Who sez the GOP doesn't like crazies?

[rubato]

They are dedicated to making sure that no one, no matter how badly disabled mentally can be prevented from buying all the guns they want.

House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill

Updated Feb. 3 at 4:45 p.m. ET

On Thursday the GOP-controlled House voted to overturn an Obama administration rule designed to keep firearms out of the hands of some people deemed mentally ill.

The action was the latest move by congressional Republicans to undo several of President Obama's regulations on issues such as gun control and the environment through an arcane law called the Congressional Review Act.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six adults.

However, Republicans argued that the rule was unfair to some would-be gun owners.

"This is a slap in the face for those in the disabled community because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the same broad brush," said Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as reported by USA Today. "It assumes that simply because an individual suffers from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights." ..."

Death rate too low? Elect a Republican!


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Seeing as the term "mental illness" is so braod and encompasses so many types of mental problems, I can see the opposition to the implementation of this bill.
Define "mental illness" and how it applies to the bill.
Who determines that a person has a mental illness?
Who reports that diagnosis to the FBI?

The devil is in the details.

[Scooter]

It sounds pretty clear to me:

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

Call me crazy, pardon the pun, but a person so mentally ill that they are incapable of managing their financial affairs would be someone I would want to have a closer look at before allowing them to buy a gun.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So someone who can't balance a checkbook is precluded from owning a gun?
Someone who makes bad investments can't own a gun?
Someone who spends money frivolously can't own a gun?

incapable of managing their financial affairs

Define this statement. What constitutes "incapable of managing their financial affairs" and who makes that determination?

[Jarlaxle]

Rube just isn't big on that whole "due process" thing...

[Scooter]

AFAIK, incapacity in this or most other contexts is something that is determined by a court, or at the very least is something that is reviewable by a court if such a determination is disputed by the person in question. Given that we are talking about 75,000 people out of more than 10 million people who collect Social Security Disability payments, the criteria cannot possibly be anything close to as loose you are attempting to portray with your ridiculous examples. Nor would having information on them passed on to the FBI mean that they are automatically precluded from owning a gun, only that their case would be flagged for further investigation.

But hey, the Trumpanzees won't be happy until every paranoid schizophrenic in the country owns his/her own arsenal of machine guns.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So no answer for:

What constitutes "incapable of managing their financial affairs" and who makes that determination?

But hey, the Trumpanzees won't be happy until every paranoid schizophrenic in the country owns his/her own arsenal of machine guns.

Yeah I just passed a million person march demanding access to machines guns for paranoid schizophrenics.

And since when does incapable of managing financial affairs = paranoid schizophrenics?

Talk about

ridiculous examples

[Jarlaxle]

Scooter isn't all that big on due process, either.

[Scooter]

So no answer for:

What constitutes "incapable of managing their financial affairs" and who makes that determination?

I gave you an answer. Not my problem that you checked your brain at the door when you pulled the lever for Trump.

Scooter isn't all that big on due process, either.

By all means, please illuminate us on where the due process violation is here. We're all waiting with bated breath to read your erudite legal analysis.

[Joe Guy]

How are people who are incapable of managing their financial affairs going to buy a gun? People who have been determined to be incapable would have someone else managing their money.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I gave you an answer.

Who? the courts?

incapacity in this or most other contexts is something that is determined by a court, or at the very least is something that is reviewable by a court

And who recommended their "gun ownership doubts" = "inablitity to manage their own finances" to the courts or to the FBI?

I never have discussed my finacial ability or disability with my MD nor my psyciatrist.

Is my financial advisor supposed ot make that determination?

[Big RR]

oldr--here isa a link to how SSI makes the determination--I'm sure more detailed information is avaialable of you search it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK367669/

As for your second question< I think the process is that SSI will report to some database the persons receiving funds who were deemed unable to manage their personal affairs because (primarily) of cognitive disabilites. this could be used as proof of their inability to own a firearm, which would the trigger the protections given to anyone denied, including an ability to appeal to the courts. It doesn't seem like that much of an imposition to at least enhance the scrutiny before gun ownership for those who have been deemed to lack the basic capability ot manage their affairs.

[RayThom]

MENTAL ILLNESS: Refer to Donald J. Trump's press conference that started at 1 PM, February 16.

And it is only going to get worse.

God bless America.

[wesw]

what about the old fart, out in the country, who prefers to have his son manage his finances?

he doesn t know about computers and such, and it is just better for everyone if his family manages things.....

does he have to give away the shotgun that has sat beside his bed for the last 50 yrs?

does he lose his right to defend his home and his self because he isn t up to date on the new-fangled way of doing things?

the reg was far too broad.

[Scooter]

what about the old fart, out in the country, who prefers to have his son manage his finances?

He would not have been deemed incapable of managing his financial affairs, having simply made the choice himself, and therefore there would be nothing to report to the FBI.

Try harder.

[Big RR]

I think the SSI requires a documented inability to manage one's finances to make this finding. Merely permitting one's child to handle them would not be sufficient--this is more like the appointment of a guardian or conservator to handle these details which cannot be revoked at will. And even if that person is initially denied the ability t own a gun, it is not the end of everything--(s)he can still go through the appeal process(es) to prove (s)he can safely and responsibly handle a gun and that the disability leading to the appointment of a conservator (or whatever SSI calls it) does not affect that ability. IMHO, calling the ability to safely and responsibly handle a gun into question when person is required to have a conservator handle their affairs (not a trivial thing), with an appropriate appeals process, is not an overreach--it just makes sense.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Thanks for that BigRR. I read a bunch of it before my eyes started rolling into the back of my head.
From what I did read, they paint with a pretty broad brush and try to define "financial capability" then go into multiple explanations that may or may not cause one to not be "financially capable" and even more ways in how they might or might not determine financial capability.

I have no problem with "true nutjobs" being denied access/ablility to purchase firearms, just questioning the methods to determine "true nutjobbishness". "Financial capability" and their way to determine it (aka gobbely gook) does not seem to be a way to do that.

I think there is a wide chasm between the article headline Severely Mentally Ill and the line in the article mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs .

The fact that there is a legal way to challenge the ruling (aka can't buy a gun) helps but it's not something that may/should have been needed in the fist place. IMHO

"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six adults.

Was Adam Lanza financially incapable of managing his finances and thus not allowed to buy a gun.
Last I heard, he didn't buy any of the guns he used.

[Big RR]

oldr--if someone is cognitively impaired to the point where he is incapable of handling his financial affairs, I don't find it an overreach to say that there is a serious question as to whether they could handle a gun, triggering a further inquiry and proof of such capability before they may buy/own one. If it is not needed and he can own a gun, then the delay is minimal, but if he cannot, then there is one less threat removed by preventing it. I'd personally rather err on the side of the minor inconvenience of delaying gun ownership until this can be fully reviewed for someone in this position; if it turns out that most or a good number of persons incapable of handling their financial affairs are still fully safely capable of handling a gun, then the issue can be revisited and the law changed.

As for Adam Lanza and his financial capability, I don't know; but even if it wouldn't have stopped him, it might stop other potential mass murderers suffering from cognitive disabilities by at least removing one way they can get a gun.

[rubato]

Adam Lanza was armed and trained by his mother.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

How are people who are incapable of managing their financial affairs going to buy a gun? People who have been determined to be incapable would have someone else managing their money.

In CA people who have been deemed to be unable to manage their own financial affairs are placed under a court-ordered conservatorship. This process is overseen by a judge.

Spending their money is closely monitored, I doubt it very much that they could walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm for several hundred dollars. They simply don't have access to that amount of money.