SSA proposed NICS rule

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jr45, May 6, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,338
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Your objection -other than a 'slippery slope' argument- is not clear.

    Do you object to a particular aspect of the due process involved in the proposed rule? Or possibly an Administrative Law Judge making an adjudication rather than a judge in a civil or criminal court? Or are you arguing that nobody receiving mental disability benefits should be disarmed?

    Please address any deficiencies in the specifics of the proposed rule rather than expressing generalities.
     
  2. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,410
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Cut this nonsense out!

    It already is the law (18 USC 922(g)(4)) that someone:
    may not lawfully possess guns or ammunition. And applicable regulations (27 CFR 478.11) define "adjudicated as a mental defective" to mean:

    That is current law -- a baseline. This is not the time to argue about whether that's good or right. That's another matter entirely.

    Yes. The topic of this thread is certain regulations proposed by the SSA. Those need to be understood and discussed in the context of existing law.
     
  3. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
    SSA’s process makes no provision whatsoever for the individual to attend a formal hearing before an adjudicative authority, to put forth their own experts, or to cross-examining adverse witnesses. It only involves anonymous bureaucrats reviewing documents in a government-compiled.
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160429/social-security-administration-releases-proposed-rulemaking-on-disability-related-gun-ban

    Slipery slope. What is next, anyone needing mental health treatment will be banned? What about those who can't handle their finances, anyone with bad credit will be banned? Sounds far fetched? So did this proposed rule not long ago.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  4. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    That's false.

    It's spelled out I the document and I've quoted it as to how they can appeal and put forth their own evidence. They can take it to circuit court level.

    Quit relying on the NRA to argue your point for you.


    Yes they should. And that in there and I've quoted that section too. They can appeal to have their 2A Rights restored if they feel they shouldn't have it restricted.... and take that to the circuit court level too.


    How many people have actually read the document?
     
  5. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
    They are not given the opportunity to what I just mentioned prior to losing their rights.
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,410
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What is "due process" in this context. The SSA has for many years been making determinations on applications for benefits. Surely there have been challenges on due process grounds to those determinations, and surely courts have made rulings on those challenges providing guidance on what sort of procedures are necessary to satisfy due process. So some understanding of those ruling, and the due process standards which have been formulated, would be useful.

    And it might be material whether those past rulings on SSA due process issues considered whether SSA benefit determinations had consequences beyond just entitlement to benefits.

    And while it's nice to cite NRA-ILA materials, proper research should be primary source based -- not merely relying on third party, agenda based statements.
     
  7. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
    Then, does the ssa have ajudication authority to meet the batf definitions?
     
  8. yugorpk

    yugorpk member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,121
    They will have the authority once the proposed rules go into place.
     
  9. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,410
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Beats me. Trying to figure that out, and finding ways to effectively argue based on established legal principles that it does, or that it does not, is why one does research.

    Some of the things which one might need to look at:

    1. What are the criteria for being entitled to benefits for certain conditions?

    2. How would the question of whether one is entitled to such benefits be made?

    3. Under what circumstances, if any, would a favorable determination on the entitlement to benefits question necessarily mean that the applicant is "mentally defective" as defined at 27 CFR 478.11? And if so, would the benefit determination constitute "a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" for the purposes of 27 CFR 478.11?

    4. Are there bases upon which to argue, based on applicable judicial precedent, that under such circumstances such determination does, or does not, have "due process" infirmities?

    5. These proposed regulations seem to present a difficult conundrum. And applicant for benefits might have an incentive to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SSA that he is "mentally defective" in order to secure the benefits he wants. But in successfully doing so, he may disqualify himself from lawfully possessing guns or ammunition. What, if anything, have the courts said about such "scylla and charybdis" situations?
     
  11. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    I am slowly wading through the language of portions of the bill. However the key portion of the bill is in their summary.


    "Action

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.


    Summary

    We propose to implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under the proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee. We propose to provide pertinent information about these individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication process we would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibitions imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also propose to establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. The proposed rule would allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the NIAA."

    In simple layman's English the SSA wants to apply criminal sanctions based on a what is a medically defined illness.

    Furthermore justice in America comes only for those that can best afford it. Is it reasonable to expect that someone that is appealing the SSA ruling can afford a lawyer that specializes in these type of cases, can afford hiring expert witnesses to testify on his/her behalf and the legal process for appealing SSA decision.

    Most importantly where is the cause and effect relationship in all of this? That is, what is the evidence that persons with the types of mental illness the SSA defines causes crimes using a firearm?
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  12. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,338
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It appears the SSA does have the necessary adjudication authority. As Frank noted, 27 CFR 478.11 defines "Adjudicated as a mental defective" to include "A determination by ... lawful authority that a person ... Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." Federal law gives the SSA power to make decisions on benefits payments, including determining whether there will be a representative payee because a person cannot manage their own affairs.

    A representative payee is a mandatory factor in the proposed rule. Existing law provides due process around the determination to use a representative payee.

    As mentioned above, subsection (b) refers to SSA administrative hearings and subsection (g) refers to federal District Courts.
     
  13. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,410
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Balderdash! In simple English, you don't understand English.

    The criminal penalties would arise from possession of a gun or ammunition by a person prohibited under the Gun Control Act from possessing a gun or ammunition. The disqualification might be related to a medical condition, but no criminal sanction is imposed simply for having the medical condition. The criminal sanction would be imposed for possessing a gun or ammunition in violation of existing law.
     
