Jump to content
panteramatt

How can this be good?

Recommended Posts

For the last 10 years of his life I handled all my dad's finances and made his Dr appoinments and drove him to the Dr.

Does that mean a WWII vet should have his 2A rights abolished?  He was in his right mind and needed a mechanical device (a firearm) to defend himself more than ever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it states mentally disabled. Sorry to tell you guys but no one thats mentally handicapped should have access to firearm. Unless Im reading this completely wrong.

How do you define "mentally handicapped"?

 

Also, this law would have defined "mentally disabled" as someone having someone else manage their finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the devil is in the details... and I haven't read the legislation. Was this supposed to impact people formally diagnosed as mentally incompetent (severe dementia, etc.)? That I could understand. Or... was it also impacting someone who simply decided it was much easier/more convenient to pass the burden of their finances to their child, but was still otherwise sharp and aware? That would be wrong IMO. 

 

It is difficult in this country to get full guardianship over someone's affairs, for example. And that's by design - because the law takes the position that it should NOT be easy to strip away someone's rights. It takes lengthy court proceedings, the testimony of several doctors, etc.

 

Again, I haven't seen the wording... but I'm left wondering if the SSA were setting a threshold that was far looser and broader that an adjudicated case of guardianship, for instance. The fact that the gun lobby was joined by disability rights activists makes me think that was perhaps the case. 

 

Edit: I do agree though... some people should NOT have guns! Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I dont know, Id say anyone thats unstable. I dont want someone who see's dead people aiming a gun at my head!

While they are chasing you in their walker?

Or running you down in their rapid rover?

Lazing you as they ride a chair up the stairs?

 

Due process is required to limit an individual's constitutional rights. If an individual needs to be instituted that's one thing.

If an individual acts as a surrogate for care and finances, that is something totally different. And that's what Obama 's eo covered.

 

Again, being elderly is not a crime.

 

At what age would you suggest we set the bar?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say this only obtains to old people, did I miss something?

You either aren't aware, or don't seem to want to acknowledge, that the EO Obama installed set the bar at someone who simply is on SS and has someone else handle their finances.  There is no due process and they are being labeled mentally deficient, and then having their names put on the prohibited list.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say this only obtains to old people, did I miss something?

 

Here it is in all its glory:

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007

 

It's long, so you might want to skip to this section: 

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-30407/p-33 

 

That and the paragraph after may answer some of your questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is in all its glory:

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007

 

It's long, so you might want to skip to this section: 

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-30407/p-33 

 

That and the paragraph after may answer some of your questions.

 

My nickname for you, Cereza, was already "The Citation Queen". Again, you didn't disappoint. I'm guessing you're in a career with some research? :-)

 

On an admittedly quick read, I think the SSA is in a gray area... "we can do this because the citation doesn't specifically say it must be adjudicated by a court... and if you don't like it, you can argue the point... we won't charge you to argue it... however, you will have to go out, at your own expense, and get a doctor to attest to your mental health not only now, but for the last 5 years..." Of course, if you didn't have a mental health professional for that prior 5 years, how do you prove you were OK? Is that even possible? How much would that cost? It puts little protection, but all of the burden on the citizen.

 

I guess I'm just not crazy (no pun intended) about an agency becoming judge and jury like that. There's a better system for that. It's called court. Maybe the SSA can technically do it. I just question whether it's the best approach. It seems like it could be an overreach and I can see why it stirred people up.

 

Just my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, a very detailed article about this topic was just posted on National Review Online. Interestingly, the author hit on one of my initial concerns, but went even further, saying, "There were a host of reasons to object to this measure. On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable..." and then he goes on to list all the other reasons it was simply bad law... and further, lists a large array of diverse groups who opposed it, including the ACLU and many groups concerned about the rights of disabled people.

 

So, yeah, that may have been just incredible overreach on the part of the SSA.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the law either but if the summary was correct and if the restriction is or has been applied intelligently then no, it's not good.

 

I'm closely watching/have watched four people age. One had alzheimer's and mentioned killing himself several times as he recognized his own physical and cognitive decline. Luckily or unluckily his brain deteriorated faster than his ability to do himself in. He's now dead.

 

Person number two is 81 and suffers a number of maladies, including depression and axiety, and has actually attempted suicide (long ago). She can't handle her own finances or many day-to-day experiences. Her life is mostly enjoyable but I have no doubt that she'd kill herself if she had a gun.

