Not So Fast, Granny. Obama Plan to Deny Social Security Recipients 2nd Amendment Rights

Some Social Security recipients would be denied their 2nd Amendment rights under Obama plan

Social Security recipients 2nd Amendment rights denied

As you know, later today our benevolent dictator, B. Hussein Obama (praise be his name), will issue his latest edicts on “gun safety,” as in trampling on that disgusting, quaint, irrelevant, and very deficient document, the U.S. Constitution. This time it’s one of the Left’s most despised provisions, the 2nd Amendment. (Aside: it is the SECOND Amendment, not the 22nd, which means it must have been pretty important to the Founders. What a passel of stupid, dead white Europeans!) The Left is relentless in its efforts to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of law-abiding citizens attempting to exercise this precious right. In their perfect world, the only people able to legally carry and possess guns would be their armed body guards and the jack booted thugs they send out to harass and intimidate the citizenry.


Oh, OK. He’s sure his latest “pen and phone” illegal act is Constitutional. Obama assured us this morning that people who say he opposes the 2nd Amendment are “twisting” his words. He knows what he’s talking about, as he assures us, because he used to teach Constitutional Law. Thanks so much, Mr. Adjunct Lecturer.

As the Washington Free Beacon reports, during a phone call with slimy apparatchiks Josh “Stonewall” Earnest, Loretta “Eric Holder in a Skirt” Lynch, and crypto-Marxist puppet master Valerie Jarrett, reporters learned that, under Obama’s planned executive order, a person selling even a single firearm might be required to obtain a federal firearms dealer license. That process involves filling out forms, getting fingerprinted, undergoing a personal interview, and, of course, paying an annual fee. This is the federal government we’re talking about, after all.

Also part of this latest gun-grabbing scheme: reviving a plan, first reported in July, 2016 by the Los Angeles Times, to add Social Security beneficiaries who have someone else help manage their financial affairs to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, effectively making them ineligible to own a firearm.

From the LA Times story, explaining that this freedom-crushing idea comes from a plan already in operation by the Veterans’ Administration:

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.” …

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence.

After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability.

The VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.

Upon being notified that he was being reported to the background check system, he gave his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back.

Overman grew up hunting in Wisconsin. After his return from Iraq, he found solace in target shooting. “It’s relaxing to me,” he said. “It’s a break from day-to-day life. It calms me down.”

Though his wife had managed their financial affairs since his deployment, Overman said he has never felt like he was a danger to himself or others.

“I didn’t know the VA could take away your guns,” he said.

The test will be whether the person involved has someone else managing his or her finances. So, if you can’t manage your checkbook or are forgetful, even if you pose no danger to anyone, your 2nd Amendment rights are kaput under this Obama plan.

If you’re saying to yourself, “wait a second. This isn’t what the background check system was designed to do, ” welcome to more hope and change in Barack Obama’s America.

Thanks again to the low-information pinheads who voted for this jackass. Yes, this is EXACTLY what you voted for.

12 comments

  1. Sorry to disagree, nut a case could be made for PTSD patients not having access to guns. IF the example was that target practice relaxed the patient, access at the range would suffice. PTSD behavior is not predictable. If a person is senile, I don’t want them anywhere near a gun. A set of common sense” guidelines should be used, not unrestricted access.
    Let the discussion begin.
    You are right though about the Mussie and his Commie cabal.

    • Of course I agree that PTSD is unpredictable, and dangerous, however, as we learned in law school, hard cases make bad law; that is, we can’t base laws for the general population on the outliers in society. There are many existing state laws that would have made it possible to take weapons away from the truly mentally ill without the VA doing so. I am always very wary of action by the faceless bureaucrats in the federal government, as I know you are. And “senile” is one thing, but being forgetful or needing help with managing financial affairs is another, no? In the case of the former, the person would no doubt be under supervision, which we hope would include restricting access to any weapons or other objects that might cause harm to himself or others.
      Thanks so much for all the great info and many comments!

  2. Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts, noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie. The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble”

    The exercise of those “other Rights” were never in question. It is the government that those Rights were enshrined to protect us from. Not some whacked out leftist. For Obama to assert there is some equality between a whacked out shooter and the government is ludicrous. As a Constitutional law bloviater, he knows this. What he is doing is criminal.

    “I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives.”

    No I can’t. As a matter of fact, I would not believe his motives were pure if he resigned from office. I’ll accept a quick impeachment, tho.

    • As usual, you shine the light of truth on the One’s deceitful Leftist schemes. He’s doing a razzle-dazzle that might trick the backward children that support him, but not us. It is pathetic and criminal. Ahh what a fun fantasy–Obama out of office … Sadly, as you know, we can’t look forward to that. So for the next year we must continue to bang the pots and pans. Thanks so much for all you do!

      • Fortunately, the back door approach to gun confiscation, i.e., expanded gun dealer licensing can not work fast enough for Obama to round up all the guns. Keep your powder dry!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

book
%d bloggers like this: