{"id":40835,"date":"2015-08-03T17:53:31","date_gmt":"2015-08-03T21:53:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunsamerica.com\/blog\/?p=40835"},"modified":"2015-08-03T17:53:31","modified_gmt":"2023-08-18T22:19:09","slug":"fact-check-social-security-administration-gun-grab","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gunsamerica.com\/digest\/fact-check-social-security-administration-gun-grab\/","title":{"rendered":"Fact Check: Obama’s Social Security Administration Gun Grab"},"content":{"rendered":"

The National Rifle Association put out the following rebuttal to a Politifact article that accused the nation\u2019s gun lobby of blowing smoke with respect to the Obama administration\u2019s Social Security gun grab.<\/p>\n

The NRA response was authored by Catherine Mortensen, a media liaison for the group\u2019s Institute for Legislative Action. \u00a0She fact-checked the fact checkers!<\/p>\n

Fact Check\u00a0<\/em><\/h2>\n

A recent Politifact article<\/a> attempted to fact check news reports about the Obama Administration\u2019s effort to strip the gun rights of millions of Americans who receive social security and disability benefits who also have a representative payee \u2013 someone who handles their finances.<\/em><\/p>\n

Politifact failed to consult the most relevant source of all for their story, federal law, as a result, they got it wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n

Politifact\u2019s website identifies the writer as a \u201cPolitifact intern.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The following Politifact claims are FALSE:<\/em><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \u201cThe new policy would not ban all Social Security Administration (SSA) recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. \u201cThe policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The facts:<\/em><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Social Security Administration recipients who have a representative payee have not been deemed \u201cmentally incompetent.\u201d That is not a legal term recognized in federal law as it relates to prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms.<\/em><\/li>\n
    2. The federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to those \u201cadjudicated as a mental defective.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
    3. Under the proposed new policy, individuals who have representative payees would lose the right to possess any guns they might currently own and would be prohibited from purchasing new firearms.<\/em><\/li>\n
    4. The term \u201cadjudication,\u201d refers to a determination made after a judicial-type process that includes various due process protections. In no case does the federal law describe or contemplate the type of prohibition by bureaucratic fiat exercised by the SSA in developing its guidelines for those with \u201crepresentative payees\u201d assigned to their accounts.<\/em><\/li>\n
    5. The SSA\u2019s representative payee system is not the type of process envisioned by federal firearms statutes.<\/em><\/li>\n
    6. Since 1968, federal law has barred the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who \u201chas been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.\u201d[1]<\/em><\/li>\n
    7. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an \u201cadjudication\u201d as a \u201cdetermination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.\u201d This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.[2]<\/em><\/li>\n
    8. \u201cCommitted to a mental institution\u201d is defined as a \u201cformal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.\u201d The definition makes clear that \u201c[t]he term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.\u201d The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[3]<\/em><\/li>\n
    9. Common reasons SSA beneficiaries request a representative payee include:<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n