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.
Here is what happened:
Here’s the American Association of People with Disabilities explaining what was at stake: This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Or, in layman’s terms: The rule would have allowed bureaucrats within one of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right — and on the highly questionable grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a “mental defective.”
So , if you think someone that has another handling their finances is mentally ill...well I guess that is on you.
My son has aspergers (high functioning autism). When he goes to the range, he is safer than almost anyone. Part of aspergers is being a perfectionist. He has a payee simply because he can't handle finances. I would much rather be next to him on a range than most shooters.
We believe in due process in this country. The law that was overturned unfairly took rights away from people without any means testing beforehand to fairly determine their mental fitness. It punished people without benefit of that aforementioned due process. If you are OK with that, just imagine all the other areas in which the gov't could strip YOU of your rights.
Just because a right is of no import to you doesn't mean that others should be happy to give them up. I'm not in the market for an abortion, but I support every woman's right to safely have one. I'm not gay, but I support gay marriage. See how that works?
I find it fascinating how some individuals couldn't wait until the bodies had cooled to push their gun grabbing agenda. Not to mention the continuous lies, or to be charitable call it mistaken understanding, pushing that agenda.
My son has aspergers (high functioning autism). When he goes to the range, he is safer than almost anyone. Part of aspergers is being a perfectionist. He has a payee simply because he can't handle finances. I would much rather be next to him on a range than most shooters.
I find it fascinating how some individuals couldn't wait until the bodies had cooled to push their gun grabbing agenda. Not to mention the continuous lies, or to be charitable call it mistaken understanding, pushing that agenda.
These are the same people who are completely mute on the topic in-between these tragedies. Then, when one unfortunately occurs, they lash out at the lawful gun owners who had zero involvement. Lather, rinse, and repeat after every shooting.
I have seen posted, again and again on this board, that the gunman responsible for mowing down over 600 people must have been mentally ill. Yet within his first two months as president, Donald Trump repealed an Obama administration gun regulation that prevented certain individuals with mental health conditions from buying firearms.
If we can't even agree that mentally unstable people should not be allowed to purchase guns, what hope have we to stop the mass murders that are occurring so frequently now that they have become commonplace here in America? We have essentially put ourselves at the mercy of gun-wielding lunatics, and we are expected to be okay with that. All the moments of silence today won't help tomorrow's victims.
You mean this law, that never went fully into affect?
Quote:
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.
The guy apparently was not mentally ill. He was a very shadowy person with a mysterious background but who apparently had some involvement with government ops some time past. Lockheed Martin... they're involved with the government in many shadow ops and he had a supply of money coming in that let him make big purchases and also gamble. The thing is, he was always on the move so he was involved in some kind of activity.
So what can we try to deduce from his actions? This was well planned out and had all the markings of being politically motivated. He struck at country music fans. If he had an axe to grind with the government he'd have targeted them, but instead he went after civilians. He was supposed to be a gun nut but didn't have much interest in them. Just buying them. And all those guns he had with him, its like there was supposed to be more people there. Or maybe there were...
And he picks a day right before a house vote on silencers which the feds and the left opposes. They were to have a vote back in June and on that very day there was the DC congressional shooting. These Lone Wolves sure know when and where to strike for maximum political benefit.
So this points to the gun control people who stand to gain on this. I think we better start keeping an eye on them, maybe they're the real crazies.
Here is what happened:
Here’s the American Association of People with Disabilities explaining what was at stake: This rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Or, in layman’s terms: The rule would have allowed bureaucrats within one of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right — and on the highly questionable grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a “mental defective.”
So , if you think someone that has another handling their finances is mentally ill...well I guess that is on you.
In our office (I write decisions for the ALJ's that make disability determinations), if the judge rules that there must be a representative payee, it is usually based on a finding that the claimant had a history of drug/alcohol abuse (if said abuse is material to the finding of disability, then they do not, in fact get benefits, another issue).
Other reasons involve minority (under age 18), and, more rare, due to the claimant's actual mental condition (schizophrenia with psychosis, for example). In the vast majority of cases that I see (other offices may vary), most claimant's found disabled due to depression or anxiety problems do not require a representative payee.
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.
