Anti-Gunners Upset Over Trump Signing Bill Killing Social Security Gun Grab

(Photo: Instagram)

This week, President Trump signed House Joint Resolution 40, a measure to repeal Obama’s Social Security Gun Grab.

Cue the whining and bitching from the anti-gunners.

“Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information,” Murphy continued.

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Guns Safety, said, “This law, which weakens the background check system, is just the first item on the gun lobby’s wish list. NRA headquarters is pushing more guns, for more people, in more places – gutting public safety laws and putting American lives at risk.”

“President Trump’s signature on his first piece of gun legislation was bought and paid for by the extreme leadership of the NRA, which spent $30 million on the presidential race to get their seat at the table,” added Shannon Watts, then founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which is part of Everytown for Gun Safety.

First proposed by the Obama administration in the summer of 2015, the rule sought to classify Social Security 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.

Earlier this month, the House voted 235-180 to nix the regulation, and the Senate followed suit with a 57-43 vote in favor of killing the rule.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 28 comments… add one }
  • Arewegreatyet March 3, 2017, 10:00 pm

    Let’s see, we have folks here who can’t be trusted with a check book, but having an AR-15 is just peachy? I knew a really nice old lady once who lost her purse several times by leaving it in her shopping cart. Unfortunately she lost quite a few snubnoses that way before her family disconnected her car battery and only allowed her out shopping escorted by someone. Yeah, letting mentally incompetent people possess guns is a really good idea

    • Tim March 4, 2017, 8:36 pm

      Each case needs to be adjudicated to make that determination. You can’t throw a blanket over every social security recipient with financial assist. There are many who fully function in every other way, but for whatever reason, needs assistance with their money. My mother was prone to phone scammers and door to door thieves, but she could certainly handle a gun just fine. Due process is a right guaranteed by the constitution. You can’t deem this whole group to be incompetent with a gun. Apparently you don’t understand individual rights, due process of law,or the constitution. Your comment and thought process fits nearly into a socialist Marxist Nanny state where individual rights are replaced with collectivism.

    • Johnnycee March 17, 2017, 9:18 am

      So, what you are saying is, if someone uses a third party to manage their financial affairs, they are too incompetent to own a firearm? What an idiotic statement! How about knives, rocks, bottles, steel pipes and any other form of weapon. Should they be banned from them also. Maybe we should just lock them up and oversee every detail of their everyday lives just to be sure they don’t misuse anything they may come up with. Where do you people come from??? IDIOTS!!!

  • Randy Griffin March 3, 2017, 2:37 pm

    I don’t know how many times a senior citizen has gone out and started shooting up some place, killing as many as they could, but, I can’t for the life of me remember that ever happening. Maybe there are some instances but I just don’t know of any…So why are we picking on our older people??

    • Thomas March 3, 2017, 9:09 pm

      They don’t do it on Walking Dead!

  • C. Aldridge March 3, 2017, 12:08 pm

    We should ban radical liberals from having weapons. They are the most mentally incompetent citizens in the country. Look at California where I live (unfortunately, I can’t move right now). Asinine, do nothing gun laws that just turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, while not doing anything about the actual criminals. They are even letting them out early because they don’t want them to be uncomfortable in crowded prisons. I say too bad if it’s crowded. If you don’t like it, don’t do things to get you there in the first place.

  • mpd March 3, 2017, 10:14 am

    I wonder just how small, in absolute numbers, this group of people really is; I know it is just another foothold into linking more cross-agency issues, but really, how big a group of people are we talking about here, those SSAN recipients who need help with their finances?

    Why would anyone worry about such a small group if it weren’t just a means to assert precedent into other such forays enabling data linking?

    • robert March 3, 2017, 5:56 pm

      As long as it is one person, that is all it needs to be to be protected. The constitution does not protect groups, it protects individual rights.

      Each of us, age 21 or 81 deserves to be protected under the constitution.

      So no more talk about groups and how big/small they are, it is irrelevant.

      • BluNos March 4, 2017, 12:28 pm

        BINGO! Folks we have a winner.

        • Frederick Peterman July 20, 2018, 2:55 pm

          What about 28 year old mothers?

    • Arewegreatyet March 3, 2017, 10:16 pm

      It’s actually a very large group when you consider the number of people who receive disability for things like schizophrenia, dementia, Alzheimer’s and various other disorders. You know, folks who are prime candidates for gun ownership.

  • Francis Miller March 3, 2017, 10:10 am

    When is the last time we learned of any Senior that attacked with a hand gun that was a terrorist act? They need to have protection far more than most since they are “targets” from the scum bags!

  • Steven March 3, 2017, 9:03 am

    Trump power!

  • GungaDean March 3, 2017, 9:02 am

    Not a day goes by, that I’m not proud as hell of the Trump Train!

  • Dragginbutt March 3, 2017, 8:29 am

    I have no issue with restricting ownership or possession of a firearm from someone declared mentally incompetent by the court. True, they could still kill with a knife or bat etc. But I don’t have ANY problem with restricting gun ownership to a court declared mentally incompetent person. I also support the inclusion of this declaration information so that it can be seen and considered in a background check. This would at least hopefully get the weapons out of the hands of Mentally troubled persons. I do NOT however support any limitation on ownership of semi-automatic firearms. Whether it is generally described as an “Assault” weapon or not.

    • wtsane March 3, 2017, 10:16 am

      With respect, who adjudicated competence? A liberal judge? To steal from Daniel Webster “The Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions”

      • srsquidizen March 3, 2017, 4:01 pm

        Good point. While some people with mental issues have shown themselves to be dangerous (actual violence or threats) the vast majority are not at all. And who’s going to keep a gun-hating activist federal judge from deeming EVERYONE “unfit” who’s ever had a prescription for anti-depressants, sedatives or even a sleeping pill (in rare cases people taking Ambien have done dangerous things sleepwalking, so they’re a menace just like old folks who let junior do their checkbook…right?) Once we start down that slippery slope the 2A rights of ALL of us are in danger.

    • Jon Smith March 3, 2017, 2:16 pm

      You seem to have little or no knowledge in regard to who or what deems another person’s mental agility. THE START OF ANARCHY IS WHEN A PEOPLE ARE DENIED THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS BY SELF SERVING GROUPS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL PLEASURE OR MONETARY GAIN…..JS.

  • Lew Rigaud March 3, 2017, 8:02 am

    Chris Murphy is part of the socialist agenda that has invaded our civil liberties!!

  • Gary Rankin March 3, 2017, 7:22 am

    Why does the left demand people be respected for their individuality while every order they support, every law they pass group individuals treating them as worst case scenarios?

  • GRA March 3, 2017, 7:08 am

    Anything proposed and supported by Chris Murphy, et al, is ridiculous and unethical anyway, especially firearms prohibitions. This nonsense should’ve never been allowed to become any sort of executive order to be followed in the first place. Many thanks to the pro-gun supporters and lobbyists that are looking out for law abiding Americans. God bless President Trump for his judgment and patriotic attitude. Now all we need to do is focus on gutting the NFA so our individual freedoms can be constitutionally restored as they should be.

  • Dan March 3, 2017, 7:06 am

    He’s doing what he said he was going to do……. bring back America…… for all Americans! Just cause I can’t write anymore doesn’t mean you get to take away my rights!

    • Cam March 3, 2017, 8:08 am

      It’s funny, they try and take old peoples right to own a gun. If they are so incompetent why not the right to vote? Cause that benifits them since slot think that demo rates will preserve their bier social security.

  • Robert R March 3, 2017, 6:39 am

    The fact that the ‘law’ was even implanted shows that Obama didn’t care if those people least able to defend themselves in a physical confrontation were to be totally powerless to defend themselves should someone come into their home planning on doing them harm. Just because they turned their finances over to someone else isn’t proof that they’re not mentally capable of knowing right from wrong. If anything it further showed the contempt he had for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves from those he associated with in the past. Sure glad they put term limits on presidents. Now we need them on Senators and House Reps and really every elected position in the country needs limits.

  • Pro2A March 3, 2017, 6:36 am

    President Trump is Awesome!

    • Robert Schmittle March 3, 2017, 8:14 am


  • Joe March 3, 2017, 5:33 am

    Thank God for the NRA and President Trump !!
    And many thamks to the Congress for erasing that Bloomberg inspired piece of garbage gun grab legislation affecting our senior and disabled veterans !!
    The leftist elites are the enemy of the American public.

  • Pro2A March 3, 2017, 3:48 am

    Trump is a American Bad Ass. I am so glad we have him for our President. One size fits all disqualification laws have no part in Freedom. Every person deserves the right to protect life. If a person is walking free they should be able to defend against violence.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend