The social security administration, during the Obama years, passed a regulation that if someone was on social security and they appointed another person to handle their financial matters they could (and were) reported to the NICS as being mentally incompetent to own a gun. This was without any due process of law, the person might not have been notified, there was no legal process to find out why the person transferred the financial ability to a third person.
While this is closer to reality than what the press generally reported, its still not quite accurate. In a nutshell, the Obama administration ordered the SSA (and other agencies) to report "mentally incompetent" people to NICS, which they did. NICS then placed them on the prohibited list. Sounds simple, and correct, but it wasn't.
It wasn't correct, because of the differing definitions of "mentally incompetent" used by different federal agencies. SSA did not, and does not have the authority to rule a person mentally incompetent for anything OTHER than receiving SSA benefits. This is NOT the same as the legal standard that governs possession of firearms.
NICS has, literally, only one box to put people in, if they are reported as mentally incompetent, and that is the prohibited person box. NICS does not, and cannot investigate the data it is given, to verify its accuracy. If they are given bad data (which they were) you get a bad result.
As to expanded, indepth background checks being the fix for mass shootings, or even just a "first step", I just don't see it.
Background checks have been sold to the public as the solution, one which will work, if only we dig deep enough into peoples pasts, and do a thorough enough job at it.
It is, sadly, a lie. But one too many people are all too willing to believe.
The first point against the claim that background checks will keep guns out of the hands of the crazies is that no background check can filter out someone who is not in the system. Period.
The next point is that the argument assumes that we (the potential crazies), are all first time gun buyers. AND that we would all use only legal means to get a gun. And, that if our intent is to break the highest moral laws (by committing murder), that we would be stopped by an NCIS check.
IF a person already has a gun, (or a dozen) what could an NCIS denial do to stop them from committing mayhem & murder? Nothing.
Another point, this one against the inclusion of social history, not just criminal history in determining prohibited person status.
We have legal standards, which, if not met, mean that no matter how weird, creepy, disgusting or dangerous seeming in your personal life, you cannot legally be denied your rights.
#2 - We have FICO scores for credit, why not have a similar score for "community standing"? You get a complaint and a visit by police to your home, -CS score; get a DUI, -CS score; volunteer at homeless shelter +CS score; pay your bills on time +CS; BTW, all of this is PUBLIC info - some public records, some on social media.
This is so scary, its almost comical. The potential for abuse is tremendous. And just who would get all this information, and rate people??
Police visit to your home, you lose points? ok, any chance you would take into account WHY the police visited my home?? I doubt it. Most likely is just an arbitrary loss of points because there is a record of the visit, with nothing else taken into account.
Here's just one tiny example,
Do you know what a foundered horse is?
Basically the horse gets sick from eating too much of the wrong stuff, and it can die.
The treatment is to pen up the horse, and put it on a strict diet, until it recovers (if it does).
We had that happen, and the pen could be seen from the road. Someone who drove by regularly felt we were mistreating the horse (based on what they could see as they drove by) and called the sheriff. A deputy came by to check out the complaint. Once they learned the situation, they were satisfied we were not mistreating the horse, and left.
This happened about 4 times over the couple months we had the horse penned. Same complaint, from the same person. Each time a deputy had to come out and check. Because of the rotation, each time it was a different deputy, but eventually they all knew what was going on, and stopped responding to the inaccurate complaint.
Under your community standing score system, would I get 4 demerits because of 4 police visits??? When I had done nothing wrong?
And just how could you use such a score system, to meet actual legal standards to determine "suitability" for firearms possession?? And, who would do that, under the law??
Zum Befehl, Herr Obergruppenfuehrer!!
