Sometimes you just have to wonder if the Obama Administration is trolling us at this point. The White House floated a proposal to strip Second Amendment rights from about four million of our nation’s senior citizens who receive Social Security benefits through a “representative payee.” This is personal for Bitter and I because her grandfather, at 90 years old, falls into this category, and he owns firearms that have been in the family for a long time. He’s plenty safe to handle firearms, however he has had someone else managing his affairs for him for some time. One can imagine someone elderly who might forget to pay bills if they managed their own affairs, but can still handle a firearm safely.
NRA has more to say about it here. And what is the purpose of this? Do we have an epidemic of octogenarians committing mass murder? Holding up banks? Hitting the streets and robbing people so they can get the money for their next hit of Geritol? There’s no public safety issue at work here. This is just meant to screw people for embarrassing the Administration on guns.
The thing I really hate about the Obama Administration is that it has no issue with being unjust or unfair; if you oppose its policies, you can expect it to try to stick it to you. Not stick it to Congress, or stick it to political rivals in DC, you will be made to pay. The Obama Administration has no issue taking out their anger on ordinary Americans. Bill Clinton’s Administration dealt us a number of defeats in the 1990s, and you did have the HUD deals, and other executive shenanigans, but even then I don’t remember Clinton sticking it directly to the rank and file like Obama does.
So what’s going to happen here? My guess is NRA can probably get another of the many budget riders it’s gotten out of Congress to defund any attempt by the Administration to implement this plan. I can’t imagine preventing 4 million SSA recipients from suddenly, overnight, becoming prohibited persons is going to be much of an ask to Congress.
This also illustrates the danger of trying to create “prohibited persons” classes. It starts reasonably enough: felons and schizophrenics shouldn’t have guns.
But then you start to expand the meaning of felons to mean pretty much anything…and you expand the definition of mentally ill to mean pretty much anything…and before you know it, no one is allowed to own guns! (Except for police officers and military–they may be mentally ill felons like everyone else, but we need them to have guns, because otherwise society wouldn’t be safe…)
On the other hand, I’m still inclined to think that the standard for prohibited person should be “If it’s too dangerous to hand that person a gun, then it’s too dangerous to have that person wandering around the streets by themselves without adult supervision. Either require constant supervision, or lock them up in a cell (if they are violent felons), or keep them in a mental institution and help them receive treatment.”
You’re 100% correct. If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm then they should be confined in some manner. Period!
Any free citizens should have all rights of any other free citizen….
Well I don’t know. There was a case of Hoveround rage here where an old lady shot up the local bingo hall…..
I do know that a large number of the “Gun Suicides” are elderly people ending their lives.
To which I say “Who cares?” suicide sucks, but in the end an elderly person, possibly with a terminal illness, who decide to check out a hair early.
Also the antis don’t care either, because they often play up youth and veteran suicide as much as possible.
What really inks me is that in the case of the elderly, it affects the most vulnerable of our population. Who better to have a firearm to defend themselves but someone who’s physical abilities have declined?
It’s the “Politics must be made personal” tactics of this administration that really worry me. On the other hand, the actual core administration doesn’t seem to be all *that* competent at it, given that they have decided to pick a fight with both the AARP and the NRA at the same time with this…
I seem to recall that a certain Disabled Persons organization is getting involved as well…
Is there even an avenue to make someone a “prohibited buyer” but not a “prohibited person”? Not that I would approve of the former, but it is quite dastardly to turn people into felons who can’t manage their financial affairs, but are expected to know the law changed on them and they are supposed to get rid of their guns. I could see how the target of this plan is also the would be beneficiaries who may find their inheritance confiscated, and in some states would have to go through expense and lengthly formal transfers instead of getting an “inheritance loophole” after the owner were to pass.
Another random thought: this is supposed to stop events like Newtown and Charleston…but it’s yet another proposal that would have done nothing to have stopped either of those events.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
This wonm’t do anything about mentally ill killers with other weapons like this: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/denver/judge-denies-request-of-mother-charged-in-23-month-old-sons-murder-to-attend-toddlers-funeral
This is another example of how the Lefts capture of the Deep State threatens us all. The Left intends to use their power against us. That abuse of power doesn’t have to make any kind of logical sense or have a reasonable goal, because the most important thing to the Left is punishing their enemies.
No worries. I am sure If they like their gun they will get to keep it. :)