U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2015, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Kansas
19,189 posts, read 14,057,966 times
Reputation: 18141

Advertisements

Here the story: Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns | Fox News It is some.

I am not looking at this from the political side but from the perspective of gun owners and what they think. I don't agree with this. I think it is very possible that someone is capable of handling a weapon responsibly even when their financial needs are being looked after by a third party. Being in KS where we have a lot of seniors, many are targets for financial scams and many have people break in while they are home because they see them as easy targets in both cases.

So, if you aren't handling your financial affairs, does that relate to being able to handle a gun responsibly? Apples and oranges in my book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2015, 11:16 AM
 
1,176 posts, read 1,896,365 times
Reputation: 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Here the story: Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns | Fox News It is some.

I am not looking at this from the political side but from the perspective of gun owners and what they think. I don't agree with this. I think it is very possible that someone is capable of handling a weapon responsibly even when their financial needs are being looked after by a third party. Being in KS where we have a lot of seniors, many are targets for financial scams and many have people break in while they are home because they see them as easy targets in both cases.

So, if you aren't handling your financial affairs, does that relate to being able to handle a gun responsibly? Apples and oranges in my book.
This is apples and that-stuff-you-try-not-to-step-in-at-a-ranch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 12:21 PM
 
9,209 posts, read 18,039,121 times
Reputation: 21950
What is being suggested, and which is not articulated very well in the article, is that people who are on Social Security benefits, and who have to have their finances managed by others, would be the ones affected.

A lot of people who don't work in the behavioral health field, or who don't have a disabled family member are not aware of the process of Representative Payeeship. When a person receiving benefits has demonstrated an inability to mange his finances effectively, and thereby puts his own health, safety, or welfare in jeopardy, then an interested person can ask the treating physician to complete a form provided by SSA (Social Security Administration). The form will state that the person, in the doctor's opinion, is incapable of managing his benefits on his own behalf. Then someone has to be appointed and approved as the Representative Payee. It might be a family member, a trusted friend, or an organization that does this professionally. Some people only need a Representative Payee temporarily, until they become more stable or learn more about managing money. But some people will need a Rep Payee indefinitely, like people with severe intellectual disabilities, or someone with progressive dementia.

People receive different kind of SSA income. There are the people who receive SS retirement benefits, from what they've paid in themselves or what a deceased spouse paid in. These people may or may not have a disability, but they aren't getting the check because of a disability, just for being old. then you have SSDI--Social Security Disability Insurance. This is for people who have a significant work history, but who are now disabled. They've paid money into the system, and now that they cannot work anymore, they collect benefits, sort of like the would if they were over 65. You don't have to be "poor" to get SSDI. It's purely based on how much you've paid in over all the quarters and years you've worked, and the fact that you now have a disability preventing you from working in that capacity. Then you have SSI-Supplemental Security Income. This is for people who have a disability preventing them from maintaining gainful employment, and they either have no real work history, or very little work history (it's actually calculated by quarter worked in recent years, but that's not important here). In order to qualify for SSI you have to be disabled AND meet certain poverty criteria. Some people have worked and paid some into SS, but not enough for a minimum SSDI check, so they get SSDI plus SSI to make up the difference.

So we're not talking about SSA sharing info on all recipients of Social Security benefits with NICS. We're talking about SSA sharing info with NICS on people who are temporarily or indefinitely under Representative Payeeship.
So ostensibly, these would be the "worst" of the people with disabilities.

However, I am against this idea, and as a second amendment advocate and a mental health professional, I would stand against this.

People get assigned to Rep Payeeship for many reasons, but they all have to do with managing money in order to provide for their own food, shelter, clothing, and necessary purchases like transportation, health & hygiene. People do NOT get put in payeeship for being a danger to themselves or others. That is the standard for involuntary hospitalization, and in some cases when someone threatens someone, a "duty to warn" when someone threatens someone. I am strongly against limiting someone Constitutional rights because they have been shown to have trouble managing money due to a disability. People get placed on Payeeship for doing things like:
--forgetting to pay rent and jeopardizing their housing
--buying clothes, cigarettes, or electronics before paying utilities bills or buying groceries
--giving away their money to anyone who asks for it
--being careless with purses or wallets, and losing their money
--being too trusting to the point where others manipulate them out of their money
--they just got out of a hospital, and have to be on payeeship temporarily as a condition of discharge
--experiencing too much anxiety around managing money, and feeling better that a trusted person manages it for them
--not caring much about managing money when there's a relative who is eager to take over control, for whatever reason, so they don't contest it

Over the years, I've works with hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who receive SSDI and SSI, and many of them have been responsible gun owners who never presented a danger to anyone. Many of them, to my knowledge, were not gun owners, but should still have the right if they chose. If you are receiving disability benefits for panic disorder, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, who's to say you cannot safely own a firearm? Even with people with the "sensational" illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the large percent never present a danger to anyone. And the process for dealing with someone who is currently a threat to self or others is part of mental health treatment--pursuing crisis services, involuntary hospitalization, or other interventions. It has nothing to do with the person's financial benefits.

