been stupid of them to pull my rights as not only and I a 7 year Vietnam Veteran, but I am also someone who served for 15 years as a police Officer who in now disabled from injured caused while on the job! I am also a NRA Master shot in PPA and was on the Department pistol team for a few years as well as being the designated sniper for the SWAT team who was trained by the FBI in Quantico! I do not think that someone who is in la-la land even part of the time should be allowed to carry but minor problems with memory or concentration should not stop anyone from possessing a firearm. Vets and cops are the folks who are highly trained in their use.

  • Raymond Christiansen December 31, 2016, 3:33 pm

    I had my right to hunt taken away over a decade ago over 1 misdemeanor indiscretion in 52 years . I have 3 hon discharges and served this country for 8 years but that doesn’t mean anything. If you think they’re not trying to get our guns think again

    • Jim December 31, 2016, 5:19 pm

      That ain’t right Ray. I thought it had to be a felony or a domestic.

    • Darrell December 31, 2016, 6:13 pm

      I said years ago…….in my opinion…… one day there is going to have to be a revolution in this country. I say between the people & our so called government. The government was NEVER supposed to be this big or to be this powerfull. We were warned by our forefathers many many years ago ,but it seems todays young generation does NOT seem to know this or even care. It is really way past time to clean ALL of the government officials out of there comfy seats where they seem to have made a permanent home and replace them with all NEW persons & then put on term LIMITS !!! This crap of them naming there own raises while the persons on social security get crap like 0.3% raise for a year is bullshit.I just figured mine up for 2017 and all total I lost $4.00 a month all said & done.

    • Manosteel January 2, 2017, 9:45 am

      You are absolutely right!!!!!! If someone is mentally deficient or unstable enough that they can’t work then they should not be able to own a firearm!! These people have the potential , more so than others to mentally snap and use their guns to ” get what they want” or for some other misconstrued screwed up reason they can justify with their own little defective pea brains. Their is too damned much gun violence in the U.S. and the reason is the “Mind set of the individual” and not due to the fact we have a constitutional right to own a gun and that they are available! P.S. I am a Life NRA member!

      • bill January 11, 2017, 4:57 am

        Listen Jackhole, these ppl aren’t the ones doing all the shootings and just because someone has mental issues doesn’t mean they should be blanketed with the danger label. They still have the RIGHT under the Constitution to protect themselves and family and this is just another excuse for the Gun-Grabbers to try and take these unfortunate individual’s Rights away. Obviously you have no idea what the individual cases are and what they warrant, but it’s all going to be just fine, because Trump will just reverse whatever Constitutional Laws Obama breaks. If you ask me, Obama needs to go to prison for the rest of his traitorous life!

  • Jack D Eskew December 31, 2016, 12:56 pm

    I for one, certainly don’t want people that can’t manage their own affairs.purchasing firearms. If for no other reason would be to prevent them from being taken advantage of by Felons that otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy one themselves. The best way to protect our rights is to see that they are not abused. I can’t imagine why any reasonable person would not want our Govt. to do everything possible to keep firearms out the hands of criminals.

    • G M Bradt December 31, 2016, 4:42 pm

      Go away… leave now, scumbag. In the words of your Commie friends “We will bury you.” -Nikita Khrushchev … Do *NOT* mess with our *God given rights* as Americans. Molon labe.

    • Jimmie Martin December 31, 2016, 10:14 pm

      I don’t what tree you feel out of. But you need to get your head checked. Take guns from good people only gives more guns to bad people.

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:43 am

    Everyone breaks the law everyday ! Did you take that paper-paper clip – pen- ect… home from work ? Did you give a friend a deal while at work ? Did you smoke weed and fill out a 4473 afterward ? Were you in a coma after a car wreak and have someone manage your estate ? Did you get a domestic violence order filed against you ?(Lawyers advice to women getting a divorce , JUST ASK BRAD ! ) Did you come home early and find your wife in bed with your worst enemy and go crazy and commit yourself to a clinic handle the stress ? Have you ever committed yourself to drug rehab for a drinking problem ? I am old and get S.S. I have an accountant manage my bills & taxes ! Does your wife pay the bills ? Have you turned over your estate for your kids to manage ? Who says where you are sane or not ,an anti gun doctor ? Doctors kill more than guns !

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:11 am

    You create a website for a religious charity.You belong to a Muslim studies group at college and the group decides to launch a charity. You\’re appointed to design the website. You create a \”more information\” tab with links to websites that include similar information about religious customs and traditions. You did not realize that one of the sites you linked to advocated a form of religious extremism and that its comments section contained anti-American remarks. Nonetheless, despite your lack of criminal intent, you have broken the federal Patriot Act provision, \”providing material support to terrorists.\”Real example: Sami Omar al-Hussayen was a PhD student in Idaho. In 2004 he went to trial for providing \”expert guidance or assistance\” to terrorist groups. In reality, he was the technical web editor for several Islamic organizations and he inadvertently helped to maintain sites that had links to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and Israel. But al-Hussayen himself did not hold those views, his lawyers said, and they successfully argued that he could not be held criminally liable for what others wrote.

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:10 am

    You tell a park ranger that you cleaned up your picnic table.
    You honestly did think that you cleaned up, completely unaware of the fact that your friend\’s plastic cup dropped on the ground. As you and your friends are leaving the park\’s picnic area, a park ranger asks if you\’ve cleaned up after yourselves. You innocently answer, \”Yes, sir.\” Unbelievably, it could be argued that you have just given false statements to a federal official, a federal felony. Any false statement made to a government official, even when it\’s in conversation and not under oath or in writing, can fall under a \”false statement\” charge.Real example: In 2008 Emadeddin Z. Muntasser was sentenced in U.S. District Court to a year in prison for lying to an FBI agent when he denied traveling to Afghanistan years earlier. The transcript suggests that Muntasser was not purposefully trying to deceive interrogators, but rather had doubts about his original answer and felt he needed advice from legal counsel. The point here is that the wording of the very serious charge is open to interpretation at best.

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:08 am

    You email your family and friends to tell them not to use the services provided by your old company.You used to work at a financial services company but you were unhappy at the job for a while and finally quit. While you were still employed there, though, you realized that the transactions were not completely secure. You had alerted your boss to the problem at the time, but he never followed up. After leaving the job, you email people to let them know that the company\’s system is not secure and a hacker could gain access to their financial information. Your intentions were pure, but a judge could argue that you violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse law, which outlaws anyone from sending information, with the intent to cause damage, to a protected computer. The law\’s definition of \”damage\” includes \”impairment to integrity\” of a system or data, a phrase vague enough to turn you from an innocent ex-employee to a convicted felon.Real example: In 2000 Bret McDanel served 16 months in prison after he alerted customers of his old company, Tornado Development, about a software problem that was never fixed. He explained that the company\’s email system had a flaw that could allow an attacker to gain access to a user\’s email records. The prosecutors argued that McDanel had damaged Tornado\’s system. Wired called McDanel a \”wrongly jailed security whistleblower.\”

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:07 am

    You\’re a journalist with an anonymous source.You\’re an eager young reporter who has been sent to Washington, D.C., to write an investigative piece pertaining to national security. A government employee who works in national security offers to give you inside information on the condition that he remains anonymous. You oblige and your editors publish the piece, unaware that you (arguably) violated provisions of the Espionage and Censorship Act. The act criminalizes the receiving and distribution of confidential national security information by private individuals under circumstances where the statute appears to cover only governmental officials. You\’ve potentially just gone from a young, eager reporter to a convicted federal felon.Real example: James Rosen is a news reporter for Fox. In 2009 he had several contacts with a State Department employee. The FBI, in order to obtain a search warrant to look at Rosen\’s phone records and email, claimed that Rosen had violated espionage laws. Judge Andrew Napolitano said, \”This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior.\”

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:05 am

    You get lost in the woods.You decide to take your motorbike for a ride in the woods, along the marked path where it\’s permitted. You didn\’t realize that a massive blizzard was coming and by the time there is a layer of snow covering the ground, you\’ve lost track of the path. An officer finds you and charges you with having your motorbike in an area where it is not allowed, because you, unknowingly and without intent, have violated the Wilderness Act, which seeks to protect federally-designated areas of wilderness, partly by prohibiting motor vehicles.Real example: In 1996 well-known automobile racer Bobby Unser was convicted of a federal crime and sentenced to six months in prison. Why? Because he got lost in a blizzard in Colorado for two days while snowmobiling, and was guilty of \”unlawful operation of a snowmobile within a National Forest Wilderness Area.\”

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:04 am

    You take a fake sick day.Your best friend calls you on a Tuesday night and says he won two tickets to see your favorite baseball team play on Wednesday. The seats are incredible and you know this opportunity won\’t come again any time soon, so you decide to call in sick to work on Wednesday morning. You figure that, after all, it\’s something everyone does every now and then. You did not know, however, that you have just committed a \”scheme or artifice to defraud\” the company to their \”intangible right to your \”honest services\” — arguably a federal crime.Real example: This statute was so vague that a few years ago, the Supreme Court ammended it to apply only to \”bribes\” or \”kickbacks\” that illegally influenced lawmakers. Regardless of Court\’s rewriting, Cato Institute policy analyst David Rittgers wrote that \”little has changed\” in how ambiguous the statute is. As Justice Scalia stated, it still criminalizes \”a salaried employee\’s phoning in sick to go to a ball game.\”

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:03 am

    You receive an odd package.Let\’s say you own a small business which imports fish from another country and then distributes it to restaurants. One day, you\’re expecting your usual shipment and it arrives, but not in cardboard boxes the way it usually does. This time, it\’s in plastic. It turns out that the originating country bans the shipment of fish in plastic. You\’ve just violated a foreign law, or the Lacey Act. Under this act, it is unlawful to \”import, export, sell, acquire or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.\”Real example: Robert Blandford, Diane Huang, David McNab and Abner Schoenwetter — three American seafood dealers and one Honduran lobster-fleet owner — had no prior records. Yet they were given hard time in 2001 for \”importing lobster tails that were the wrong size and that were packaged in clear plastic bags rather than in cardboard boxes.\” The three men were sentenced to eight years; Huang, the mother of two young children, was sentenced to two.

