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.
Go right ahead. Because the people affected by that repeal are the people who are so incompetent that they can't handle their own affairs with social security because of mental incompetence that they require a guardian.
Not everybody on social security is old. Millions of people are on social security ( disability ) because of severe mental illness. You ever met an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic? I have. And you sure as hell don't have to be declared " mentally deficient" to collect your benefits. In fact, unless you are so bad that they took you to court to commit you, there's no way you'd be on any database that would come up with NCIC.
You have something to refute that? I'm all eyes.
#1. When it is determined that someone needs a representative payee, that is a decision made by one, nameless, faceless bureaucrat. Removing someone Constitutional rights is not a power I think wise to give to the bureaucracy.
#2. Just because someone has a representative payee does not mean they are so severely mentally ill that they couldn't handle it on their own. There are many reasons someone might have a representative payee.
#3. This Obama edict denied people their right to due process, i.e. fair treatment in the judicial system. If the government thinks you're too dangerous to own a gun, they should have to prove it in court. This rule shifted that burden on to the individual to prove that he / she wasn't too dangerous to own a gun. For that reason alone, it's doubtful this rule would have survived the inevitable court challenges it would have received.
#4. The ACLU, numerous mental health organizations and mental health professionals formally urged congress to reverse this wrongheaded rule. I don't think those organizations are in the business of making it easier for the most mentally ill among us to have easier access to guns, so that alone should tell you this issue was more nuanced then you are letting on or were led to believe.
Uh. I did. And it says exactly what I've talked about in both my posts. Do you read your own links?
People who are so mentally ill that they hav to have their affairs with social security handled by a caretaker.
That's who the bill affected. It is EXACTLY as I characterized it. Read it again. Look for the facts, without the commentary in the article.
Yes, I read my own links, but apparently you don't, and then lie and say you did.... from the link...
Quote:
As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first adumbrated, the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak: “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,†said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations
As I said, I do not care. 10 days does not bother me. That's simply my opinion. I am not advocating shorter or longer
Your story is hardly the standard.
Florida there is a wait on pistols if you do not have a CCW. Can walk out same day with CCW. Rifles and shotguns no wait.
Takes 90 days to have a background check performed any questionable history can make that longer. My sister had a DWI reduced to dwai in NY. Florida they dont reduce it. Took 6 months for her to obtain her CCW.
Domestic violence bans you from obtaining, DWI bans you from obtaining, multiple and repeat offenses of crimes bans you from obtaining. Convicted for drugs be it use or distributing bans you from obtaining. Psyche issues ban you from obtaining UNLESS a doctor rules you mentally sound.
Things that are misdemeanors in NY, are felonies down here... I like that. Really discourages you to commit crimes that in turn causes you to forfeit rights. But then theres the safe act in NY that makes a felony out of anyone whos caught with an AR SKS AK platform with features and high capacity magazines... Not just a felon, a worse felon than a child molester...
As personal defense is the paramount consideration I think we should start by eliminating the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and then get rid of the rest on Federal, State and Local levels.
IMHO the decision to own and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL decision as is deciding when to use the weapon. Some uses are justified and some are not. Courts will decide.
Only if they were involuntarily committed by court order ( exceedingly rare ) and the purchase was not private party. Private party sales do not require background checks at all.
You can check out of the mental hospital, be off your meds, or be on soc sec disability for a confirmed diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenic disorder with active symptoms and buy whatever gun you'd like. No registration required either.
A guy I know got arrested for domestic violence. He was armed when the cops arrested him. ( open carry state.) When he bailed out the next day, they had to return his gun to him. That's almost asking for a DV murder. Fortunately, he wasn't able to find his victim right away.
I think those types of situations should be addressed. Outside of that? I'm from a Nevada. We like our guns. I think super restrictive gun laws are counter productive.
Yes, I read my own links, but apparently you don't, and then lie and say you did.... from the link...
You can keep typing this all you want. The truth is right there in your own link. It was for people who could not be trusted to handle their own affairs due to mental illness.
It never required "dangerous" and I never said it did, so you can call me a liar all day long, but that won't make it true. The facts are exactly as I stated them.
Because the ACLU doesn't agree with doing what was in the law does NOT mean that that wasn't was in the law.
Great. Now we have to take everybody with a serious mental illness to court? Guy is talking to invisible people and thinks that the neighbors have bugged his house, but unless someone takes him to
Court, he can go buy himself a small arsenal?
Fantastic. And this is why they call people with these far-right opinions " gun nuts" because there is zero logic in this.
You can keep typing this all you want. The truth is right there in your own link. It was for people who could not be trusted to handle their own affairs due to mental illness.
It never required "dangerous" and I never said it did, so you can call me a liar all day long, but that won't make it true. The facts are exactly as I stated them.
Because the ACLU doesn't agree with doing what was in the law does NOT mean that that wasn't was in the law.
Due process!
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.
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.
