ACLU: the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...
Using the Congressional Review Act -- which allows Congress to roll back regulations imposed by the executive branch -- the Republican-controlled House and Senate voted to send the bill to Trump's desk.

...those who would have been reported by the agency had to meet two main criteria: a) They were receiving full disability benefits because of a mental illness and couldn't work and b) they were unable to manage their own benefits, thus needing the help of a third party to do so.

...
Interestingly, the rule had opponents across a wide spectrum. Both the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union spoke out against it.
The ACLU, which advocates for people with mental health struggles, said the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent. The organization argued in a letter to members of Congress that there's no data to support a connection between receiving disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/guns-mental-health-rule/

Any thoughts?

[PoliticAverse]

1. They're right. n/t

[Phoenix61]

2. If someone can't manage basic

adult life skills, I'm not comfortable putting a gun in their hands. For their safety as well as everyone else's.

[HAB911]

3. I mean

What's the worst that could happen? LOL

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. In your opinion, are there any other legal restrictions they should be subject to?

[HAB911]

11. Do you always answer a question with a question?

What's the worst that could happen? LOL

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. I do when I run across deliberately vague allusions- but because you asked again:

Someone would now have to actually pursue revocation in a court of law, with the allegedly incompetent person
able to challenge the proceedings, all while having the right to counsel- IOW, they couldn't be unilaterally stripped
of the right to possess firearms.

I could see how this would be problematic for those of a controlling mindset...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Should they be allowed to vote? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. I think your question will probably go unanswered, as will mine in post #7

That sort don't care for awkward questions, as they raise uncomfortable issues...

[HAB911]

12. That sort?!

LMFAO

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. In point of fact, you *didn't* answer his question.

[kudzu22]

5. There are many reasons someone can't manage their affairs

that don't make them a danger to society. Let's not curtail anyone's rights nor perpetuate stereotypes.

[Phoenix61]

8. For SSI there are not a lot of reasons for a payee

There has to be documentation from a medical professional that the individual is incapable of managing their affairs. Most often it is due to mental retardation. I think those individuals are at greater danger of hurting themselves or when law inforcement gets involved with them being hurt. No, I don't think they are mass shooters or inherently violent but I also am not comfortable with someone with the cognitive ability of a 10-12 year old buying a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Are there any other restrictions that you feel such persons ought to be subject to?

[yagotme]

17. Sure, lots of things. Lock them up.

After all, they COULD be a danger to themselves, or others. Good enough reason for some, it seems.

Now where did I put that sarcasm thingy again?

[benEzra]

16. Being bad at math should not result in felony-class penalties.

Revoking the rights of everyone with any sort of mental disability as if they were a danger to themselves or others is fundamentally unjust. People with nonviolent disabilities are more likely to be *victims* of violence, and less likely to perpetrate it, than the average citizen, as the ACLU pointed out.

[TupperHappy]

10. I supported revoking the rule.

We already have judicial hearings to determine whether a person is considered mentally incompetant, and therefore should not be allowed to own guns. In these the defendant enjoys all the protections of due process, right to examine evidence and question witnesses, and the burden of proof falls on the govt. to justify revoking the right. Note that this process remains unaltered by the rule revokation.

This rule would have completely side-stepped that process, no due process, no judicial hearing. All 75K of affected folks would be lumped together with no distinction among degrees of mental handicap, and their rights revoked with the scrawl of a pen. They would have to beg and grovel before the govt. to get their rights restored after the fact. It was a horrible policy and I'm glad it's gone.

[Throck]

13. I don't like the idea of stereotyping any group of people.