  • Billybob December 31, 2016, 9:01 am

    1. You flush your sister\’s marijuana down the toilet.You share a bathroom with your sister and you find her stash of illegal weed. You don\’t want her to get in trouble, so you flush it down the toilet. Little did you know, she was under a police investigation for possession of marijuana that began days earlier. Thus, you have just committed obstruction of justice: \”A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.\”Real example: In 2007, a church in Greenwich, Conn. called and retained lawyer Philip Russell after they discovered child pornography on their musical director\’s computer. According to the Wall Street Journal report, \”Russell told the musical director to retain counsel because possession of child pornography was a federal crime. The employee resigned. The church turned the laptop over to Russell, who destroyed it. No one told the feds.\” Russell was charged with obstruction of justice, a charge that can carry up to 20 years of prison time. However, the judge cited Russell\’s years of good service as reason to only give him six months of home confinement, a fine of $25,000 and community service.

  • Unecessary... December 31, 2016, 8:54 am

    Question “11f.” on form 4473:
    “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (see instructions for question 11f.)”

    As you can see, the law is not necessary, it is ALREADY IN PLACE. The only difference is that the SSA is now required to report to NICS.
    Boom.
    (dramatically drops mic)

    • skeet shooter December 31, 2016, 3:07 pm

      its a lot of bull shit yes your right its all ready on the paper you fill out may be mr trump will do away with this crazy new law hope so

  • GLENN61 December 31, 2016, 8:36 am

    All of us who new what Barack Obama was really about had to stay quiet for almost eight years and wait for him to royally fvck-up the country so until enough people would wake up to the fact that Barack Obama and the Leftist Democrats had a toxic vision for America.
    Now, with the election od Donald Trump, it’s time to get to work fixing the broken economy, broken health care, broken foreign policy and broken defect spending by what has been the worst Presidential administration in US history.

    Barack Obama’s real biological father is most probably Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member and a pornographer involved in making porn photos. Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was a nude model for Mr. Davis.

    Barack Obama’s facial features look nothing like his alleged father , he looks very much like the result of a pregnancy between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis
    It appears to be very likely that Ann Dunham is Frank Marshall Davis’ baby-mama, a DNA test with Mr. Davis’ living relatives and Pres. Obama would likely prove that Barack Hussein Obama WAS BORN IN HAWAII AND IS THE SON OF FRANK MARSHAL DAVIS

    And the worst is yet to come, it won’t be long till people affiliated with Michelle/Michael and Barack/Barry will start talking,,,, then we will find out the truth , with proof about these two strange and phony men. Joan Rivers let it slip and they quickly moved in to silence her.

    In the future, like after JFK’s assassination, perhaps 50 years or more from now, after Barack and Michelle have passed away and the daughters have renounced their US citizenship to live else where.
    The FBI may then break out the secrete files in the archives of the White House to finally tell the truth about the Obamas and realize that America was duped.
    That the President of the USA for 8 years was a closet homosexual, America hating Muslim sympathizer, radical Socialist and he lived in the White House with a female impersonator and two fake daughters borrowed from an obscure Chicago couple, and we all believed the lie.
    Or most of us did.

    • deanbob December 31, 2016, 2:15 pm

      And someone in the White House committed (yet another) federal crime when they produced the fraudulent Obama long form birth certificate, as attested to by 2 professional document review companies on 2 different continents. There’s a new Sheriff Arpaio You Tube video that goes into great detail how these 2 companies arrived at the conclusion they did.

    • skeet shooter December 31, 2016, 3:14 pm

      glad to see him get out hes nothing but trouble to try and take away our rights ss has not a dam thing to do with buying a gun he is just mad that H C DID NOT GET IT IF WE THE PEOPLE HAD HER WE WOULD BE IN A MESS

  • skipNclair December 30, 2016, 9:31 pm

    Everyone else that has made a comment has pretty much touched on all the things we can say, but I would like to add one thing more and say thank you to those that made my message easy for touching other bases. The guy behind this is trying to use mental defectiveness as an excuse, and he of all people is one of the most mental defective people on the planet. Example he likes men, a penis and a bunghole as opposed to a fine soft sweet warm women, now what man in his right mind would choose what he likes?? I rest my case.

    • LARRY December 30, 2016, 10:43 pm

      Now that we know for sure Obama’s birth certificate is invalid if fraud and he has decided the American people everything he has done while in office

  • Michael Tinsley December 30, 2016, 8:01 pm

    Truthfully, I don’t see anything wrong with restricting gun ownership to ‘sane’ people because if even one out of however many thousands of people get SSDI or SSI because of mental problems, ( they aren’t ‘defects’ as the article writer says) is able to buy a gun and shoot/kill someone it is a preventable injury or death.

    I’m not writing purely opinion. I was a paramedic in the Army for nine years and worked on psych wards and saw people in the field and in clinics who were mentally disturbed and a threat to people around them. You can never turn your back on them because they are often devious and cunning and definitely will injure you. In 1979 while working at Moncrief Army Hospital (now Moncrief Army Health Clinic[still a full service hospital] in Columbia, SC a large man (6’2″ and 235 lbs) attacked the medic assigned to him, putting her in the hospital for broken bones in her face, including her nose, because she wouldn’t (couldn’t at the time) take him to the roof for a smoke break. He was assigned a male medic in what we called ‘one on one’ to care for just this patient alone. When the medic was distracted for just a minute, the patient left the ward, went up to the roof and jumped 10 stories to his death. He left a note on his bed saying he would have taken anyone who accompanied him off the roof with him.

    So, there is good reason to prevent mentally disturbed people from owning guns.

    The NRA has tried to scare everyone in America who owns weapons or is looking to buy a weapon saying the government is trying to change our 2nd Amendment rights and wants to take everybody’s guns from them. That is _absolute nonsense. What the NRA wants is your money so the brass can live in mansions and drive expensive cars.
    Uncle Sam doesn’t want to take our guns, they merely want some common sense protections in place to prevent tragedies but, the NRA says if they ever change just ‘one little bit’ of the law they will keep on until they ban gun ownership completely.

    That is Nonsense _and fear-mongering so, don’t fall for their rhetoric.

    I live in Alabama and own multiple guns. You don’t have to register your weapons here even if you have a concealed-carry permit, which I do so, disregard the NRA’s scare tactics and use your own common sense judgement. You don’t need the NRA to tell you how to live or what to say.

    • BL Cozad Jr December 30, 2016, 11:59 pm

      Our soldiers have given their lives to defend the same Constitution that the traitors in Washington are attempting to usurp and some falsely arrogant limp-wristed cowards commenting above want to compromise away.
      The Second Amendment of the US Constitution:
      Federal Laws, State Laws and local city ordinances infringing on the right of Americans to carry a weapon on federal, state and city property are in violation of the US Constitution. Article VI Section II of the US Constitution is commonly called “the Supremacy Clause” and attests that any State Constitution amendment, State law, County ordinance, City ordinance and even an international treaty that is in conflict with the US Constitution cannot withstand and is invalid.

      The only person that has the authority to infringe on the right of an American to keep and bear arms on any piece of property is the owner of private property. Since the public owns public property then our rights cannot be infringed on property that the gun owner also pays taxes for.
      Our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution itself the procedures to amend and/or modify an amendment.
      Remember when the “prisoner” was released from prison and handed back his guns by the Sheriff/Marshall?
      So when did our government officials modify the 2nd amendment by the procedures our founding fathers put in place to change and/or modify an amendment of the Constitution?
      When did the required number of states ratify any amendment (change/modification) to the second amendment?
      If our elected officials haven’t modified the Constitution by the procedures our founders established then our God given constitutionally protected rights have NOT been legally changed and our Second amendment rights to “keep and bear arms” of all kinds still exist today exactly as they did the day our founding fathers enshrined our rights by ratifying the Constitution.
      The attachment is the article I’ve written that explains the facts about our God given constitutionally protected rights in such an analytical way that our rights cannot be intellectually argued against.
      Please remember, {16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.”
      “This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it (unconstitutional). An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the questions it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
      “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.”
      “A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (Constitution), it is superseded thereby.”}
      Title 18 United States Code Section 241 makes it illegal for government bureaucrats to conspire to violate our rights and Title 18 United States Code 242 stresses that deprivation of rights by these government bureaucrats under the color of law is not only illegal but also punishable in our courts.
      Therefore every gun law in America is unconstitutional and every act to enforce any gun law is an illegal act by the government officials that enacted the law and those attempting to enforce it.

      Thank you and God bless,
      US Army ret SFC B.L. Cozad Jr

      • deanbob December 31, 2016, 2:18 pm

        BL.
        For the life of me, I just can’t fathom what is unclear about “shall not be infringed”, nor why so many just can’t (or won’t) grasp those 4 words.

    • Thomas Davis December 31, 2016, 12:25 am

      sorry Michael Tinsley but yes the government is trying to take our guns! obama has been from day one and has tried his best to get them! if you can’t see this then you are one of the people who are allowing it to happen! it’s much easier to control an unarmed people and that is government’s goal! wake up before we lose ALL of our rights!

    • James Burns December 31, 2016, 7:24 am

      It is unbelievable that the left goes so far, Like ” I was a paramedic ” in the Military they are Medics !!!!!, or Doc’s .
      When one of our Men and or Women whom by the way serve this” Country Honorably”, that have a specific need for help
      we must ensure them that they can trust us and know that everything is strictly conferential to their privacy , not to be used against them, less than 1% of Men and Women serve and they are this Countries Blood and Treasure , and this Feckless Government Gun Grabbing JackAsses to use this against them to take away their second Amendment rights with a complete blanket effect is wrong on many levels Legally and morally!!!. This administration with their Harvard assholes is over thank God, No One should be denied their rights without Due process , and DR. putting his Rep. on the dotted line…………

  • Myself December 30, 2016, 7:58 pm

    Ban all guns.