 

Person number 3 is on the verge of mental incompetence. I'm talking twice going to the post office to pay someone $2000 for remotely "fixing" her computer. 

 

Person number 4 is 91, perfectly lucid, and wouldn't kill himself in a million years.

 

Do you guys really believe the first three people should have/have had guns? Would you let them drive? 

 

Package your ra-ra any way you like but suicide by gun is a huge dark cloud hanging over our gun culture. Its seriousness and sadness need no enbellishment or hyperbole from Bloomberg or Schumer. The numbers are staggering.

 

You yell and scream that all these crimes are committed by crazy people but you stand for the "right" of a mental defective to have a gun. Are you stupid? Did the NRA implant a chip into your brain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

 

You yell and scream that all these crimes are committed by crazy people but you stand for the "right" of a mental defective to have a gun. Are you stupid? Did the NRA implant a chip into your fucking brain?

Thank you for your thoughtful response and paving way to get this thread over to 1A. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, a very detailed article about this topic was just posted on National Review Online. Interestingly, the author hit on one of my initial concerns, but went even further, saying, "There were a host of reasons to object to this measure. On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable..." and then he goes on to list all the other reasons it was simply bad law... and further, lists a large array of diverse groups who opposed it, including the ACLU and many groups concerned about the rights of disabled people.

 

So, yeah, that may have been just incredible overreach on the part of the SSA.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

My initial reaction was rash. We had a similar discussion regarding the terror watch list. Almost identical in fact. It's complicated.

 

Reasonable people don't want terrorists or people with serious mental illnesses to get guns. Reasonable people also recognize that how we classify people as belonging to either category leaves a lot to be desired. There is also the issue, in an imperfect system, of how many "innocent" people you have to punish to get one worthy result. Reasonable people also realize that that number cannot, can never be zero. 

 

NRA doesn't realize that fact. On all these issues, NRA takes the position that it's better for 1,000 lunatics, Alzheimer's patients, or Al Qaeda operatives to have guns than to restrict one law-abiding person's rights. (I wanted to add "toddlers" to that list but I don't want this discussion moved to the 9th Amendment Lounge). The definition of that form of legal thinking is anarchy. If we applied that same standard to crimes the justice system would grind to a halt. No-one would ever be tried, arrested, or even detained lest we violate the rights of everyone everywhere to roam free, lest a single person be wrongly convicted.

 

Relying on self-reporting in the case of old people doesn't work. It took a diagnosis of legal BLINDNESS to get my father to sell his car. My mother still insists she's in charge of her life yet she falls for every scam in the book. 

 

Hey if you guys are ok with old people offing themselves or mishandling a firearm and killing an innocent bystander to protect their constitutional freedoms go for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable people don't want terrorists or people with serious mental illnesses to get guns. Reasonable people also recognize that how we classify people as belonging to either category leaves a lot to be desired. There is also the issue, in an imperfect system, of how many "innocent" people you have to punish to get one worthy result. Reasonable people also realize that that number cannot, can never be zero. 

 

 

You're right that it's complicated. But when I see I whole laundry list of organizations OTHER than the NRA lining up against it too... that gives me pause and makes me think it's not just another knee-jerk response by the NRA that says "2A at any cost".

 

I just don't like a system where: an agency decides your fate based on less than full due process, then they make it highly burdensome to appeal, and oh yeah, if you do appeal, your appeal goes right back to them. And that's what the regulation seems to say.  I just can't help but feel there's something inherently wrong about that kind of legal round-robin.

 

But, like you, I've had (and currently have) issues in my family with dementia. There needs to be systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of people who would wantonly hurt themselves or others. I sure as hell don't want "old people offing themselves". I'm sure no one on here does. From a humane perspective, it's god-awful. And from a strategic perspective, it's also bad (free PR for the anti-gun crowd). I just don't think this particular approach sounded like a good one. A little more due process? Maybe requests from a family member create a "temporary" hold... and then due process kicks in to get the right back (if appropriate)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that it's complicated. But when I see I whole laundry list of organizations OTHER than the NRA lining up against it too... that gives me pause and makes me think it's not just another knee-jerk response by the NRA that says "2A at any cost".

 

I just don't like a system where: an agency decides your fate based on less than full due process, then they make it highly burdensome to appeal, and oh yeah, if you do appeal, your appeal goes right back to them. And that's what the regulation seems to say.  I just can't help but feel there's something inherently wrong about that kind of legal round-robin.

 

But, like you, I've had (and currently have) issues in my family with dementia. There needs to be systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of people who would wantonly hurt themselves or others. I sure as hell don't want "old people offing themselves". I'm sure no one on here does. From a humane perspective, it's god-awful. And from a strategic perspective, it's also bad (free PR for the anti-gun crowd). I just don't think this particular approach sounded like a good one. A little more due process? Maybe requests from a family member create a "temporary" hold... and then due process kicks in to get the right back (if appropriate)?

Sorry I didn't read it correctly. (Puts on thinking cap). 

 

Having someone else handle your finances is a fairly reliable proxy for something being seriously wrong with a person. I'm hard pressed to think of a condition that would require a person's child to handle their finances that does not make them an unacceptably high risk for owning a gun. 

 

I'll give you three examples. Father is blind so little Sally does his banking. Should he have a gun? Mama thinks a train runs through her living room and gives her SS# to anyone who asks. Gun? Uncle Mike damaged nerves in his hand in an accident. Writing causes unreal pain. Lifting a dinner plate is out of the question. Maybe NRA and the ACLU can team up and design a gun that works through telepathy. Problem is Uncle Mike would need a second person to pick up and aim the gun.

 

As for the ACLU -- not knowing anything else about this legal action, their endorsement is reason alone for opposing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't read it correctly. (Puts on thinking cap). 

 

Having someone else handle your finances is a fairly reliable proxy for something being seriously wrong with a person. I'm hard pressed to think of a condition that would require a person's child to handle their finances that does not make them an unacceptably high risk for owning a gun. 

 

Not even close to a reliable proxy.  I have several clients for whom I manage their finances simply because they don't have the time or the want to dedicate to such menial tasks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have been a miracle that society survived before the Federal Background Check Laws.  I guess I will send a thank you note to Mr. Brady and his Ilk.

Quick folks, save yourselves before all those thousands of old, disoriented lunatics, Alzheimer's patients, and Al Qaeda operatives take advantage of this repeal and cause havoc on the society with their NRA sanctioned assault rifles. 

 

I think we (specially NJ) justifiably deserve these laws and then some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even close to a reliable proxy.  I have several clients for whom I manage their finances simply because they don't have the time or the want to dedicate to such menial tasks.  

"Not even close." So very few individuals who have others do their finances are also incapable of handling a gun. And there are people who are so wealthy and busy at age 70, 80, 90 that they let you write checks for them. 

 

I know people who are worth oodles and have accountants who don't do that. I know people of modest means who have accountants who don't do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have been a miracle that society survived before the Federal Background Check Laws.  I guess I will send a thank you note to Mr. Brady and his Ilk.

Quick folks, save yourselves before all those thousands of old, disoriented lunatics, Alzheimer's patients, and Al Qaeda operatives take advantage of this repeal and cause havoc on the society with their NRA sanctioned assault rifles. 

 

I think we (specially NJ) justifiably deserve these laws and then some. 

The background checks are 98% bullshit. It's the 2% the laws exist for, the people who should not have guns but try to get them. The checks are by no means an insurmountable impediment but they are an impediment. If they weren't we wouldn't complain about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ange - "Having someone else handle your finances is a fairly reliable proxy for something being seriously wrong with a person. I'm hard pressed to think of a condition that would require a person's child to handle their finances that does not make them an unacceptably high risk for owning a gun" 

 

​So you're saying my dad should have been restricted from firearms ownership because I used to pay his bills and handle his finances?
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not even close." So very few individuals who have others do their finances are also incapable of handling a gun. And there are people who are so wealthy and busy at age 70, 80, 90 that they let you write checks for them.

 

I know people who are worth oodles and have accountants who don't do that. I know people of modest means who have accountants who don't do that.

What are you even arguing? Do you even know?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you even arguing? Do you even know?

I am arguing that the criteria set forth in the EO, as I understand them, are a good proxy for someone of a certain age being incapable of handling a gun safely. 

 

What are you arguing, that most people who are too feeble to write checks or visit the ban are capable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...