Social Security Recipients with Fiduciaries Are Now Prohibited Persons

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
LA Times is reporting that the Obama Administration has taken executive action to expand NICS denials to Social Security recipients who have had a fiduciary appointed to receive their benefits. In essence, the same policies that the VA has been using to add people to NICS will now be applied to everyone on Social Security.

This has been ongoing since March of this year; but news of it was just released in another Friday afternoon info dump by the Administration.

ETA: This will effectively add 4.2 million people to NICS.
 
Yes, it seems one aspect isn't well understood so I should point this out in more detail. The Obama Administration is painting this as:

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
Click to expand...

The thing is, neither Social Security nor the VA can tell which of its people have fiduciaries appointed because they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs. They don't track that information because they didn't report to NICS previously. So they are just assuming that anyone with a fiduciary lacks mental capacity and reporting them to NICS.

I'd also note, this isn't limited to Social Security and the Veteran's Administration. The order went out to all federal agencies to make sure they were reporting people to NICS. So if other agencies follow suit, this could effect even more people.
 
Another reason to pull the lever for R and not D, in spite of all the folks that say that the Rs are just as bad.

The sad result of these policies is that it will steer people to have more mistrust in government, and less likely to seek treatment for mental health or similar issues.

The very people we want to seek treatment, gun owners with mental health problems, are the ones that will be deterred.
 
leadcounsel said:
The sad result of these policies is that it will steer people to have more mistrust in government, and less likely to seek treatment for mental health or similar issues.

The very people we want to seek treatment, gun owners with mental health problems, are the ones that will be deterred.
Click to expand...
QFT.
 
Would this go for anyone with a revocable living trust?
Click to expand...

If the trust is named the Responsible Payee, that is certainly possible. In requesting a "Responsible Payee" on Form SSA-11, the question is "Tell us why the payee cannot manage their finances"

Aside from the question assuming the payee is incompetent to manage finances, there is no way for SSA to easily sort that data without paying a clerk to go through 4.2 million forms by hand. It took ATF what... 18-24 months to clear a backlog of 80,000 Form 1s and 4s?

Basically, SSA is proposing doing what the VA has already been doing since 1999. So I'd expect them to follow those practices. I did some brief research, and VA requires Trusts to apply for a Responsible Payee and cites federal law for the requirement.
 
Last edited:
if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs,
Click to expand...

This part has been the law since 68. However (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) for firearms, this has to be done by a court hearing (adjudicated mentally incompetent) NOT the Social Security Administration, the VA, a doctor, or popular opinion. It takes a court to put you in the prohibited person class due to your mental state.

SO, it appears that while they what they are saying in their sound bytes is in compliance with established law, the method they are actually using to make the determination is not.

not good.
:mad:
 
44AMP said:
SO, it appears that while they what they are saying in their sound bytes is in compliance with established law, the method they are actually using to make the determination is not.
Click to expand...

It is actually even worse than that - SSA is saying it is just too hard to figure out who would be affected by applying the law as written, so they are going to assume everyone with a Responsible Payee/Fiduciary is mentally incompetent. It isn't just that they are using a method to make the determination that doesn't meet the criteria of the law - they KNOW they are including some percentage of people who aren't prohibited persons.

Of course, how SSA implements this policy remains to be seen. They've apparently been working on it quietly since March 2015. If they implement it in the same manner as the Veteran's Administration, then it will be as I described above.

I think SSA has significantly underestimated the pushback they will get from doing that though considering how many more people will be affected.

This part has been the law since 68. However (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) for firearms, this has to be done by a court hearing (adjudicated mentally incompetent) NOT the Social Security Administration, the VA, a doctor, or popular opinion. It takes a court to put you in the prohibited person class due to your mental state.
Click to expand...

On a side note, there are two mental health prohibitions: involuntary commital to a mental institution or "adjudicated mentally defective" - there is a Circuit Court split on how the latter phrase should be interpreted. In some jurisdictions, a temporary involuntary commitment for observation (which can be done on a doctor's say with no hearing) can cost you your Second Amendment rights; but the dominant view is still that you don't get deprived of Bill of Rights guarantees without due process.

It is a much longer explanation; but kind of off this topic. I can go into detail on it though.
 
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
If the trust is named the Responsible Payee, that is certainly possible. In requesting a "Responsible Payee" on Form SSA-11, the question is "Tell us why the payee cannot manage their finances"
Click to expand...
Would, "He can but he chooses to do so through a legal smokescreen" be a satisfactory answer?
 
My guns today, your guns tomorrow.

Remember...If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.

I believe they are looking at 2A sort of like "How do you eat an elephant?

Answer....One bite at a time.
 
Could this in any way make it illegal to sell via private transaction that doesn't go through NICS?
Click to expand...

It would be kind of a gray area in that a Federal agency would have entered you into NICS as a prohibited person by virtue of being "adjudicated mentally defective." But if the person in question hasn't actually met any of the criteria for that, then what? That case could go either way in the current legal environment - you'd be much better off in those jurisdictions that apply a narrower interpretation of "adjudicated mentally deficient".

I don't think that would fly in the Fifth Circuit for example.
 
motorhead0922
How many violent crimes are committed by those with a fiduciary?
Click to expand...

Or you could think of it as "how many violent crimes COULD they commit..?" Saving the children of the future, one imaginary crazed serial killer grandma at a time...

Would you please stop with that voice of reason stuff? That's just gonna ruin the dialog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top