    • God December 30, 2016, 11:19 pm

      Ban all Fucktards! Starting with you.

    • James Burns December 31, 2016, 7:30 am

      Guns don’t Kill People, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE the gun is just one of many tools, one day may come in your life that someone may try to harm you or a family member , The a Man Or Woman with a Concealed Cary is there to save your sorry ass you then may understand.

  • Robin Shumaker December 30, 2016, 7:08 pm

    Fuck that gun grabber,Hurry Mr Trump

    • skeet shooter December 31, 2016, 3:17 pm

      you said it

  • DJL December 30, 2016, 5:32 pm

    Things just keep getting weirder every day. All this rule will do is discourage those with mental health issues from obtaining help in the first place, on top of a whole list of other government actions that have had the same effect. This rule goes much further than the others, however, in that it strips away Constitutional Rights of US Citizens based solely on participation in one or more programs that are in part available to treat mental health problems, whether or not that person is or has been a threat to self or others at any point. The fact that there is a deliberate process in place to make restoration of said rights far more difficult than is reasonable is also highly problematic.

    I’m all for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who are dangerous. However, this new rule goes way beyond that, it punishes anyone receiving certain forms of public assistance or Social Security benefits, Medicare, or Medicaid, even those that never have, do not now, and never will pose even a slight risk for harm to self or others. It also sends a very clear and dangerous message to the general public that if you receive any form of public aid or Social Security, you are no longer a full Citizen, now the government makes all your decisions for you. If you ever seek out help for any form of mental health issue, you will be punished, even if all we are talking about here is grief counseling after the loss of a child, parent, or spouse (very common). The overwhelming majority of those who will be stripped of their Constitutional Right will be those who are not dangerous, while those who are dangerous will still have ready access to whatever weapons they wish, so long as they can afford the premium price or know where they can steal one.

    This idiotic rule will actually create more violence, which perhaps is the goal after all.

  • Don Waters December 30, 2016, 5:18 pm

    I have to agree with this one. I worked acute care and residential Psych units for many years. People that get checks for mental disabilities such as Bipolar, ADHD, borderline personality, Depression are not responsible for their actions. They would come to us at the Hospital rather than jail when they committed crimes. They assault people with knives, their car, mops, whatever. A sane person would go to jail, they come to us for medication adjustment. They can drive drunk and impaired, all they have to say is they might harm themselves and they come to us. Most of them are well aware of their actions however know their diagnosis gets them a ticket to the hospital rather than jail, and no charges no court fees. Of course these people have no money so they can’t be sued for the damage they cause. Believe it or not SSDI would pay for drug addiction as a diagnosis up until a few years ago.

    • timothyf7 December 30, 2016, 9:24 pm

      And you have faith in this Government office to report responsibly? I don’t think they should be involved in this decision making. If a person has mental issues and sent to them for help, they are already recorded as such and are not allowed to purchase weapons. I do not trust any Federal Office to make this distinction. We have already seen the IRS politicized. Do you think the Social Security administration can’t be?

  • Jeff December 30, 2016, 4:40 pm

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” … That has been the law since at least 1968 people. This is nothing new except that now the SSA will be reporting it to NICS. There is literally no argument for allowing the mental defective or crazy people of this country to possess firearms. As a licensed firearms dealer I fully support this, even though I despise the Obama administration. It’s one of the very few law/rule changes that I agree with in the last 16 years. Some of you need to calm your down your hate towards Obama and not let it cloud your better judgment.

    • frank December 30, 2016, 5:07 pm

      So if I understand you correctly, if someone fell down a hill and broke their legs, compound fractures, in other words a complicated recovery. If this person draws assistance to help them meet their financial obligations, YOU support taking there rights. What gun shop do you own so we know not to shop there. Or did you not know that perfectly sane people may be on SSI? This article doesn’t mention anything about mental illness being the only criteria.

      • Z December 30, 2016, 7:02 pm

        The author of this article is an asshole. He quoted the NRA and selectively quoted a Social Security Administration spokesperson without actually quoting the provisions of the legislation. Please don’t rely on that asshole for a complete and detailed understanding of the persons affected by the legislation. Take ten measly seconds and google the actual legislation and you’ll see that your concerns are unfounded.

      • Jeff January 1, 2017, 3:50 am

        Frank, are you drunk? Did you even read the article or understand what I wrote? Drawing Social Security for a physical injury is completely different than for a mentally defective person and is not what the article or SSA rule is talking about. Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that a physical injury should or would be disqualifying to own a firearm. Maybe you’re mentally defective Frank or, at the very least, need to go back to school and learn reading comprehension? You know what they say, reading is fundamental. LOL

    • Robert E Ferguson December 30, 2016, 5:22 pm

      Who makes the determination that a person is a Mental Defective? It must be determined by a court of law! Not by the SAA! So, that means if someone is taking Prozac known to the SAA, they make the determination! Then whom ever is the person that the SSA has accused of being a Mental Defective because they are being treated for a known Mental diagnosis is guilty and has to prove they are not! Just because someone is being treated for a mental illness doesn’t make them a shooter or a terrorist! They are under treatment and controlled! There is NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY! So, why is there alway a way to restrict a law abiding persons rights and no Justice in our courts for the Criminals! The only way to get justice is to have judges who are willing to fit the punishment to the crime and quit the liberal justice we see so frequently! Punish the Criminals not the law abiding citizens of America!

    • Chris Baker December 30, 2016, 5:45 pm

      Just because some judge decides to adjudicate a person as mentally defective doesn’t make it so. There are way to many cases of people falsely condemned for whatever reason.

      • Z December 30, 2016, 7:05 pm

        Chris, people actually have to work really f’ing hard to be deemed incapable of handling their own affairs so they can receive SSI benefits. No one is arbitrarily labeling people as mentally defective so they can give them money for the rest of their lives. Use your head man.

    • Bill December 30, 2016, 6:06 pm

      I appreciate your point of view Jeff. It would be OK, except that it takes a whole group of people and judges them with a “blanket”law that violates their Individual Rights under the 2nd Amendment. Because the Bill of Rights are “Individual Rights”, this must be done on a case by case basis to be legal. This is what is wrong with the Obama order. SSA should be required to do this on a case by case basis in order to not deny anyone their Individual Rights under the Constitution.

  • Cave Flame December 30, 2016, 4:05 pm

    I Draw SSI and i have a permit to carry i have worked over 30 years and paid in my money and im not a mental insane person i have the right to protect my Family no matter what the Goverment says or all the Hillary think a like group says get out of the US if you dont like the gun laws we have now this lgun law sucks wanting to take are rights because we draw SSI that a law suet against them for people that are disable but does not have a mental problem.

  • John W December 30, 2016, 3:43 pm

    Here are the facts. The democrats have attacked the 2nd Amendment for years. Every gun control law in this country has been passed by democrats. It is NOT about keeping guns from mental patient’s or criminals. It’s all about restricting the rights of American’s to posses firearms. The democrats simply do NOT want Americans armed. They push and pass every restriction they can to limit the rights of Americans. If Obama or the democrats are so concerned about crime then why does Obama give pardon’s? He releases convicted criminals back to society. Does that sound like someone who has the best welfare Americans at heart? I don’t think so. And who is the government to restrict Americans of their Constitutional Rights? What gives them that power? The democrats are not the party of the people. They are simply the party of power. And they want it. Beware!

    • Z December 30, 2016, 5:20 pm

      Yeah! The Democrats shouldn’t worry about mentally unstable people who receive an income from the social security administration owning guns. Democrats should be focused on important matters like passing laws to regulate which bathroom transgender people can pee in.

      • skeet shooter December 31, 2016, 3:23 pm

        soon they will want you to call them when you want to have sex with your wife or fill out a form its getting bad

    • Z December 30, 2016, 6:20 pm

      1.) If you took the time to read the legislation you’d see that it is in fact about restricinting firearm ownership from people diagnosed as mentally incapable of managing their own affairs.
      2.) Convicted criminals get released back into society everyday. For some their sentence is completed, for others it’s parole.
      3.) The legislation puts restrictions on these people’s possession of firearms only if they receive Social Security benefits. FYI, the benefits are optional and not constitutionally guaranteed. You might as well ask how the states have the right to set speed limits.
      4.) As for the Democrats being the party of power, it was Mitch McConnel, a Republican, who lead the Republican congress to do absolutely nothing for the entire Obama presidency. Does that sound like a a party that has what’s best for all Americans at heart?

      • James Burns December 31, 2016, 7:39 am

        YES—Especially when the Dem have Gone to the dark side of being Socialist ,an Muslim lovers

      • Aaron Prince January 1, 2017, 11:23 pm

        McCon-all is one of the rinos that needs to be purged from the republican party,along with McCane,rumney, and cryin’ ryan.

  • Dan Clayburn December 30, 2016, 3:37 pm

    Overall, for those on SS/SSI, it is a ‘fixed income’ and the financial burden will be to great. This also affects the most vulnerable people in our society. Obama is a joke, and stupid. As a Constitutional Law Professor he knows perfectly well what he is doing is unconstitutional. Bit, like any attorney, he will push the limits of Exec Power, and figures it will end up winding its way thru the courts for 2-4 years. In the mean time the Govt will collect data’ on people, see Bid Data, so they can intrude further into our lives. He knows better and there should be consequences for those that ‘over reach’ things, such as changes to the Exec powers that state if something is determined to be unconstitutional, then impeachment should be a n option, or at least some form of ‘executive fine’, to make them think more than twice in doing something obviously against the highest law of the land.

  • Fort Cannon December 30, 2016, 3:36 pm

    I believe in the second amendment religiously and would give a firearm to a blind person to take sound shots if necessary for self protection. If we are talking the mentally defective, that are either diagnosed or self admittedly insane or the criminally aggressive that are attempting to gain access to firearms as well, I am against it. They are endangering the second amendment by bringing on many of the bizarre crimes that cannot be ignored where innocent people are harmed. This is not a booze cruise it is logically protecting the rights of competent Americans. Just rephrase this “Do you want incompetent Americans to control the life and death of other citizens?” Anyone unable to logically answer this question I would question their competency. For the nitwit that questions veteran status solely because they are veterans, give us your address so we can send you a coloring book. Disgusting rhetoric.

