Press "Enter" to skip to content

15 Comments

  1. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
    Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger July 20, 2015 7:20 am

    Yep. The same tactic has been working for the VA against veterans.

    Funny though, 27 CFR 478.11 does say: “(a) 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:” (emphasis added-cb)

    That’s the rationale for letting some faceless bureaucrat disappear rights without a judge. But that’s only part of it. The part about (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” has a mandatory condition on it:

    “(b) The term shall include—
    (1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
    (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b. “

    So inability to manage one’s own affairs still requires a judge and something vaguely resembling due process. As if rules and laws applied to the feds.

    I will note something that occurred to me last night. If this is allowed to continue, it’s not much of a step from “troubled guy signed power of attorney for someone to help him with bills to anyone working contract travelling work, military deployments, or any other reason of convenience, who signs a power of attorney for someone to pay bills while he’s gone.

    I recently met a very nice, respectable lady at church (someone who makes a point of attending old style Latin Catholic Mass), who flat out asked me if I thought a revolution was coming. I told her no, because if no one has done anything yet — in the face of crap like this — they never will. That point has passed.

    And that’s why I would expect my second power of attorney scenario to also go unchallenged by the overwhelmingly vast majority of alleged Americans.

  2. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
    Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger July 20, 2015 7:28 am

    I’ll also note that — for scumbags determined to disarm all civilians — it isn’t even a whole step from from Power of Attorney being “justification” to missed bill payments are proof of incompetence to manage one’s affairs.

    Which puts an interesting additional spin on the administration’s efforts to build databases of mortgages.

  3. David Johnson
    David Johnson July 20, 2015 9:01 am

    Illinois issued Pattie a FOID card this year. She just turned 91, and has been shooting not quite three years. Shooting brings her joy, and she loves her pistol. She’s pretty proud of her FOID card, too. I expected a visit or call from the Illinois State Police because of her age, but her application went through in about one month.

  4. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 20, 2015 9:10 am

    I guess I just can’t get worked up over something like this.

    Think about it. People with one foot in the grave already, are going to allow someone to confiscate their guns? Seriously? If they allow that, then they deserve to be trampled on. The sole advantage of having nothing left to lose, is that you don’t have to take crap from anyone.

    Who cares what Obama et. al. says or does; they are scum and we should expect them to act like scum. It all comes down to the individual. I won’t be disarmed as long as I can rub two brain cells together.

  5. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 20, 2015 9:35 am

    I would suggest, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, that the reason to confiscate social security recipients weapons is that it will make it easier when they come to round the recipients up for euthanasia. This would likely be pursuant to a determination of an obamacare death panel that the subject no is no longer viable and should be terminated.

  6. Claire
    Claire July 20, 2015 10:07 am

    “People with one foot in the grave already, are going to allow someone to confiscate their guns?”

    What makes you think the people involved have “one foot in the grave”?

  7. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty July 20, 2015 1:08 pm

    Claire… I can’t speak for Paul, of course, but you know that every living thing has “one foot in the grave” from the moment of conception. Nobody lives risk free, and nobody can predict when that risk will hit them.

    And those, like me, who have lived a long life have less to lose and are far more free to resist. There are far more well armed old farts now than ever… and much as I love Carl, this doom and gloom thing just makes me weary. Nobody knows how this will all work out, or who will/won’t resist when real push comes to shove. I’d say the odds are pretty good, however. Just consider the raw number of the “enforcement” people… and all the rest of us.

    Not wanting to die is good. In my opinion, not being willing to be murdered is better, and a whole different thing. 🙂 “They” may well decide to try to take my guns. They’ll have to take some of the ammunition first… as fast as I can fire it. I don’t wear this thing for decoration. sigh

  8. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
    Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger July 20, 2015 2:17 pm

    (I have a longish reply prepared. I’m going to take some time-out before deciding whether to post it.)

  9. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 20, 2015 3:14 pm

    One foot in the grave, the other foot on a claymore trigger….

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the non violent stage. This is the same demographic that the govt still lets drive and looks to them for vote after vote. When AZ wanted to require reflex and competency tests for seniors, the outrage and voter backlash was so intense that they passed. They did manage to require a vision test after 68 I think.

    To implement on a somewhat practical level, I would guess the social security administration would simply share their databases with the FBI so that when permission is asked to buy a gun it gets refused based on age. That will be interesting to watch.

  10. Claire
    Claire July 20, 2015 3:28 pm

    Matt, FWIW, this seems to be about people on Social Security disability, not retirement (though those who are on retirement and have someone else managing their financial affairs probably qualify, too).

    Wouldn’t surprise anybody, of course, if the fedgov came up with all manner of other disqualifiers: receiving food stamps, being over 70, having defective vision or hearing, whatever.

  11. Pat
    Pat July 20, 2015 3:33 pm

    It will be more interesting to watch when we DON’T ask permission…

  12. Claire
    Claire July 21, 2015 5:13 am

    Correction to the post and to my most recent comment. Apparently this would affect everyone on any form of Social Security whose payments are handled by someone other than themselves. The SSA would just dump names into NICS based on that criteria.

    Bound to be huge lawsuits over this.

  13. Claire
    Claire July 21, 2015 9:39 am

    Intelllllesting. If this turns out to be anything but a media trial balloon, I hope the gun manufacturers recall what happened last time several of their number crawled in bed with the fedgov for anti-gun purposes, back in the Clinton days.

  14. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 21, 2015 12:02 pm

    “One foot in the grave”, maybe I was a bit insensitive. I’m 65 and I imagined anyone getting to the same age had a certain amount of fatalism about the situation, and not too hung up on political correctness.

    Still, I have to repeat the point. When the kids have flown the nest, and there is not too much to look forward to, about all “old” people have left is the ability to be “difficult”. The ability to say HELL NO, much greater than someone who still is raising a family, for example.

    Armed people cannot be disarmed by anyone but themselves. They have to AGREE to be disarmed. What self-respecting old fart would agree to that?

Leave a Reply