Do people with mental illnesses sometimes use guns to harm themselves or others? Yes (and it's mostly themselves and not others). But the problem is the illness and the events that led up to the crisis, not the fact that they could have access to a gun.

I fear that this idea is just a plan for opening a door into people's privacy, just a little at first, but which can then lead down a slippery slope to SSA sharing info on all recipients of benefits, and healthcare professionals being required to violate people's privacy. If we're concerned about suicide and violent crime, then we need to focus on suicide and violent crime, not on eroding or destroying rights that we've all been guaranteed.

Last edited by Tracysherm; 07-20-2015 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
2,122 posts, read 1,441,893 times
Reputation: 2325
same topic is being discussed here as well - Expanded background checks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
2,122 posts, read 1,441,893 times
Reputation: 2325
I really like your post, it explains a lot about social security payments, and what the proposal actually means.

Yet, I personally still believe that if you cannot work due to mental disorder, be it panic disorder, OCD, ADHD, or whatever, you should not be allowed to own a gun. I'm not saying that treatment of those disorders should prevent you from owning firearms, more like "if you have it uncontrolled to such a degree that you cannot find employment and need to apply for SSI/SSDI because of it - then get your mental health in shape first, buy guns second".

My own opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 01:53 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,536,143 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Here the story: Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns | Fox News It is some.

I am not looking at this from the political side but from the perspective of gun owners and what they think. I don't agree with this. I think it is very possible that someone is capable of handling a weapon responsibly even when their financial needs are being looked after by a third party. Being in KS where we have a lot of seniors, many are targets for financial scams and many have people break in while they are home because they see them as easy targets in both cases.

So, if you aren't handling your financial affairs, does that relate to being able to handle a gun responsibly? Apples and oranges in my book.


why?

are you against people having the ability to protect themselves?
after all, safety and defending oneself is your own personal responsibility, not the police.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 02:23 PM
 
Location: NJ
15,901 posts, read 10,954,801 times
Reputation: 10111
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit View Post
I really like your post, it explains a lot about social security payments, and what the proposal actually means.

Yet, I personally still believe that if you cannot work due to mental disorder, be it panic disorder, OCD, ADHD, or whatever, you should not be allowed to own a gun. I'm not saying that treatment of those disorders should prevent you from owning firearms, more like "if you have it uncontrolled to such a degree that you cannot find employment and need to apply for SSI/SSDI because of it - then get your mental health in shape first, buy guns second".

My own opinion.
Problem is that a bureaucrat like lois lerner will be your judge and jury..at a distance. Once declared 'incompetent' by the feds what other parts of your life will be impacted by other companies, care givers and insurance. The process to prove the government's decision wrong will be costly and take a very long time.

This is the social justice equivalent of declaring the kid who chewed a poptart into the shape of a gun would someday be a sociopathic killer.

Same government whose projections in every area under their control is abysmyl to the point of incomptence.

No thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
2,122 posts, read 1,441,893 times
Reputation: 2325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
Problem is that a bureaucrat like lois lerner will be your judge and jury..at a distance. Once declared 'incompetent' by the feds what other parts of your life will be impacted by other companies, care givers and insurance. The process to prove the government's decision wrong will be costly and take a very long time.

This is the social justice equivalent of declaring the kid who chewed a poptart into the shape of a gun would someday be a sociopathic killer.

Same government whose projections in every area under their control is abysmyl to the point of incomptence.

No thanks!
Well, but if you don't want to invite that bureaucrat, don't ask for SSI/SSDI check, get yourself job.
It's like you don't want cops searched your house without court warrant, don't give them your consent, that's it. It doesn't violate 4th amendment, if you gave your consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
2,122 posts, read 1,441,893 times
Reputation: 2325
Again, I'm really not about your old grandpa, I'm more pissed off at the number of young people who instead of looking for work, look for doctor who would rubber stamp them "mental disorder" diagnosis and start living off the welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2015, 02:37 PM
 
9,209 posts, read 18,039,121 times
Reputation: 21950
But remember, SSDI/SSI are not like collecting welfare. With welfare, I agree, get a job, or be subject to a whole lot of scrutiny. But SSDI and SSI are for people with bona fide disabilities that prevent them from being able to work. Are there people faking or exaggerating symptoms? Probably. But there are people who truly cannot work, and in the case of SSDI, they've worked for years and paid into the system.

Here's an example:
Someone works 25 years, pays into Social Security, then gets hit by a bus. She's in a wheelchair now, and has some memory problems due to a head injury. These things prevent her from working. Because of the memory problems, she agreed to have her brother act as her Representative Payee, to make sure her monthly money is budgeted properly. But she is a long-time target shooter, and now going to the range is one of the few things left from her previous life that she can still do an that she enjoys. Should the government have the right to take away her guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top