  • Art Farmer December 30, 2016, 2:41 pm

    Common sense legislation, if you cannot manage your own affairs because of mental illness you certainly cannot manage a firearm! The mis-guided hate of Obama is skewing the judgement of many otherwise reasonable people. Think before you hate people!

    • Leonard Feinman December 30, 2016, 3:22 pm

      Nobody wants to see a gun in the hands of a mentally challenged person, regardless of their age. But the problem this country has is not them. The problem is that guns come into the hands of criminals who buy their guns on the streets. Same for gang members. Their targets are usually vulnerable people. Or, sometimes, just people standing on a corner or playing at a park.
      This law does nothing to preserve law and order. It ties the hands of people who might be suffering from depression, but not about to do a drive-by shooting. There is a big difference and this is an oblique gesture. The Lame Duck president will end up flat in the middle of the road and nobody will help him, except fellow Muslims.

    • Adam Jeppson December 30, 2016, 3:24 pm

      So then, with all due respect, by your logic every one who has diabetes must be prohibited from candy bars across the board with no other criteria than the label. I agree there are cases where INDIVIDUALS should not have firearms – but that needs determination through due process and investigation (after reasonable suspicion) and it is proven that the INDIVIDUAL is a substantial risk to self or others. You cannot legislate intelligence or morality. It simply doesn’t work. Let the people police themselves and give us some credit for common sense.

      • Z December 30, 2016, 7:26 pm

        Are you referring to short barreled, 30 round, candy bars capable of inflicting diabetes on vegetarian bystanders and Crossfit members?

    • Celtsrevenge December 30, 2016, 3:25 pm

      GFY.

    • LarryFrom10EC December 30, 2016, 3:30 pm

      Receiving SSA benefits, for which one has paid for decades, or being disabled, is not “being able to manage your own affairs”?

      • Z December 30, 2016, 7:28 pm

        You sir, are an idiot. Clearly you failed the reading comprehension portion of the SAT’s and you deserve a gold star for typing your name. I’ll copy and paste the explanation another comment or provided, that you were too lazy to read.

        david ross
        Below is the statement on mental health within the executive order. Note that it speaks to inhibiting those “who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.”

        That’s pretty clear— have a mental health issue, can’t manage your benefits, can’t have a gun. Do we want to allow guns to be in the hands of unbalanced people.

        Also note that “The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.”

        So there will be a process to get a gun back.

        Executive Order
        “Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.”

    • srsquidizen December 30, 2016, 4:54 pm

      A person doesn’t automatically lose their driver’s license because they have a mental illness or some other incapacity might make it difficult to manage their finances. Keep in mind driving is a mere state-granted privilege. Why should Constitutional rights be evoked from a person who may still be able to drive depending on the nature of their particular disability? This is a civil rights violation against the disabled and its appalling that so-called “progressives” are failing to say that Emperor Barack has no clothes on this one.

    • Terrance M Smith December 31, 2016, 2:14 am

      Just because you are disabled does not mean you are mental. The SSA is not trying to distinguish whether or not you are paranoid schizophrenic or a sociopath. They are saying anyone who recieves SSI or disability, come on. Not being able to walk without a cane and taking chemotherapy meds doesn’t make you crazy it makes you vulnerable and disabled. Being born with an uncureable disease that is dibilitating doesn’t make you crazy. If we were to use your philosphy then if FDR had been poor and not married into money because he was confined to a wheel chair and needed assistance he shouldn’t own a gun. The most vulnerable people should not have their 2nd ammendment rights trampled just because they are disabled. They should have to prove severe mental illness to to take away someones rights in court. Being a victim of a violent crime where someone was abducted and raped or sex trafficked has caused many people to be disabled too. You take their gun away you are taking the only defence they have to make sure it never happens again. You are the one who needs to use your head more. How would you like to walk in the shoes of a disabled person who is unable to even fight to defend themselves in a world that is falling apart and becoming a more detestable culture with every passing year.

  • Den December 30, 2016, 2:40 pm

    Honestly, it’s really “we, the people” who are to blame for most Fed/State overreach. We’ve generally abdicated our responsibility of being more actively involved in the governance of our Republic, and, for caring for our neighbors…by “allowing” our government to do it for us. We’ve done this to ourselves!

    • Dan Clayburn December 30, 2016, 3:39 pm

      You are correct and it is going to be difficult to undo all these things.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 4:15 pm

      Done what exactly? Elected a president who thinks mentally unstable people who can’t hold a job or manage their own affairs and receive income from a federal program can’t responsibly own, use or store a firearm?

  • MontanaX December 30, 2016, 1:30 pm

    Any data on Social Security recipients posing a violent threat through the use of firearms?

    • skeet shooter December 31, 2016, 3:32 pm

      hell no

  • Keith December 30, 2016, 12:58 pm

    You can tell who all the SSI nut jobs and wife beaters on this blog are…They are the ones crying about this common sense legislation. It is long past overdue. For the record, serving in the Military should not automatically entitle people with mental illness to gun ownership. Point of Fact, today’s Military is full of people with serious mental issues. All you have to do is checkout the suicide and the Domestic Violence statistics among Veterans. They are anywhere from 5 to 10 times the national average, depending on where you look….. Historically the Military has an abysmal record of screening for and/or helping these people.
    The Military’s answer to this problem is to discharge these people under a General Discharge, which disqualifies them from Military Benefits while hiding the reason for their discharge. Then they dump them back into the general public and on Society to deal with. This is one of the dirtiest secrets in modern history and a shame upon this Nation… I am a life long NRA member and I support this legislation 100%…

    • Rick December 30, 2016, 2:45 pm

      You are what is and has always been wrong with the NRA since before The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
      1968…. “self” righteousness demagoguery.
      “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
      Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade
      unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
      didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to
      speak up.” Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

    • Another Keith December 30, 2016, 3:05 pm

      This is not due “process of law.” One cannot be stripped of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Just making a lot of people that collect Social Security unworthy of owning guns because they collect benefits is not due process. What is next, stripping people who collect Social Security Benefits of their driver’s license to prevent them from driving “potential assault weapon” cars?

    • Robert December 30, 2016, 3:43 pm

      And there it is……

      Divided we fall.

      First guns in another state, no affect on you, then a big city near you, still no concern of yours, the SSI recipients, phht,,, why should you defend their rights?

      Your neighbors guns next, they never use them why should you care if they loose them, you don’t

      when they come for yours who will have your back?

      The NRA who gave Clintons AWB the wink?

      Thanks.

    • bison1913 December 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

      Sure you support it 100%… Until they (SSA) says that anyone on Social Security, SSI, or any form or type of assistance are prohibited from owning a firearm. Give them an inch they take a mile… You offend me… I served in the USMC and your comments make it seem as if it is our fault that we come home the way many arm-service men and women do. Perhaps if the government would not lets us down and took an initiative to help us without labeling us mental defects it would be a different situation. But you go ahead and support this dumb… unconstitutional law. Lets see how you feel afterwards… when they say sorry sir but you can’t own a firearm because you are now collecting Social Security. Then lets see the outcry!! (Moron).

    • John W December 30, 2016, 3:52 pm

      So you think it’s perfectly ok to restrict an American of their Constitutional right? That’s what you’re saying. A criminal has been tried and found guilty by a court of law. I get that. But to just remove ones right because of some so called common sense law? No trial. No due process. Nothing. The Constitution is there to protect us. It gives us rights no other country has. So you think Constitutional Rights are NOT relevant as long as it is controlled by common sense laws. Bullsh*t! Our Constitution is NOT for anyone to decide what applies or don’t apply unless it’s the Supreme Court. That’s it. Not your narcissistic leader who is nothing but a joke.

    • Ecru Mcgillicutti December 30, 2016, 4:25 pm

      Hi..you is definitely smart..Maybe you should be presidink..I don’t see anything wrong with mental patients having guns..as long as they shoot the right people..In fact they should take guns to the institution and kind of clean up the place..if you get my drift..They should send mental defectives to fight all the crazy wars..sooner or later that’s they will get anyway unless they resume the draft…Crazy is as crazy does..Life’s a box of chocolates..

    • Russ H. December 30, 2016, 9:29 pm

      Keith, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I challenge you to prove the statistics you claim, particularly this one: “The Military’s answer to this problem is to discharge these people under a General Discharge, which disqualifies them from Military Benefits while hiding the reason for their discharge. Then they dump them back into the general public and on Society to deal with. This is one of the dirtiest secrets in modern history and a shame upon this Nation…”

      Total bullshit. I’ve served in the Army and Army Reserve for over 38 years. We spend nearly half a day at weekend battle assemblies discussing mental health issues and recognizing them in others. I’ve deployed to Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan so I know what happens and how the process works. Soldiers are very well assessed when they process off active duty and then again later. All screening requires written and verbal tests. Yes, a few slip through the cracks (because they want to hide their condition) but nowhere near the numbers you claim. No one is discharged under a general discharge as you claim – again, total BS. You need to get your facts straight and quit spewing lies such as this. If you want to bitch about something, bitch about the VA and their failures to help our vets when they ask for help. I sincerely doubt you’re a member of the NRA as well – what you are saying sounds exceptionally similar to propaganda found on most anti-gun websites. Frankly, you sound like a troll sent here to try to gain support for chipping away our rights while claiming to be an NRA member. “Common sense legislation”? Seriously? I find your comments disgusting and based upon my firsthand experience – lies. You should be ashamed but I doubt you will.

  • S. Velez December 30, 2016, 12:42 pm

    Executive action don’t have any weight of the law. Don’t have any morality and simple the next president Mr. Donald Trump don’t have any obligation to follow-up. An other BS. Obama “democratic party ” (to big name )

    • Ron Miller December 30, 2016, 1:42 pm

      If someone gets money from the Govt for mental problems then I say maybe they should not have a gun. I hate govt rules but if we are supporting them because of a mental problem we dont need them buying guns.

      • Cave Flame December 30, 2016, 3:15 pm

        What about the thousand of people that dont have mental problems thats on SSi were or there rights at on the gun laws

        • Z December 30, 2016, 6:26 pm

          People on SSI that aren’t receiving income due to mental instability aren’t affected by this legislation. Did you even bother to read it? It’s right here in the comments section ffs.

      • John W December 30, 2016, 3:58 pm

        Ron do you know there are many forms of mental illness? To restrict ones Constitutional Rights should be done under due process. OCD can be defined as a mental illness. Anything to restrict Americans of their Constitutional rights is something you might want to think about long and hard.

  • david ross December 30, 2016, 12:26 pm

    Below is the statement on mental health within the executive order. Note that it speaks to inhibiting those “who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.”

    That’s pretty clear— have a mental health issue, can’t manage your benefits, can’t have a gun. Do we want to allow guns to be in the hands of unbalanced people.

    Also note that “The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.”

    So there will be a process to get a gun back.

    Executive Order
    “Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.”

  • JungleCogs December 30, 2016, 12:15 pm

    More ‘Big Government” using unrelated government agencies (like the IRS, etc) to promote an anti-America Marxist leaning Democrat Party ideological agenda. Individual Liberty is slowly but purposely being decayed until finally gone.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 4:26 pm

      “”Big Government” using unrelated government agencies…”? The executive order concerns the social security administration and the beneficiaries of the programs it administers. How do think that’s unrelated?

  • Tommy Barrios December 30, 2016, 12:11 pm

    The Communist Possessive Libtard POS Half-White Trash Obomination filth is soon to be a SHITTY part of HISTORY!
    Pray that it NEVER happens again!

    • Z December 30, 2016, 4:27 pm

      Racially motivated much?

      • Aaron Prince January 1, 2017, 11:28 pm

        How many times did you vote for mu-slime obumus and evil hellary?????

  • Tired Tom December 30, 2016, 11:48 am

    sorry…but schizophrenics and other severely mentally ill individuals shouldn’t possess firearms. SSI Disability covers these poor souls… Go into your county mental health clinics and you can see these people lining up for their monthly checks… they’re crazy and living in a different world than ours… I have no problem with these clinic docs setting up a system denying thesis people access to legal firearms… and I’m a lifelong NRA member and very strong supporter of second amendment rights

    • JungleCogs December 30, 2016, 12:24 pm

      TT, you miss the point. It is not the job of social welfare program administrators to be in the area of regulating firearms nor disseminating purpose collected private information for the cause of regulating firearm sales. It is Constitutional law not individual opinion that rules here.

      • Z December 30, 2016, 4:29 pm

        Which clause or amendment of the constitution establishes the right to social security payments?

    • david ross December 30, 2016, 12:26 pm

      Spot on, Tired Tom.

    • Sick of Gun Grabs December 30, 2016, 1:45 pm

      As a social worker for 30 yrs, I saw many people who got on SSI who had convinced therapists (especially “newbies”) they were bi-polar or had major depression. I’m not saying that many people on SSI and SSA disability for mental health aren’t severely mentally ill. But, I know some who aren’t and still receive benefits. A close family member or significant other is the rep. payee.
      The other issue is: When will they obtain private mental health records on people? What if you were given Wellbutrin to try to quit smoking, or took post-partum depression meds, or had a situational (divorce, death) where you were depressed and took meds?
      What if a President cut an order to release all those records in the name of public safety, and you were on a database for some innocuous thing that happened years before, but had to appeal to explain it out?

  • An American Patriot. December 30, 2016, 11:20 am

    I’ve always known the Social Security Administration to be ASS backwards, but come on. Senior citizens are some of the most venerable to crime. From telephone crimes to home invasions. Obama and his terrorist allies are taking this gun control nonsense to a whole new level. You say my grandmother can’t protect herself after she has worked 50 some years paying taxes into social security? But obama can release felon criminals from guantánamo bay? Look what gun control has done to Chicago. I would be disgraced if I were him but then again I’m a proud American.

    • James Zanelotti December 30, 2016, 12:29 pm

      For Obama, Of Obama, and By Obama. When it should be for the people, of the people, by the people. Shame on you Obama. You didn’t receive the time of day from your own colleagues so now you have to punish the people because you are a vindictive individual.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 4:33 pm

      Did you bother to read the conditions that would cause someone to be denied the right to own firearms while receiving social security benefits? Do you really think that if your grandmother can’t figure out how to wipe her own ass that she’ll be able to use a firearm in self defense?

  • Larry December 30, 2016, 11:18 am

    If we allow this to happen, we ARE mental defectives! Obama & his regime is Evil personified. Look at all the crapola he is trying to implement since Hillary, the vile, lost the election. The next three weeks (before the Inauguration) will be the most dangerous to America, it’s citizens & the rest of the world, since the beige bozo took office.

  • Dennis December 30, 2016, 10:49 am

    Talk about sneaky, Obama sure wanted to get the elections over before he did this, did not want to do it before because it would have been bad for Clinton and if Clinton had won she would of said Obama did it not me! and then find a way to ignore removeing it from law. All of this kind of govt is costing us billions in lidagation to set things right.

  • Pat Duffy December 30, 2016, 10:38 am

    I read the paper and it makes sense to me. I bet most only read the NRA version. The NRA keeps saying that we need to have better mental health treatment. However if you are getting disability for one of the categories that is listed – yes it should be part of the background check.

  • Chauvin Emmons December 30, 2016, 10:21 am

    All Federal, State and Local Tyrants better acknowledge Our God Given Rights or pay the price for your seditious even treasonous behavior.
    Just because Obama’s Mother never beat his ass and no one has sought to Imprison him or demanded his Lawful Execution Yet! don’t think we will suffer him or anyone else’s attacks on Our Constitution or Our Bill Of Rights…The Second Amendment was made just for these kind of Criminals,
    We are Sovern All, Kings Be Damned. -Obama is just another Chicago Crackhead Criminal what a disgrace/, we are beyond High Crimes this is TREASON plain and simple
    There are too many existing Federal Laws that normally would prevent this kind of abuse of power to cite them all even Corrupt Comey would have to agree or be charged accordingly.

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
    
Conspiracy Against Rights
    This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
    It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
    Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

    Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 4:36 pm

      God given rights? Are you confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution of the United States of America? It’s pretty simple, Social Security benefits aren’t in the Constitution, your argument is invalid.

  • MarkT December 30, 2016, 10:17 am

    Let’s just start off by saying there is a due process problem here. But that being said, many of the negative comments here are from very uniformed single wide/double wide dwellers that are receiving checks already from the SSA. The red necks that are waiting for the next twister to clear out the old trailers in their park are the biggest problem with the image of today’s gun owners. Buy a bigger T shirt, a few less beers and climb back in your hole.

    All of the comments about Trump “owes me” or “foreigner needs to be deported” have nothing to do with the problem at hand. Gun owners behaving badly does not just happen on TV, it happens right here. Either everybody has the same rights or nobody has any rights.

    Many of the those who are receiving benefits from the SSA before the age of 62 are doing so because of physical and mental limitations. The mental limitations are very obvious as many are enrolled in mental health programs. That is very easily checked. I personally don’t want them to have any weapons including guns. If you are being treated for mental illness and receiving a check from the government you are already branded. Establish a review process and have them declared incompetent in a judicial review, not with a pen stroke of a bureaucrat.

    That being said, I can understand the uproar, when you are receiving SSI and living in your trailer and thinking you are next. Guess what you are… the silent stealth black hawks are hovering above you right now watching your fat face in the glow of your computer screen. They are coming for you…just not fast enough lol.

    • Chris December 30, 2016, 10:43 am

      You are neglecting the fact the the president doesn’t not have the authority to impose unilateral restrictions. Truth is that not even congress has the power to strip people of a civil right in such a way. This is a sick over reach of powered that is unprecedented. Many of the people on here are frustrated and sickened by the way they have been treated these last 8 years. WE are not the criminals, nor are the people receiving social security. The data even from left wing radicals backs that. Obama has taken far more power than any other president spent more money than any other president he can’t get out soon enough for me.

      • Gingerbaker December 30, 2016, 11:28 am

        The Congress certainly DOES have the right to regulate gun ownership. It always has, it has done so, and even the last three Supreme court decisions affirming that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own and use guns for personal protection has reiterated this in clear language.

        There is not a single Amendment protection which is not subject to regulations or restrictions, so long as they are deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court. What you are saying is simply not true.

        • david ross December 30, 2016, 12:28 pm

          Spot on, Gingerbaker.

      • Keith December 30, 2016, 1:06 pm

        @Chris…. Dude… You don’t know WTH you are talking about…You couldn’t be more wrong…Who’s magic koolaide have you been drinking…?

      • MarkT December 30, 2016, 3:56 pm

        You are ignoring the fact APPARENTLY HE DOES! You can say what ever you want, HE DID IT. Your drivel on here does not change the fact that he did it, and it is now in effect. Now can the next president change that with the stroke of a pen. Yes he can, but until the Supremes wade in and make a decision or Congress gets off their backsides and passes something (not likely) then the president can do it. He has, he will continue, until someone makes him stop. Crickets…

    • Patriot December 30, 2016, 12:11 pm

      Are you speaking from your New York apartment with your elitist comments? Who are you to degrade those who live within their means .Perhaps you think you are clever but it appears no one is laughing . I know many,many fine people who you characterize as a lower class .These people would gladly give you the shirt off of their backs yet you demean them .Great job at being a human being there Mark.

      • MarkT December 30, 2016, 3:19 pm

        No I’m not and elitist, I work hard for my money and my guns (I live in rural America in the Rocky Mountains) and I’m glad to know that people on the government dole will give me the shirts off their backs (but that is not my experience of dealing with them for thirty-five years on a daily basis). The “lower class” as you put them, has had their hand out looking for the free meal and the free shirt (Also typified by the beer belly and Walmart photos).

        Until main stream American’s take back the dialog of gun ownership, we will be plagued by the typification of the media by your “lower class”. The only condescension going on here is your lack of pulling your head out of your crack and realizing it is daylight out in the world. I am not worried about gun control advocates trying to take away my guns. They are poorly suited for the task. I am worried about the moronic gun owners, who flap their jaws on this site. We need to rein them in and shut them up. They are the true problem with gun ownership.

        If the crap hits the cooling device, I will not be worried about gun control advocates. I will worry about the red neck gun owning freaks (aka bullies). That is who from I will be protecting myself and my family. Your problem is “You can’t handle the truth!”

      • MarkT December 30, 2016, 4:01 pm

        It take more to be a Patriot, than claiming the Title

    • Keith December 30, 2016, 1:03 pm

      @MarkT….AAAAAFRIGGINMEN…BEST POST ON HERE….Thank You for having the courage to speak the truth to and about these SSI sucking Trailer Dwellers……..

  • Lamont December 30, 2016, 10:14 am

    This Executive Order directly affects me as I am a retired military veteran with disabilities, because they consider PTSD a disability of sorts. Whatever… so long as some common sense comes from the mindlessness that’s going on in this country then so be it. But only if it helps, which I doubt that it will. SMDH.

    • MarkT December 30, 2016, 4:11 pm

      I am sorry for your disability and I thank you for your service. I believe that you earned the right to protect yourself. Unfortunately some of your fellow vets have been too severely injured by mental incapacity to protect themselves. I believe that their right to gun ownership should be closely weighed and only removed after a judicial process and all facts are heard. I would be proud to act as your protector, if you ever need it.

      I don’t say that lightly and I have personally done that for our communities for the last 35 year. Thank you for walking the walk and talking the talk. I love America and the vets who serve her! And I consider anyone who had put on a uniform and sworn to uphold the constitution as a vet. Amen

  • Rock December 30, 2016, 10:13 am

    How can someone be judged to be mentally disabled and be receiving SSI payments yet somehow NOT be mentally impaired? Sure, there are a lot of liars and cheats out there sucking off the system. Too bad for them, they SHOULD be denied firearm ownership. No sympathy from me.

    • Cave Flame December 30, 2016, 3:31 pm

      Look i have worked over 30 years and had a lite stroke and i now draw ssi and im not a mental case or someone who munches off other people i have a permit to carry my gun for a crazy person who would want to harm me are my family if thats insane then lock me up but i worked hard for what i have and i will be damed if someone takes it without me fighting back because that is my rights as a AMERICAN ….

      • Z December 30, 2016, 6:36 pm

        Read the conditions before you comment.

  • Z December 30, 2016, 9:45 am

    The same party that wants to privatize social security and cut/eliminate the benefits that individuals have been taxed to provide is now complaining that senior citizens with mental instability may not be able to own guns while receiving/not receiving the benefits they want to cut/eliminate. I suppose it’s more important that old, poor people have guns than the repayment of their social security taxes.

    • Gunner December 30, 2016, 10:15 am

      I think you have your facts mixed up. It’s not ht Republicans that want your guns – not unless Obozo suddenly changed party affiliations. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the left is.

      • Gingerbaker December 30, 2016, 10:36 am

        Gunner – you got it backwards, sorry to say. And you were doing so well, too, what with calling Obama “Obozo” (brilliant!) and relating how stunned you are at the ignorance of the Left, which you didn’t even capitalize, you sly fox you.

      • Pat Duffy December 30, 2016, 10:41 am

        You missed his point entirely.

  • VAmtnMan December 30, 2016, 9:45 am

    Pretty sure this will be short lived; just one more of the “Chicago house boy’s” tantrum EOs to be swept away once an adult is installed in the White House and the outhouse miscreants go back to handing out Marxist literature on urban street corners.

    • Pat Duffy December 30, 2016, 10:43 am

      You sound like the mentally impaired that should be refused guns. Why all the abuse? If you disagree then just say your disagree. Go see your doctor.

  • Gary December 30, 2016, 9:33 am

    “We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence” . . . . Whether there is a connection or not, do you want people with mental illness buying guns ??? Then, when they use them, the court defense will be “mental illness”, go figure.

  • nedafix December 30, 2016, 9:24 am

    if you paid into social security as a wage earner then to withhold your money from you is theft. if the nword does that to you i think he could be charged and with thousands of charges against him, well wow.

  • Fred Stockberger December 30, 2016, 9:20 am

    People who are mentally disabled to the degree they would be classified such in their SSA records, in nearly every case, will lack decisionmaking abilities that are neccessary for safe and responsible firearm handling and ownership.

    I see no benefit of sensationalizing this bill as is done in this article. A fact-based reminder would be appropriate and responsible.

    During his two terms in office, President Obama has signed two positive gun rights bills into law. One to legalize carrying in national parks and another legalizing Amtrack passengers to travel with firearms stowed in their luggage. So the proof is evident, the hysteria the Obama was going to take our guns was caused by “Crying Wolf” stories.

    Protecting our 2nd ammendment rights neccessitates that we are knowledgable and armed with true and accurate facts. Taking the ‘sky is falling’ position leaves us unequipped to have persuasive, intelligent discussions with friends and neighbors who may not share our passion for gun ownership, and usually leaves us looking hard headed and dumb.

    • Lamont December 30, 2016, 10:34 am

      You are certainly correct. However the people whom you are speaking to are largely indigent illiterates who much rather rally around superficial racist issues over real causes.

    • david ross December 30, 2016, 12:31 pm

      Yes, I can now carry concealed in a National Park. And should I ever find myself on an Amtrak train, there, too.

  • Jack December 30, 2016, 8:59 am

    Why don’t the Senate and the People’s House do SOMETHING about these attacks on American citizenry? They’re supposed to protect us against tyranny! Geeze!! Get off your asses and do SOMETHING~!

    • Gunner December 30, 2016, 10:17 am

      Why don’t American voters do something? Like vote out those who allow such attacks in the first place. America has the government they deserve – piss poor.

  • tom December 30, 2016, 8:59 am

    I am so happy Obummer will be gone shortly

  • Robert December 30, 2016, 8:40 am

    Legalized pot….. a small monthly check…… thats all many will need to not only trade in their gun rights but they’ll also help unburden you from yours.

  • Charles December 30, 2016, 8:37 am

    The only ones who are mentally defective around here are Obama and Kerry? The Queer Twins!

  • Frank December 30, 2016, 8:24 am

    I’m not so sure this is a bad thing either. Seems to be going along with what we have said — tackle the problem, not gun owners indiscriminately. Whether this is effective or “wrong” depends on how the SSA implements it. If they are using it to deny ownership to any and all that have some kind of mental deficiency regardless of whether it actually impedes their judgement on use of a firearm it could be an issue, or if there is no appeal process.

    I think the easiest way for them is to blanket deny if you apply for disability due to a mental condition but have an appeal/review process anyone denied can request. Looking over all records thoroughly is just too costly/time consuming. The appeal.review needs to be EASY to access though, and done in a timely manner. Do you really want a person that is so schizophrenic that they can’t hold a job holding a gun? Let’s use some common sense here! If you aren’t that bad and just want to play along and get some “free” money, giving up gun ownership shouldn’t bother you that much, and I say that’s the price you pay for milking the system (the rest of us law abiding tax payers).

    • Mark Crabtree December 30, 2016, 9:49 am

      So, how many SSI recipients are roaming the streets shooting innocent people? Hmm? It looks like to me calling in the national guard to take down the illegal guns in Chicago and place these militant gang bangers in a prison camp doing hard labor would save a whole lot more lives than going after people, many of which stay home and keep to themselves who keep a revolver on the night stand to protect themselves from this new wave of home invasions! You are falling prey to the same old liberal sickness of lets just do something, anything, to make us feel better!

      • Z December 30, 2016, 5:01 pm

        Mark Crabtree, you’re making a very specific defense and imagining a scenario to be the reality for every one of the 75,000 people adjudicated as incapable of holding a job or incapable of managing their own affairs that may be affected by this legislation.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 10:23 am

      I couldn’t agree more.

  • Ross Walters December 30, 2016, 8:22 am

    Trump got up there on the stage with Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox of the NRA and announced, “I will not let you down”.
    I’m holding him to that.
    If not for 5 million NRA members votes Hillary would be about to become President. Trump owes us.

    • Billybob December 30, 2016, 12:40 pm

      Wife & I are both Life Members , Benefactors , EVEN THO they had no problem THROWING MG owner\’s under the bus in
      1986 ! THIS LAST ELECTION WAS FOR ALL THE MARBLES ! Where were the TV commercials ? Where were the
      NEWS PAPER Ads ? IT\’S ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE ! We get the three NRA magazines and We have YET TO SEEN
      SUPPRESSOR REVIEWS ! SBR REVIEWS ! YET WE GET CALLS EVERY WEEK FROM THE BOOK OF THE MONTH CLUB (NRA) ! Time To Drain the NRA Swamp also !

  • DrPF December 30, 2016, 8:18 am

    Typical of obuttstain and the moronic libtards to attack Americans’ rights in any devious way they can. That foreigner needs to be deported.

  • BigC December 30, 2016, 8:10 am

    January 20, 2017……….the end of an ERROR!!!!!!!

  • Richard Taylor December 30, 2016, 7:50 am

    I’m a FFL holder and a life member of the nra but if you get a crazy check you can’t get a gun unless you lie on your 4473.

    If you are upset about that you think it’s ok for people with mental illness or people who are just trying to get a check out of the government and your pocket to have a gun.

  • Jim Miller December 30, 2016, 7:46 am

    Just one more example why the Lame Duck POTUS should have all Executive Action abilities revoked during the 10 weeks between election day and Inauguration Day. Obama is doing as much damage as possible before being evicted, with no personal consequences…shameful!