  14. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
    The key word being the legal authority. SSA (including the alj assigned) maybe the legal authority for determining who will receive benefits but, no were in 42 U.S. Code § 405, do I see were SSA has adjudicative authority as it relates to defining someone as prohibited IAW the Brady act. If it was that clear, I am sure Obama would not have waited this long to push it. There is a very good chance that this will be settled in the courts since this move is likely the largest gun grab in history.
     
  15. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    Yes they can and it was cited from the link several times in this thread in the following posts:

    In post #2 I cited it from the text .

    Referenced / cited twice in post # 29 (in which I even referenced the page #s in the text so you can read it for yourself)

    Stated again in post# 31

    And again in post #62



    The information referenced and or cited 5 times in this thread.

    I even tried to spoon feed you by referencing the page #'s in the documents.


    All they have to do is not have some one else manage their affairs and the prohibition doesn't even come into play.



    You can pretend its not there and keep repeating blatantly false statements if you want.

    But it only proves that you're not reading and/or comprehending and/or just want to argue with out validity or merit to your statements.
     
  16. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    Virginia
    Sigh. Show me where the beneficiaries are offered relief "prior" to losing their rights? The program of relief is offered after the ajudication has occured that barred them IAW 18 USC 922. I really hope there is a method for these folks to seek relief "prior" to being reported to NICS.

    In the meantime, I brought this issue to this board as the current admin is trying to sneak this under the radar. We had a great discussion here and I also made my comments to the proposed rule on the .gov site. Based on the vast majority of the respondents on the .gov, it appear they also see this as nothing more than a huge gun grab.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  17. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,629
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    The authority for reporting of mental cases by federal agencies is the NICS Improvements Amendments Act of 2008. From the Act.


    The NRA backed The NICS Improvements Act. The NRA made this announcement at the time of the acts passage:

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20080108/hr-2640

    BTW: The federal government is pretty good at notifying folks that a decision on their part may have consequences. The VA tells folks right up front that a request for the appointment of a fiduciary will lead to a loss of gun rights.

    http://www.benefits.va.gov/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  18. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,338
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Okay; I now see why you are confused.

    Congress passed 18 USC 922 defining conditions which result in people being prohibited from owning firearms.

    One condition for prohibition in 18 USC 922 is being "adjudicated as a mental defective."

    42 USC 405 gives the SSA authority to determine whether a benefits recipient is incapable of managing their affairs, which is one of the definitions of "mental defective" in 27 CFR 478.11.

    If the condition that SSA is empowered to judge exists, Congress long ago decided that any person with that condition would be prohibited from owning firearms.

    The same situation exists with the State Department, which legally determines whether a person has formally renounced citizenship. Once that condition (renunciation of citizenship) exists, 18 USC 922 automatically applies and the person is prohibited from owning firearms.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,410
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What make you think they need specific legal authority for that? The relevant disqualifying condition here is having "...been adjudicated as a mental defective...."; that's triggered (as defined at 27 CFR 478.11) by, "A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease...." So a finding by any "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority", not just the SSA, in the course of doing whatever it is doing, that a person meets the criteria set out in the 27 CFR 478.11 definition for being "a mental defective" triggers the 18 USC 922(g)(4) disqualification.

    That doesn't mean that there might not be issues with the proposed SSA regulations, but without thoroughly understanding the underlying statutory and regulatory landscape, one can't really identify what those issues are. Tossing around "red herrings" won't help.
     
  20. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "If someone if receiving social security benefits for being "mentally defective" why would it be a stretch to say they could not own a firearm? "

    Social Security only decides if a person is unable to work for 12 months or more. Not think. Not live. Not have rights. Work. Only work.

    Is being unable to work the same as being mentally defective? Sounds like a court case to me.

    John
     
  21. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,338
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The law does charge the SSA with determining whether a person is incapable of managing their affairs.
     
  22. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "(5) Requires that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined, under the rules in part 404, subpart U of this chapter, or the rules in part 416, subpart F of this chapter, that he or she is incapable of managing benefit payments as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease."

    It appears SSA is saying that they will not report anyone who WANTS a representative payee purely for convenience. We'll see. I've seen too many SSA errors since 1974. Of course, I retired in 2012, so maybe they've improved.

    :)
     
  23. Snyper

    Snyper Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Eastern NC
    If they are unable to work due to being "mentally defective", it's one and the same.

    This proposal is nothing new. It's just being recycled in the news from 3 years ago.
     
  24. yugorpk

    yugorpk member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,121
    Try reading and comprehending the proposed action before you comment on it. Receiving SSI benefits for being "mentally defective" and having someone else manage your finances because the SSA has ruled you unable to manage your own finances because of mental illness and other qualifiers is what would disqualify a person from being able to buy and own firearms. We arent talking about "normal" disabilities or "normal" Social Security benefits.
     
  25. bowhntr04

    bowhntr04 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    Topeka, KS
    I've worked in this field for 16 years. Most mental cases other than MR allowances are given a 3 year diary and reviewed again at that time. This could end sooner if a person improves and returns to work. It takes a severe impairment to get awarded benefits. I don't see a big negative with someone not being able to purchase a firearm while suffering a severe mental impairment. Perhaps some could manage but many could not. Just my opinion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice