Senate Kills Obama Social Security Gun Grab

Send to Kindle

The controversial rule instituted by the Obama administration to strip certain social security beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights has now been killed by both the House and the Senate.

Last week, the House voted 235-180 to nix the regulation, and this week it was the Senate’s turn, which followed suit and voted 57-43 to nix the regulation.

“The reality is that, like us, they believe the regulation is simply bad policy, places an unfair stigma on those with disabilities and violates their constitutional rights which is why a wide array of groups oppose it,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) while on the floor of the Senate.

McConnell added that as many as 20 disability groups opposed it.

First proposed by the Obama administration in the summer of 2015, the rule sought to classify beneficiaries who use representative payees to manage their accounts as mentally incompetent, thus making it illegal for them to possess, own, buy or sell firearms under federal law.

Yet, just because one does not manage one’s finances does not mean that one is unfit to own a firearm, which is what the Obama administration was assuming with this sweeping executive action that officially took effect on Jan. 18, 2017. Estimates suggested that as many as 75,000 recipients would be affected by the rule.

Under the Congressional Review Act, which allows the House and the Senate to review any of the rules instituted by a lame duck president in his last six months of office, lawmakers were able to vote on resolutions to repeal this gun grab.

SEE ALSO: BARRY SAYS GOODBYE… HOW WILL YOU REMEMBER THE 44TH POTUS?

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) chided his colleagues in the Senate who voted to kill the Obama rule.

“The [Congressional Review Act] we have before us today will make it harder for the federal government to do what we have told them to do for decades, which is to put dangerous people and people who are seriously mentally ill on the list of people who are prohibited from buying a gun,” said Murphy.

“We know that people with serious mental illness in this country can go buy a very powerful weapon and do great damage with it,” he added.

The nation’s gun lobby applauded both the House and Senate for taking swift action to repeal the regulation.

“Today’s Senate vote was the next step in rolling back some of the egregious government overreach that characterized the Obama era,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “Congress is reversing a last-minute, back-door gun grab that stripped law-abiding Americans of their rights without due process.”

“We look forward to President Trump signing this important legislation into law,” concluded Cox.

{ 22 comments… add one }
  • gary February 17, 2017, 11:44 am

    Excellent, He was nothing but a SOCIALIST in my eyes and opinion, also a traitor to that once fine country that he tried to bring to its knees. I feel sorry to have served at times when I think what he did. But Pres. Trump gives me Hope and renewed faith that people do listen at times of need, and we sure need him now.

  • A.D. Roberts February 17, 2017, 10:15 am

    Don’t stop there. Just go right down the list of ALL of the regulations Obama’s puppets wrote into law. Get rid of all of them.
    Make like Obama had NEVER BEEN THERE at all.

    • Pat February 17, 2017, 11:59 am

      So you think it is OK that recipients of disability payments for Mental reasons should be able to have guns? You are mental yourself!

      • Dennis February 17, 2017, 1:36 pm

        No, I don’t think it’s okay for those with mental health issues to have guns. However, there’s a wide spectrum of mental health issues and just because you can’t manage your own finances doesn’t automatically make you mentally incompetent. Four words: Lack of Due Process!

      • Leonard Feinman February 17, 2017, 2:28 pm

        It is not okay to arm a mentally ill person, and nobody said it was. Some people have mental illnesses, but of are no harm to others. Still, I would not arm them. But taking a person on Social Security, who uses somebody to take care of his finances is not a sign of danger. It may show a lack of responsibilities, but not necessarily mentally ill, or a danger to anybody.
        What Obama did was to use his pen to legislate. He changed the meaning of things. He took a semi-auto rifle and called it an assault weapon. If that is how his mind works, Obama should never be able to own a gun himself. He is clearly not mentally fit to understand reality. But, he was slicker than Bill Clinton, and he is the most vacationed person I can think of.
        The only positive thing about Obama is that he drove gun and ammo sales through the roof. But, if you were dumb enough to give HIM a gun, you would probably be called responsible for him shooting himself in the foot.

        • Brian Bladykas February 17, 2017, 11:23 pm

          Are you crazy???? I am a proud gun owner and I believe in gun rights, but at some point common sense SHOULD come into the picture with respect to individual ‘rights’ vs the common good. WHY do you think people have payees?? Because they have wheelchairs and cant make it into the banks to cash their SS checks??? NO!! It’s because they can’t navigate society because of things like dementia, brain damage, retardation, severe mental illness, substance abuse, etc.

          Remember the Libertarian credo…. ‘What you do on your own time and your own dime is NOT the business of the Government…however…if you ARE on the Government dime and you place the freedom and safety of others at risk, the Government can should step in to say NO’
          By the way, I am a Psychiatrist. And I think long and hard before I decide to ask the court to take someones liberties away.

          • Tim February 20, 2017, 2:58 am

            Firstly, the Constitution is not a living document, able to be changed because of mass shootings or because anyone thinks it may save “just one life”. Secondly, I don’t recall ever reading that there are exceptions to our second amendment. Elderly, felons, mentally ill are all terms that are not mentioned in the Constitution. “The People” includes everyone that is a citizen of our United States. I can hardly wait to hear the rebuttals to this comment.

          • Al Kajin February 23, 2017, 1:00 am

            Sir- remember not everyone that is “on the government’s dime” wants to be there. Circumstances force people from their intended course.

  • Clifton moe February 17, 2017, 9:53 am

    Congress men and senators thank you I’m one of those people just because of an accident years ago to think that I’m a sub human is unthinkable I don’t go out and comitt crimes or even think about such things I told my wife how’s does it feel to be married to a sub human she said I would never think of you as that. The way there acting there the sub humans. Thank you again.

