Social Security Recipients with Fiduciaries Are Now Prohibited Persons

[steve4102]

^^ What checks?

My SS payment is electronic into a joint account with my wife.

 

[TwinReverb]

I don't think anyone will cry too loudly if some elderly person that can not manage his or her own financial affairs, has their right to own and use firearms taken away.

However, if we allow that to happen with out due process, we have allowed the fox to enter the hen house.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[Pistola]

Taking gun rights away in tiny increments. After a while, it adds up.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Dudedog]

I don't think anyone will cry too loudly if some elderly person that can not manage his or her own financial affairs, has their right to own and use firearms taken away

If you are that anyone I think you might!

My mother worked in banks for 15 years. Lots of people who for some reason or another (she could create a list with couple Drs and a few laywers and ....etc) were unable to balance thier checkbooks. If in old age someone needs assistance with managing thier finances and has someone appointed to help I just don't see that as a qualifing reason to take thier right to own firearms away.

Many old people have issues that I would agree should prevent them from owning firearms, but thier ability to manage thier financial affiars is not one of them.

Also just because someone is drawing as disabled, that should not put them on the list.
For example confined to wheelchair = disabled not = unable to safetly own and use firearms.

 

[Mojosams]

Voluntarily selected a "Representative Payee"

To let most of you know how dangerous and infringing upon our "Rights" this move is, in 2009 I was approved for SSA Disability (not by my choice, but by my employer). I suffered certain "physical" restrictions that prevented me from performing my duties as an "Aircraft Mechanic". When my wife and I went to the SSA to set up our type of payments, I was asked, "Do you want to designate someone as your 'Representative Payee?" When I asked why, the SSA Rep responded, "...in case something were to happen to you..." I asked that if I were receiving payments "normally" in my name and something were to happen to me physically or mentally, "...Would my Wife be able to continue to receive my monthly benefits?" The SSA Rep responded "NO". My Wife would first have to come back to the SSA and fill out all sorts of paperwork, which could take up to 3 months to be accepted before she would start receiving my benefits. I then asked, "...If I were to designate my Wife as my Representative Payee, would she continue to receive my benefits if something were to happen to me? The SSA Rep said, "...Yes, she would always be in charge of my benefits..." (even though to this day I manage ALL of my monthly benefits through 'On-Line Banking', and the fact that I have NEVER been seen by a Psychiatrists nor a Psychologists for any Mental reasons!) So, based solely on that scenario, I designated my wife as my "Rep-Payee", and now I am in jeopardy of losing my "Rights" to purchase and own Firearms, plus my Concealed Weapons Permits of 19 years would immediately be revoked! There was NEVER any Court order, nor any order from any type of physician to require me to have a "Rep-Payee". Now, without any "DUE PROCESS" of law, I will lose all of my Gun rights by the stroke of a pen from that illegal alien sitting in the White House as our [p]Resident!

 

[Ed Ames]

...I was asked, "Do you want to designate someone as your 'Representative Payee?" When I asked why, the SSA Rep responded, "...in case something were to happen to you..." I asked that if I were receiving payments "normally" in my name and something were to happen to me physically or mentally, "...Would my Wife be able to continue to receive my monthly benefits?" The SSA Rep responded "NO". ...

If you want to add insult to injury:

At least with retirement benefits, the payments are made automatically by electronic deposit to a bank account. If someone (e.g. a spouse or child) is a joint owner of that bank account, she or he has full control over those funds and can pay your bills, etc., without being designated as a representative payee.

I know a person who has had multiple strokes and cannot function independently, period, but he is paid his SS benefits directly. He is in fact incompetent to handle his own affairs but there has been no need to make that official. His wife is joint on his bank accounts and handles everything. He would NOT be caught in this net.

He is far from alone. There are certainly thousands, maybe millions of people who are no longer competent to manage their own affairs, but who do not have representative payees, because the person who would act as a representative payee already has access to the funds and manages things well enough that it never comes to the attention of the SSA. Those people are in fact incompetent but would not be reported.

 

[Hondo 60]

This is a slippery slope we don't want to go down.

Anyone who's rights are taken away absolutely must be adjudicated "deficient".

