GOP Votes To End Obama Rule Designed To Keep Mentally Ill From Buying Guns

[HAB911]

The expanded background check was a response to the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

WASHINGTON ― Congressional Republicans want to undo an Obama administration initiative designed to keep mentally ill people from buying guns.

The House of Representatives voted Thursday, mostly along partisan lines, to stop the Social Security Administration from telling the FBI about disability insurance recipients who have mental impairments that should disqualify them from buying guns.

The Obama administration pushed the measure as part of a broader gun control effort following the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The Social Security Administration finalized the rule in December.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association blasted the initiative as unconstitutional gun-grabbing. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced legislation to block the rule last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-gun-control-mentally-ill-obama-rule_us_5893e15be4b04061313629d3?wuyqz9j6rg3uqsemi&

[tblue37]

1. Some years ago in Kansas they got rid of the limitations on blind people having a concealed carry

permit. What could go wrong?

[Hangingon]

3. I remember reading about that.

Did any blind concealed carriers shoot anyone?

[pablo_marmol]

8. "What could go wrong?"

What could possibly be a more trite, hackneyed cliche? Why don't you provide evidence of what "went wrong".

[linuxman]

9. Well? What went wrong?

[yagotme]

16. Piqued my curiosity.

Anything go wrong?

[C_U_L8R]

2. Now they are responsible

for every crazy shooter.

[dae]

4. Otherwise their base could not purchase firearms.

[HAB911]

5. LOL! It's Obama's fault

TOO FUNNY

Republican struggles to explain why GOP just voted to let severely mentally ill people get guns

[Straw Man]

6. Mentally ill? From your link ...

Gun enthusiasts aren’t the only ones skeptical of the disability background check scheme, however. The National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency that advises the government on disability issues, has frowned on the policy.

“Including anyone beyond those who are currently prohibited from gun purchase under existing law in such an effort would advance an inaccurate and discriminatory inference that equates the need for assistance in managing finances with a presumption of incapacity in other areas of life,” the agency said in a statement last year.

Quite a stretch to equate difficulty managing finances with mental illness. How comfortable are you with making the Social Security Administration the arbiter of mental health, without due process?

[sarisataka]

7. How comfortable are you with making the Social Security Administration the arbiter of mental health,

without due process?

If it involves guns-

due process?- an idea as archaic as the Second Amendment itself. Your local police know you best and those bastions of civil liberties can decree your worthiness as a citizen. Unless a faceless bureaucracy has previously determined you are defective.

equal protection?- an idea almost as old. Local communities should pick and choose what rights may be exercised and by whom

presumption of innocence?- GWB was a true genius establishing an inviolate, opaque, list that accurately lists every person who is a threat to their fellow citizens. Beside you can always appeal if you find out you are on said list and can find an agency to file an appeal with. They are obligated to respond within your lifetime, or slightly longer, but do not have to confirm you are on the list, why you are on the list or if your appeal will be given any consideration. Be sure to include any information proving you are not the person identified on the list.

[yagotme]

11. I guess Einstein would make the list,

since it is believed he couldn't balance his own checkbook...

[ManiacJoe]

12. The title on the Huff article is rather misleading.

Or the author has some odd beliefs about what a mental illness is.

[pablo_marmol]

13. Everyone enraged by this should be enraged at Kamala Harris.

After all, she left a shit-ton of cash earmarked for mental health care sitting on the table:

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf

[Eugene]

14. The Senate voted to block the background check rule 57-43.

US Senate blocks Obama gun background checks rule

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38986147

The measure now goes to President Trump for his signature.

[Marengo]

15. Good! The rule was opposed by the ACLU and various other disability rights advocacy organizations.

I would recommend avoiding the comments section of the linked article though, the ignorance and histrionics on display are appalling.

[Rucker61]

17. The SSA Doesn't Get to Make Laws

This rule said one thing, and one thing only: that recipients of SSID and SSI funds, which are dispersed by the SSA, who had been assigned a representative payee due to mental incompetence should have their names sent to NICS as prohibited persons.

Although the SSA claims that anyone who has been assigned a representative payee has been declared mentally incompetent by a court, there's no proof that this is the case. There's also no support for a claim that those so declared incapable of managing their funds are dangerously mentally ill. There are likely thousands of mentally ill SSID and SSI recipients who are capable of managing their money and therefore not on the list. No other mentally ill people get their names sent to NICS unless they've been adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court of law or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, in accordance with 18 USC 922(g). This law is still in effect.

When ACLU and ARC is against the rule, that should tell you that it's a bad rule.

[gopiscrap]

18. welcome to DU