PolitiFact weighed in on the criticism of the Social Security Administration’s proposal to report 4.2 million recipients to the NICS database as “mentally defective” because they have a named fiduciary to handle their money. They rated this “false” on their Truth-O-Meter saying, “Obama has not made a sweeping move to disarm gun-owning senior citizens, as these websites claim. We rate the claim False.”
The problem with letting interns handle something like this is that they often don’t dig deep enough. The other problem is that there really isn’t any accountability as the intern will be returning to school in a few weeks.
NRA Fact Checks Politifact on Social Security Administration Gun GrabA recent Politifact article attempted to fact check news reports about the Obama Administration’s effort to strip the gun rights of millions of Americans who receive social security and disability benefits who also have a representative payee – someone who handles their finances.Politifact failed to consult the most relevant source of all for their story, federal law, as a result, they got it wrong.Politifact’s website identifies the writer as a “Politifact intern.”The following Politifact claims are FALSE:“The new policy would not ban all Social Security Administration (SSA) recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law.”“The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.”The facts:· Social Security Administration recipients who have a representative payee have not been deemed “mentally incompetent.” That is not a legal term recognized in federal law as it relates to prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms.· The federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to those “adjudicated as a mental defective.”· Under the proposed new policy, individuals who have representative payees would lose the right to possess any guns they might currently own and would be prohibited from purchasing new firearms.· The term “adjudication,” refers to a determination made after a judicial-type process that includes various due process protections. In no case does the federal law describe or contemplate the type of prohibition by bureaucratic fiat exercised by the SSA in developing its guidelines for those with “representative payees” assigned to their accounts.· The SSA’s representative payee system is not the type of process envisioned by federal firearms statutes.· Since 1968, federal law has barred the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”· The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.· “Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “[t]he term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.” The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.· Common reasons SSA beneficiaries request a representative payee include:– Individual lives far from banks and grocery stores and may wish to have a family member or friend make bank deposits and grocery purchases for them;– individual may not own a car and needs help with banking and shopping;– individual may simply want help paying bills, or– individual may not be good at balancing their checkbook. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(4), (g)(4). 27 CFR § 478.11. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).
2 thoughts on “NRA Corrects The PolitiFact Intern”
Publicola quite adroitly points out that the goal here is to disarm vets on social security, and the elderly are mere collateral damage: http://publicola.blogspot.com/2015/07/vets-and-purges.html
"Domestically Obama is moving to disarm what seems like old folks. I don't think that's his goal though.
"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported."
That same criteria is used by the VA. Coincidence? I kinda doubt it. Methinks this is geared towards disarming vets. If some old folks get caught in this net, no biggie, but the goal is vets.
Far fetched you say? I'll remind you of that DHS report from 2009 which listed vets, among others, as potential terrorist threats. Legislation is almost assuredly out of the question, so Obama is doing what he can (and more if one puts any stock in the Bill of Rights or that whole separation of powers notion) through executive action, and if your resources are limited you use them on what you perceive as the greatest threat within your capabilities of acting upon. In this case, it's vets."
It could be argued, quite easily I might add, that having a "representative payee" is just as much a sign of sound mental health as it could be a sign of "mental incompetence".
The key is in the phrasing of the definition of "adjudication": "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." [emphasis added]
Notice the "or" between "contract" and "manage". Authorizing a "representative payee" would, I should think, fall under the "contract" part of that sentence. Someone who has trouble managing his/her own affairs and who thus engages someone else to do it is obviously mentally aware enough to recognize a problem and seek out a solution.
Or, maybe they just don't like to do the math, and an inability has nothing to do with it.
Just my $0.02.
Comments are closed.