The Obama administration has just finalized a gun ban which aims to prevent tens of thousands of Americans from purchasing guns.
The Social Security ban targets those most in need of self-defense: the elderly.
The reasoning behind targeting the Social Security Administration for tighter regulations is staggering.
From the Los Angeles Times:
A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”
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.”
If someone has a guardian manage their pension or medical finances, by liberal logic, that person is a risk. Apparently, the elderly are a threat to public safety, and while any other sweeping generalization is bigotry, the vague notion of incompetency is more than enough reasoning to question an American citizen’s Second Amendment rights.
Mental health and disabilities advocates and experts agree the ban places a bizarre correlation between personal financial management decisions and violence.
A White House preview explains how the ban works:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
The ban, which the Federalist Papers Project warned about here, may prevent a small number of buyers with truly violent histories from purchasing guns, but places unnecessary restrictions on people who simply needed help with balancing their checkbooks. It takes rights away from many under the pretense that it may keep guns out of a few wrong hands.
We’re used to that argument from ant-gun lobbyists. Because a small minority of gun owners commit acts of violence, our rights ought to be weakened.