 

[Valkman]

in 2009 I was approved for SSA Disability (not by my choice, but by my employer)

My situation too. When I went on Long Term Disability through my company many had been on it for years and I thought I would be too, because they said they couldn't find me another job inside the company. Then the contract changed and you HAD to get on SSD or be terminated after 3 years on LTD. Me and my wife did not think making her my Payee would be a big deal either.

 

[1911 guy]

I have noticed something. While we have won major victories at the state level across the country as well as a couple court cases at the federal level, those victories ring hollow because actions are being taken by non-elected government functionaries to strip rights away from citizens.

As for AARP getting in the mix, I surely hope not. They are rabidly anti-gun. Elected officials are not going to weigh in and if they do it will be token lip service. After all, they didn't vote for it and it comes from a faceless bureaucracy. The number of people affected by this who are NOT otherwise prohibited is small, considering the percentages. Not enough for SSA to be bothered by if they're the only ones protesting the change.

Is anybody else seeing a ramp up in "policy change", rather than legislation, to limit 2A rights? Either my tinfoil hat is too tight or they've realized they won't win in the courts or public opinion (yet) and are back-dooring the issue.

 

[JRH6856]

Is anybody else seeing a ramp up in "policy change", rather than legislation, to limit 2A rights? Either my tinfoil hat is too tight or they've realized they won't win in the courts or public opinion (yet) and are back-dooring the issue.

It isn't just 2A. Obama has said if Congress will not give him the legislation he wants, he will act without Congress to the full extent of his Executive authority as President. But when he taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago, it is said that he suggested that the President has a lot more executive authority than most people think and most Presidents have exercised. He is now using that authority to do what he thinks needs to be done with or without Congress. The Iran nuclear deal is the latest example, but he has also said he is most disappointed with the failure of Congres to enact stricter gun control and he will spend the rest of his time in office doing what he can without Congress. But no one is really sure just how much authority he thinks he has.

 

[steelerdude99]

It isn't just 2A. Obama has said if Congress will not give him the legislation he wants, he will act without Congress to the full extent of his Executive authority as President. But when he taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago, it is said that he suggested that the President has a lot more executive authority than most people think and most Presidents have exercised. He is now using that authority to do what he thinks needs to be done with or without Congress. The Iran nuclear deal is the latest example, but he has also said he is most disappointed with the failure of Congress to enact stricter gun control and he will spend the rest of his time in office doing what he can without Congress. But no one is really sure just how much authority he thinks he has.

JRH6856, I concur that he'll try. There is very little dis-incentive for trying to push the envelope on expansion of presidential powers. Short of impeachment, there is no penalty for failing to expand powers, other than a court of law saying you “MAY NOT do that”. I intentionally used the word MAY rather than CAN. Like a restraining order "MAY NOT do that" does not stop the action from happening; it only says what “is allowed”. The enforcement of that presidential “MAY NOT do that” is the responsibility of the president. Is that not "fox guarding the hen house"?

There was even a movement in the first part of the twentieth century to expand the powers of the president by bypassing congress during FDR’s tenure. Thankfully that did not happen as it may not even be the current guy that’s the problem, it may be their successor or the one after that. Just remember, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

chuck

 

[barnbwt]

"Is anybody else seeing a ramp up in "policy change", rather than legislation, to limit 2A rights? Either my tinfoil hat is too tight or they've realized they won't win in the courts or public opinion (yet) and are back-dooring the issue."

It's not just an increase, it is actually accelerating rapidly. Basically, I think Obama has been operating independently of congress as much as he can long enough, that he's finally starting to get the hang of it. Find some area of regulation that is equal parts obscure, complex, and purposely vague *cough* taxes/epa/atf *cough* then go to town on it. Dare the courts and opponents to strike it down, because it won't happen within five years and by then will have its own inertia. Even if eventually struck down, opponents will have expended infinitely more resources than it took to implement the unconstitutional regulation in the first place, and many more will have already supplanted it like a Hydra.

See my sig line for a far, far, far more insidious tactic than this Social Security stuff, which affects everyone. Oh yeah, the ATF's now on track to essentially shut down the entire market for ammunition larger than 50 caliber, aside from what they've exempted (shotguns, big game nitros, and possibly, for now, certain types of BMG). The firearms trust rule change and, yes, M855 ban are actually still hanging out there like a sword of Damocles. But it's early, yet, so there'll be something else before 2016.

TCB