  • Tiger Mountain Man February 17, 2017, 8:05 am

    Sounds like to me there’s 223 (180 + 43) members of congress that just don’t get it!

  • Rick February 17, 2017, 7:36 am

    Let’s see? First the gun manufacturers complained that folks who were on the terrorist watch list and no-fly lists should be allowed to buy guns. Now, they are complaining that individuals, who are so mentally impaired they need a financial guardian, should have guns. However, eovery time there is a mass shooting, they argue it is a mental health issue. A little disengenuous perhaps? Do the gun maker’s have no limits to their greed?

    • Erik February 17, 2017, 10:26 am

      Exactly how do you think the do not fly list is in the least bit a suitable way to be labeled a threat? Do you think people on the list should be allowed to vote? Because felons can’t vote nor can they buy firearms. With out equally applying one to the other, you are admitting no respect for due process. Now go off on your rant about non issue things that will end up calling me names and ultimately a racist.

    • DRAINO February 17, 2017, 10:33 am

      You sick idiot. You apparently are incapable of understanding the topic at hand. If you can’t understand the topic, then you must be mentally ill and are not competent to posses firearms. Fess them up, Moron. Now you are a defenseless moron who’s rights have just been taken without due process. How does it feel????????? Go put your head back in the sand where it belongs.

      AMERICANISM!!! NOT Globalism!!!!

    • dlsclaw February 17, 2017, 10:39 am

      The law would have affected physically impaired also. The law was very loose about someone managing finances. Example: If a person has a problem getting out for a length of time do to a physical challenge and sets it up for a child or grandchild to do their banking, then that child is managing finances. That doesn’t mean the elderly person is mentally challenged. If the person tried to argue that in court, a bleeding heart liberal government person could argue they are mentally depressed because of their physical challenge. It is like classified information. The government classifies just about everything in the beginning until it is sorted through. An employee could be charged with espionage for leaking it, even though it may be released as unclassified the next day because it turned out to be a hair appointment for another worker. These are examples ofhow the government can and does work sometimes. They may charge you with a boggus crime and keep it tied up in court until you are flat broke from fighting it, then just say they are going to drop it. They didn’t convict you, just ruined your life. Remember the government is made up of common people like you and I. Some are evil, greedy, power hungry, and some are nice, helpful, and want to be known for their good name.

      • Brian Bladykas February 17, 2017, 11:32 pm

        You obviously don’t understand the law! Guardianship ONLY applies to those who cannot meet reasonable public standards of cognition and understanding, ie, those that cant take care of themselves because of MENTAL DEFECT. This does NOT apply to those who are simply physically impaired, ie, blind, bed bound/mobility impaired, hearing impaired, on dialysis, etc.
        To try and conflate something like simple old age with incapacity is a straw man at best.

    • Steven Parker February 17, 2017, 10:55 am

      Rick you are a moron.First you must not be old.Maybe I don’t want to mess with my finances I just want to enjoy the life I have left and not worry about it.so I get someone take care of my bills so I can enjoy life does that mean I can’t defend myself? Maybe I enjoy shooting and so I have a son take care of my money and they let me know if I can buy the ammo I want? You are a real Libtard aren’t you?

  • srsquidizen February 17, 2017, 7:05 am

    That action by Obama put him in the same historical boat with George Wallace and Lester Maddox as a perpetrator of blatant, senseless discrimination against a class of people. Even worse because this hateful leap down the slippery slope of executive gun-grabbing was implemented against the elderly and disabled, who can’t get out and march in the streets to protest it. Where were the “politically correct” who are supposed to speak up on behalf of downtrodden minorities when their rights are trampled on? Just shows what we’re really up against–the dangerous fascists in this country are actually on the left not the right.

  • GW February 17, 2017, 5:37 am

    The fact that ANYONE VOTED against the 2nd amendment rights is ludicrous. Those down voters need to be removed from office.

  • Altoid February 17, 2017, 5:18 am

    What 0bama and the left is leading up to is ever tightening ownership restrictions.
    Had the left remained in power you would see legislation prohibiting firearms ownership for those who’d received so much as a ticket for jaywalking.
    They’ve demonstrated their “disrespect for the law”, would more than likely be the argument.

  • Joe February 17, 2017, 4:59 am

    As a senior citizen I would like to thank both houses of congress for nixing this gun grab attempt. A rocket in our pocket is our only real time protection from the liberal drug infused predator thugs that see us as easy pickings.
    We know all too well that when our lives are on the line the Police (God Bless Them for the job they do) are on the average ten to twenty minutes away via a 911 call.

  • Rick February 17, 2017, 4:53 am

    If I read correctly, 180 Congresscritters and 43 Senators voted YES to keep this. I can not help but wonder why we would have any elected or appointed official who would vote YES to violate someone’s rights. So, it certainly does appear that a sizable portion of our elected officials are in favor of blatantly violating the very Constitution that they have sworn to protect and defend. Of course, I never really ever understood why O wasn’t removed from office for numerous violations of the same kind.

    Back in the 1990s, We the People elected a bunch of Republicans who were suppose to fix things. Not sure that amounted to anything positive. One fellow once said something like, “It’s hard for a person to recognize he is doing wrong when his salary and his job depends upon his not recognizing it”. I wonder how this current mess will go. The election of Reagan was an aberration in the eyes of those involved with the New World Order and Thousand Points of Light. Those folks seemed to control alot back then and they seem to have progressed much further toward their goals since then.

    • Brian Bladykas February 17, 2017, 11:35 pm

      Did you happen to forget that it was REAGAN who outlawed open carry in California??? Care to guess why?? I support concealed carry with ‘extreme vetting’ but I think open carry stopped making sense with the Wild West.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend