Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree24Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 3rd, 2017, 10:52 AM   #21
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Now that's a deflection.
You tried equate a God given unalienable right to abortion, which is not an unalienable right, not in the Constitution, and violates the Constitution as applied to states.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 10:52 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 8,970
Here we go again on this gun thing. Give a disassemble and assemble test in total darkness. If the person can disassemble and assemble in less than two minutes, gun license.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 10:58 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 5,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The law did not require anyone to be declared mentally compromised. The law has two criteria: could not work because of any mental disorder and unable to manage their SS benefits without help.

I'm sorry, have you or anyone you know EVER tried to get SS disability ?? It's damned hard and getting it for a "mental" disorder is extremely difficult and time consuming. It can take months, sometimes more than a year to get it, IF you get it. Usually by the time you do, you've lost everything.

So now here you are, talking directly to the government telling them you are mentally disabled to the pint that you cannot work nor manage your own finances. The applicant is volunteering this information in return for the paycheck they will receive from the government.

I don't see a lack of due process when you volunteer the information.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:03 AM   #24
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I'm sorry, have you or anyone you know EVER tried to get SS disability ?? It's damned hard and getting it for a "mental" disorder is extremely difficult and time consuming. It can take months, sometimes more than a year to get it, IF you get it. Usually by the time you do, you've lost everything.

So now here you are, talking directly to the government telling them you are mentally disabled to the pint that you cannot work nor manage your own finances. The applicant is volunteering this information in return for the paycheck they will receive from the government.

I don't see a lack of due process when you volunteer the information.
Volunteering information is not part of due process other than in a formal and structured hearing defending oneself against a pending action.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:18 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Overturning the law is a win for due process. There was no due process to deny a class of individuals the right to purchase a firearm. Obama gave the SSA plenary power to add someone's name to the firearm national background list that would block them from purchasing a firearm with no due process.
You're just plain wrong. From the rule:
These final rules implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We will provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. These changes will allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.
With a finer focus:
Regarding the suggestion that we consider an individual's propensity for violence, aggressive behavior or self-destructive behavior before we refer an individual's record to the NICS, the relevant Federal law and implementing regulation do not require us to find that a beneficiary has a propensity for violence, aggressive behavior, or self-destructive behavior before we report his or her name to the NICS. The governing ATF regulation defines the Federal mental health prohibitor as involving a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease, is a danger to himself or to others; or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

The regulation distinguishes between (1) the requirements of being a danger to one's self or others; and (2) the lacking of mental capacity to contract or manage one's affairs. The DOJ Guidance specifically notes that records relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor include agency adjudications of an individual's inability to manage his or her own affairs, if the adjudication is based on marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease, and it includes certain agency designations of representative or alternate payees for program beneficiaries. Accordingly, in light of the ATF regulation and DOJ Guidance, we believe that we are required to find that an individual meets the requirements for the Federal mental health prohibitor if he or she meets either of the two factors set out in the ATF regulation.
Due process is integral to the determinations made by SS.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:19 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 15,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Here we go again on this gun thing. Give a disassemble and assemble test in total darkness. If the person can disassemble and assemble in less than two minutes, gun license.
How dumb.
Hollywood is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:21 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I'm sorry, have you or anyone you know EVER tried to get SS disability ?? It's damned hard and getting it for a "mental" disorder is extremely difficult and time consuming. It can take months, sometimes more than a year to get it, IF you get it. Usually by the time you do, you've lost everything.

So now here you are, talking directly to the government telling them you are mentally disabled to the pint that you cannot work nor manage your own finances. The applicant is volunteering this information in return for the paycheck they will receive from the government.

I don't see a lack of due process when you volunteer the information.
No lack of due process is occurring.

What's occurring I noted in the OP: Anything Obama - BAD!

Americans can't agree on the wisdom of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally impaired. Thing are next to hopeless for the US of A.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:26 AM   #28
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You're just plain wrong. From the rule:
These final rules implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We will provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. These changes will allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA.
With a finer focus:
Regarding the suggestion that we consider an individual's propensity for violence, aggressive behavior or self-destructive behavior before we refer an individual's record to the NICS, the relevant Federal law and implementing regulation do not require us to find that a beneficiary has a propensity for violence, aggressive behavior, or self-destructive behavior before we report his or her name to the NICS. The governing ATF regulation defines the Federal mental health prohibitor as involving a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease, is a danger to himself or to others; or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

The regulation distinguishes between (1) the requirements of being a danger to one's self or others; and (2) the lacking of mental capacity to contract or manage one's affairs. The DOJ Guidance specifically notes that records relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor include agency adjudications of an individual's inability to manage his or her own affairs, if the adjudication is based on marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease, and it includes certain agency designations of representative or alternate payees for program beneficiaries. Accordingly, in light of the ATF regulation and DOJ Guidance, we believe that we are required to find that an individual meets the requirements for the Federal mental health prohibitor if he or she meets either of the two factors set out in the ATF regulation.
Due process is integral to the determinations made by SS.
I am correct. That is a long left-wing screed of how they are going to violate due process. The presumption of guilt is a violation of due process. Having an avenue after is a violation of due process. The most basic fundamental of American law is the due process's presumption of innocence, not guilt. That is the American rule of law.
Thanks from excalibur
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:29 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I am correct. That is a long left-wing screed of how they are going to violate due process. The presumption of guilt is a violation of due process. Having an avenue after is a violation of due process. The most basic fundamental of American law is the due process's presumption of innocence, not guilt. That is the American rule of law.
You're wrong. No presumption of guilt is involved.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2017, 11:31 AM   #30
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You're wrong. No presumption of guilt is involved.
I am correct. Your post was a description of how they are violating due process.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
gun, house, mentally, obama, overturn, restricting, rule, sales, severely, votes



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
House Votes to Allow D.C. Employers to LongWinded Political Talk 8 May 2nd, 2015 07:39 AM
Texas Execution of a Severely Mentally Ill Man Would Be an Outrage LongWinded Current Events 47 December 6th, 2014 01:45 PM
Senate Votes 79-18 On Amendment To Overturn Citizens United skews13 Current Events 19 September 11th, 2014 05:42 PM
House Votes To Defund NPR npr Current Events 11 March 17th, 2011 06:14 PM
Man Severely Beaten for Wearing Obama Shirt tadpole256 Politicians 13 December 26th, 2008 04:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.