  • Larry Sann December 30, 2016, 7:21 am

    You have unalienable Rights secured by the Constitution for the united States of America. IF AND ONLY IF you have the correct political status. Find out which political status you have and IF it\’s not the right one learn how to change it here: nativeborncitizen.com and annavonreitz.com

  • carter December 30, 2016, 7:20 am

    I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion….but if one’s reason for qualifying for SS is not age, but rather mental health complications that prevent one from working/providing for themselves, that person is very likely not stable enough to be a safe and responsible gun owner.

    • Larry December 30, 2016, 7:54 am

      You could very well be right. But these people still have a right to due process.

    • 'SOAPPY' December 30, 2016, 8:08 am

      “Thank You ” ..

    • DrPF December 30, 2016, 8:20 am

      But that is not for obuttstain to determine and rights must be removed legally and through due process

    • lnu December 30, 2016, 8:22 am

      It is not for a bureaucrat to waive a pen and violate the Constitutional right to due process. If this, then what else? You’re assumptions are exactly what this administration, and previous ones, want to hear to force through illegal laws and regulations. Where is the due process? Where is the Judicial system in this? Where is the separation of powers? There isn’t. “Very likely” is extremely short sighted and misinformed. “Very likely” may be used against you and the rest of the taxpaying residents for a plethora of things.
      While Chicago, and other leftist dominated cities, literally fall apart, the administration focused on a place where no issue has been proven to exist.

    • Roy December 30, 2016, 8:33 am

      The problem is that the law as written will not be limited to those drawing SSI for “mental deficiencies”, rather in typical government fashion it is a power grab. Everyone on SSI, including the 30 YO who was hit by a drunk driver and survived only to be confined to a wheelchair (I know of one person on SSI for this exact scenario) will loose 2A rights. I am not proposing insane persons be allowed unfettered access, rather I am opposed to a broad overreaching rule that purports to target a limited class but acts like a drag net snaring everyone and everything in it’s path. It is, to quote the famous Justice “a slippery slope”. Allow this, and the next step will be everyone getting Social Security at all, or everyone getting any VA assistance, then everyone getting any private disability insurance payments . . . .

    • Cartisanidiot December 30, 2016, 8:46 am

      What right in any mind do you have to say such a thing? Maybe you are just collecting SS and still do have the ability to handle a firearm safely and reaponsibly??? You are a shill and a fucking moron to say the least.

    • Yankee1 December 30, 2016, 5:19 pm

      It seems that most are forgetting that there are more reasons than physiological to be on SSA, SSI, SSD

  • Paul December 30, 2016, 7:12 am

    I guess I am a little confused. While I certainly dislike the current administration’s anti-gun stance, doesn’t this do what we have been saying? Attack the problem from the mental health side, and not the gun side? I am not clear what mental defective exactly is by a true medical definition, but perhaps this is not so horrible? Of course it won’t change much, since I doubt these social security recipients are heading out to shoot up the movie theater. But it gives us a chance to start going after the mentally sick people, rather than the gun owning people. I get it that most people on this forum have no room for negotiation and that any gun rule violates their right to whatever they want, so no need to flame me on that aspect.

    • Blasted Cap December 30, 2016, 8:13 am

      Some people, to get more money per month on SS set up their primers through a third party acting as a care taker. Most of the time it’s a family member. There may be nothing wrong with them mentally or physically, the just became eligible later in life, wife/husband that never worked because spouse made good money and had a retirement plan but isn’t around anymore, whatever. These people are now going to be declared mentally defective because the government says they can’t handle their own finances. Pretty crappy. Did the same thing to a lot of vets through the VA.

    • Alex December 30, 2016, 8:15 am

      The problem is that it’s a blanket rule. If they said that those drawing this disability must be evaluated then it would be different. What the government is doing is essentially adjudicating without due process. It’s worth noting too that social security can be paid out to any aged person. So to say this won’t prevent mass shootings because they’re not committed by 70 year olds is to misunderstand how social security works. This is a good idea poorly executed – which could have been the tag line of the county for the last 8 years.

    • DrPF December 30, 2016, 8:24 am

      Its the way it is being done..illegally. obuttstain is side stepping due process and sayong he can take away rights based upon a classification. That is illegal. An INDIVIDUALS rights can only be removed through due process.

    • Dman December 30, 2016, 9:27 am

      Before you give a knee jerk response to this article THINK! and don’t be a JERK.

      First off the term “Mentally Defective” was used ONLY by the author of this article for shock value, SHAME ON HIM!

      Most importantly this procedure change dies NOT apply to all Social Security recipients but only to those that have applied for benefits because they have MENTAL HEALTH issues. If you have gone through the exhaustive process of getting disability for mental health problems such as chronic depression, manic/bipolar or schizophrenia – YOU have already been seen by multiple health professionals. Being “labeled” with a mental health problem IS NOT done arbitrarily by the administration! If you have gone through this process maybe you shouldn’t have a gun!

  • Jeffrey December 30, 2016, 7:11 am

    When we went to Vietnam they made us take an oath that we would never surrender our weapons. They said whoever wants your weapon is an enemy of the United States. When I got out, no one told me to stop fighting for this country. I’m a decorated combat veteran. They gave me a medal for saving lives over there. I will sooner stick that gun in my mouth and pull the trigger before I Surrender it. If my country is dead So be myself also.

    • Robert December 30, 2016, 8:46 am

      It used to be the veterans (proudly wearing either the WWII or Korean ball cap) who swore they would never buy a foreign made car who now drive KIA’s

      so Killed In Action it is, an action that affects their wallet/benefits.

  • Jay December 30, 2016, 7:02 am

    Just one more nail in the coffin for American citizen control! We lost due process within the words of the patriot act. We lost many other rights as worded it, Permits clandestine searches of the homes of American citizens suspected of no crimes;
    ·Authorizes searches of the private records of libraries, businesses, physicians, hospitals, banks, schools and other organizations without probable cause; Creates a vague new crime known as “domestic terrorism,” applicable even to lawful protests; Authorizes arbitrary surveillance of religious services and political forums; Permits detention of American citizens without benefit of due process or counsel This was all done right after 911 in the height of fear mongering of that attack and why many believe it was out own government which played a hand in it happening. One step at a time they will march us all into a world of their making unless we stand united now. The biggest fear of our government, or any government, is a people united against them and their plans! I’ve lived long enough now to see how our rights have dwindled and why the USA is listed as the 8th on the list of freedoms by a nation in which the citizens can exercise! When we demand action against those who commit crimes so that punishment itself is a barrier for those who would do criminal acts, then we will have a start to some sort of sanity. Prison should not be a cake walk through the park with TV, game rooms, exercise rooms etc… we need hard time with work and sweat where no one would ever want to go in the first place! Chain gangs would be a good start! Prisons and jails have become nothing but a safe place for those who shrug at our laws and all the government can do is make more laws in which they still won’t follow! As a nation we’ve become apathetic and are making ourselves victims of of our own doing. This last election it’s been said only about half of eligible voters voted! Why? Why would anyone not vote? We may not of liked either candidate but weather we vote or not, one of them will be elected. We must make the choice of the lesser of the evils sometimes just to have half a chance for our country! As a veteran I know a lot of veterans who are on Social Security disability, these are some that the obama administration fears the most and who will stand against him when the time comes! Remember there is always a reason for the governments madness and it has absolutely nothing to do with “Safety”

    • John December 30, 2016, 8:09 am

      Very well written, thank you!

  • Don December 30, 2016, 6:58 am

    Obama has done more damage to the USA as a whole. I keep hoping he will go to Home and hook up with his group that had a picture of him smoking pot on the internet, that fried his brains. His ego is worse than Atilla the HUn

    • Bob December 30, 2016, 8:13 am

      Pot first off doesn’t kill brain cells that is a government lie perpetuated by the nixon administration. Other then that I agree with you

      • DRAINO December 30, 2016, 11:46 am

        Anytime you area depriving your brain of oxygen (which smoking anything does) you are killing brain cells. That’s common sense…. perpetuated by me.

  • Chauvin Emmons December 30, 2016, 6:54 am

    Obama is currently flipping-off everyone in a childish temper tantrum, He is a racist malcontent an anarchist community organizer and a liar that has set fires everywhere possible for the last eight years.
    If trump does nothing for his entire term but eliminating the criminal acts set in motion by Obama he will be lucky to get half identified much less ended.
    All of Obamas criminal acts must be punished or this will spiral out of control ending in a all out civil war and Hillery must be prosecuted no matter what otherwise Law and Justice is out the window all that’s left is anarchy.

    Could you ever imagine the FBI corrupt the ATF corrupt as well the Supreme Court a corrupt political arm of DemoRat Party.
    IRS corrupt, Justice corrupt Seriously and your worried about SSI Your retirement or any benefits that were due you are going to criminal invaders and you want to own a gun you must be crazy!

    Unless you have done something so grievous the Government Has NO Right to violate Bill Of Right ‘s Or Constitution any and all violations must be prosecuted no matter what or entire Government be shut down until justice is restored no wages paid no back pay all departments involved Shuttered permanently.
    What Part of Shal Not be Infringed Do these criminals not understand, Who is crazy again Hitler has nothing on our government of tyrants is the reason for the 2nd amendment if our local police/ Officials will not protect us its time to cut off all moneys to the Fed, declare all public facilities closed removal of all federal officials elected or unelected must go to prison until cleared by trial or executed.

  • GunFlint1 December 30, 2016, 5:42 am

    Talk about mental disease/dysfunction/and traitor to the Country he took an Oath too.. This tyrant could have/should have been stopped along time ago. The BLAME falls entirely on Congress. Obama was an insult to our Fore-Fathers, our Rights, & the Constitution. I as an American do not recognize ANY Executive Action this piece of **** comes up with. He’s a bought & paid for NWO Elitists Boy.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 6:39 pm

      Your comment drips racism.

      • Aaron Prince January 1, 2017, 11:44 pm

        I would like to see hellary and the mu-slime in one of those empty calls for treason.Anyone who disagrees with progressives is branded as a racist.

  • sickofNRAbs December 30, 2016, 5:40 am

    Get this right, Wayne! You mislead the NRA membership about everything. The Constitution cannot be changed by POTUS. This alleged change is another inflammatory story of FAKE NEWS you are spinning, Im a gun owner-know my rights and think Donald Trump is an ill-prepared fool for the Presidency. A head case with poor impulse control will surely get us in a war and in one hell of a hurry.

    Want to really see your rights go up in flames? Wait till Donald has been POTUS for 6 months. He has no intention of delivering much of what he campaigned on. Either its illegal or the US Treasury doesn’t have the money to pay for it.

    GET A GRIP!

    • Altoid December 30, 2016, 8:06 am

      You’re telling us that you would’ve preferred Hilary. You sound just like the masses of immature leftist sore losers.

    • DrPF December 30, 2016, 8:33 am

      Sounds like you qualify under obuttstains rule..certainly mentally defective..hand in your guns….

    • Wyoman December 30, 2016, 8:37 am

      Sicko, you hit the trifecta. everything you say is wong. Are you a Hillary supporter?

    • Fred Stockberger December 30, 2016, 9:28 am

      Well said

    • Z December 30, 2016, 6:47 pm

      I agree with you. The majority of commenters are ill informed and willfully ignorant. If a civil war ever breaks out it will be this sort of self justifying, willfully ignorant rabble that make defense of ones life and property necessary.

    • Glenn61 December 31, 2016, 9:37 am

      Sounds like you would rather have Hillary for President instead.

  • An1 December 30, 2016, 5:35 am

    Proof again that this obummer guy is not looking out for the American people. I just hope what’s happening in California right now does not spread like a wildfire across the US. I just hope trump will undo all the shit this damn president has done in the last 8 years.

  • william massi jr December 30, 2016, 5:27 am

    When Is This Guy, That Thay Cal The Boss. ???? Our PRES. ???? Going To Stop. Not Untill He Is OUT Of The Whith House. And Then, He Is Going To Try To Up Set, Anything He Can. To Bad We Don’t Have Him, DRUMED OUT Of The White House, That Would Be GREAT. YES. He Dident Belong Ther Anyway. ???

  • Homer Bowman December 30, 2016, 4:58 am

    Take money from Caesar and you play by his rules. Social Security as it is written is unconstitutional. The Feds don’t have the authority to force you to pay into the ponzi scheme. This is what happens when you become dependent on the state, you become state property. The legal term is: WARD OF THE STATE, look it up. The SOBs are using the tax code, Obamacare, etc, to implement gun control. Soon there will be a law that states if you live a certain distance from a school, you can’t possess a gun, and they will fix it to where that encompasses 90% of the population. It will be interesting to see just how conservative Mr.Trump is. Frankly, I have my doubts. I think allot of people are going to be in for a big surprise. I hope I’m wrong.

  • JUAN RAMIREZ December 30, 2016, 4:36 am

    It is becoming very difficult not to hate that arrogant man when he acts like a dictator.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 6:49 pm

      Give it six months and copy paste that comment again.

  • Joe December 30, 2016, 4:28 am

    I’ve owned guns for over forty years but since that turd took office it’s been difficult to purchase new guns because the background checks keep coming back “denied” and forcing me to wait three days to either find out why or pick up my gun.
    Now I know why.
    Think I’m full of shit do you ?
    If you are on the federal dole your next.

    • Gingerbaker December 30, 2016, 11:37 am

      Gosh – you have to wait three whole days to buy another gun? You poor, poor fellow! Someone of your obvious merit should not be treated like every other person in the country.

      • joe December 30, 2016, 12:23 pm

        when you accept a gun purchase under those conditions the government reserves the right to come into your home unannounced and remove the gun and any other gun they decide you shouldn’t have and you have no choice in the matter idiot.

    • Z December 30, 2016, 6:51 pm

      “Now I know why.” Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but this change in policy doesn’t go into effect until March of 2017. To what exactly are you referring?

      • Joe December 31, 2016, 5:32 am

        The policy is already in play regarding people on disability, and the medical information used to help determine disability is being used to allow the background check personal to issue a “denied” initial determination which requires a three day period for them to either give you a reason why you have been denied OR if they do nothing more you can pick up the gun with the knowledge that the government has the right to issue a full denial and gives the government the go ahead to come to your home and relieve you of that gun and any other gun in your possession at a time of the governments choosing.
        The new law expands this loophole.
        In other words it is a catch 22 law.

  • JeffKnox December 30, 2016, 4:25 am

    There is a grievous omission in the opening sentence of this article.
    This new SSA rule does not just block certain Social Security beneficiaries from buying guns. It declares them to be “prohibited persons” under the Gun Control Act, meaning that they commit a felony by ever touching or having access to a firearm or ammunition for the rest of their lives. It is also a felony for anyone to give them access to a firearm or ammunition. You commit a felony by taking your dad hunting or taking your adult, Down syndrome child plinking with .22s. This rule completely strips all Second Amendment rights from these people – for life.
    SSA will likely dump tens of thousands of names into the NICS database on January 18. Getting those names back out of that database is going to require more than a simple reversal of the policy. Congress must – at a minimum – correct the sloppy language in their laws which has allowed this travesty to plague veterans for two decades.
    SSA is using the Nuremberg defense – just following orders – and in this case, the orders they are following came from Congress – with the full support of the NRA – in the form of the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007.
    Don’t just read this article and get mad. Read everything you can about this outrage and get furious! Then contact your elected servants and ask them why they have allowed this to even be a possibility – much less a congressional mandate.
    Your politicians are home for the holidays. Call their local offices and let your outrage be known.
    Jeff Knox, The Firearms Coalition, http://www.FirearmsCoalition,org

    • I-Gunny1951 December 30, 2016, 10:26 am

      Thank you, Jeff, for your always insightful description of the government over-reach which has been taking place for decades. I read your columns regularly, and always seem to be nodding my head in agreement throughout the read. SSI is purported to be an insurance policy administered by the government, not a hand-out or entitlement program. We all know it has been used as a “piggy bank” throughout the past, and as a result has become unsustainable. Now it is being subverted for political agenda. Forced into the program at birth by law, stripped of its”benefit” through corrupt, illegal actions repeatedly by congress, and being twisted into a maniacal machine by those who swore an oath to protect their constituents from just such abuse, we as citizens are now at a major crossroads concerning the future of this once fantastically great nation. Quite frankly, if we choose the wrong path the constitution itself becomes a worthless sheet of parchment and inked words which will have lost all relevance. The founders penned the words”shall not be infringed” for this very time in their new vision’s future. Yes, mental health is a very real issue when determining suitability of an individual’s right to access firearms. It has always been so. However, for an agency of the Federal government to be arbitrarily given the authority to strip a God-given, inalienable right from any citizen without prior due process and careful assessment is beyond un-Constitutional. ALL citizen’s must come to this realization or face forever losing every right guaranteed to be protected. Yes, I am aware of the fact that most have already been eaten away, eroded a bit at a time. Historically this is the very method always employed by those who would usurp power of self-government and bestow that power on themselves for a variety of reason’s, some extremely self-serving, some with every intention of being beneficial.
      Again,Jeff, thank you for your insight, and your willingness to stand up and speak out.

      • Z December 30, 2016, 6:55 pm

        “Forced into it by birth.” Your parents filled out the paperwork to request your social security number. You weren’t forced into anything. Furthermore, drawing social security benefits requires additional paperwork be filled out by you. If you don’t want the benefits and the regulations that accompany them, don’t fill out the paperwork.

  • Chris auberry December 30, 2016, 3:34 am

    Obama,your wrong some people might not need them people getting there own social security. Well that means the to retired as well.

  • Lennon December 30, 2016, 3:12 am

    My wife is perfectly healthy except she has had massive back problems and has had 5 surgeries to correct it. So she can’t work a normal job and she gets SSI. We are now worried about her loosing her ccw and 2nd amendment rights because she had back surgery. What a bunch of shit, looks like I’m “transferring” all her guns to me before Jan 18.

    • DrPF December 30, 2016, 8:39 am

      Not sure, but i know in other cases when a person is not permitted to have guns, anyone in the house is also banned as that would give them access..better check.

    • Keith December 30, 2016, 12:56 pm

      Are you a complete moron? Did you actually read the legislation? This Legislation is pointed at people with MENTAL ILLNESS…Not Physical Disabilities….Are you telling us that your “wife” is mentally ill?

  • Chris Cole December 29, 2016, 9:41 pm

    There once was a day when the NRA was in the business of being proactive and on the offensive in protecting the 2nd amendment. There once was a time that no matter who the president was (except for Bush Sr.) the NRA would have slapped this stupidity down and labeled it for the stupidity it was, yet now? Nothing but a slush fund and social club for Wane Lapierre. I do truly hope the useless windbag is deposed so this stupidity stops.

  • DRAINO December 29, 2016, 7:43 am

    Hmm….Takes effect 18 Jan 2017……repealed 21 Jan 2017. It may take a day for Trump to get through repealing a bunch of other crap that this poor excuse of a president purposely screwed up. This idiot is doing everything he can to screw up as much as possible as he is being dragged kicking and whining out the door of the Whitehouse. How sad is this guy?!?!?!?!?! Take your “no hope” cow of a man-wife and just go away!!!! I mean really? You can’t do anything worth while as a leader, so you attack a bunch of people on Social Security?!?!?!?! Pathetic Panzy!!!!! There is no more obvious demonstration to show just how terrible of a president he has been.

    AMERICANISM!!!! NOT GLOBALISM!!!!

    • Rick December 30, 2016, 5:16 am

      This is bad, my ass is still on fire on what this prick of a useless president did to Veterans that have some form of PTSD and removing or denying their 2nd adminment rights !

  • SuperG December 28, 2016, 11:43 am

    Due Process? No, that just gets in the way. Adjudicating cases and legally removing someone’s Constitutional Rights is expensive, and creating an arbitrary rule is cheap, so let’s screw our countrymen that way! Our Orwellian nightmare takes another step towards reality folks. Be scared, be very scared, as your demographic may be next.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend