Senate Votes to Ax Obama-Era Gun Rule

[Revmitchell]

The Republican-led Senate has voted to revoke an Obama-era regulation that nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007″.

According to Click On Detroit,The Obama administration measure required the Social Security Administration to include the names of beneficiaries with mental health issues who also have a third party to manage their benefits.

Critics called the rule “too broad” and claim it “unfairly stigmatized the disabled.” The vote scored 57 to 43 in favor of revoking the regulation, which is now on its way to President Trump’s desk, who is expected to sign it.

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/02/15/breaking-news-senate-votes-ax-obama-era-gun-rule/

 

[StefanM]

I don't believe for one second that stigma was a deciding factor in considering this issue.

I'm also not sure how much difference the regulation would have made, though. Those receiving disability benefits for mental disorders and also have a representative in their finances---that wouldn't seem to be a large group, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm also writing from the perspective of someone who has a severe mental illness, so I'm not trying to blast the mentally ill.

That being said, if you are getting paid by the government because your illness makes you unable to work, and you are unable to manage your finances, too....I really don't see why it's so important to ensure that someone like this should be able to buy a gun.

 

[Revmitchell]

1. The law was too broad
2. There is no good reason to create this law.
3. There is a huge risk of this law being used for more broadly than what is being purported by those supporting it. I, as many many Americans, have no reason to trust it to be just what it says.

 

[Rolfe]

Restrictions are easily imposed and difficult to remove.

 

[righteousdude2]

I don't believe for one second that stigma was a deciding factor in considering this issue.

I'm also not sure how much difference the regulation would have made, though. Those receiving disability benefits for mental disorders and also have a representative in their finances---that wouldn't seem to be a large group, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm also writing from the perspective of someone who has a severe mental illness, so I'm not trying to blast the mentally ill.

That being said, if you are getting paid by the government because your illness makes you unable to work, and you are unable to manage your finances, too....I really don't see why it's so important to ensure that someone like this should be able to buy a gun.

I was not going to dislike your comments, but the "funny" button didn't quite fit my feelings for what you said, in the paragraphs above.

 

[rsr]

I was not going to mark your comments funny, but the "dislike" button didn't come close to my feelings for what you said, in the paragraph above.

 

[rsr]

Real news: Senate repeals law that affects few people because it looks good in the re-election campaign without any thought about why it might have been enacted in the first place.

 

[Revmitchell]

Real news: Senate repeals law that affects few people because it looks good in the re-election campaign without any thought about why it might have been enacted in the first place.

See folks this is an example of liberals not getting what is actually going on but commenting on it anyway. It matters not how many people it effects, however, if the argument is to be followed then one should also agree that since it effects so few people it should never have been put into place to begin with.

Anyway what matters not is that the 2nd amendment not be infringe on for dubious reasons. Further, it looks like it was a foot in the door for abuse to remove the rights of far more than need be.

 

[rsr]

See folks, this is an example of someone lying and feeling free to do so because he never gets called on it.

I am not a liberal, but the Rev. insists that everyone who doesn't believe as he does is one of the hated L words. A tactic he and many others on the board have used with smug righteousness for many, many years.

... not getting what is actually going on but commenting on it anyway.

If it were true, I would hardly be the first. Besides, what is "actually going on:? The good Rev. didn't say, except to call names. But perhaps he will make it clear ...

It matters not how many people it effects,

Ah, but it does politically.

however, if the argument is to be followed then one should also agree that since it effects so few people it should never have been put into place to begin with.

I see. murder statutes, after all, affect relatively few people. Guess we don't need them either.

Anyway what matters not is that the 2nd amendment not be infringe on for dubious reasons. Further, it looks like it was a foot in the door for abuse to remove the rights of far more than need be.

Let's see all the facts not in evidence: that this so-called infringement of the 2nd Amendment was for "dubious reasons" and it was a "foot in the door for abuse and to remove the right of far more than need be (whatever that means).

No evidence to support any of these statements. Just typical knee-jerk name calling and reflexive acknowledgement of America's worship of the gun come hell or high water.[/QUOTE]

 

[carpro]

I

I'm also not sure how much difference the regulation would have made, though. Those receiving disability benefits for mental disorders and also have a representative in their finances---that wouldn't seem to be a large group, but perhaps I'm wrong.

The rule wasn't aimed at those that were "receiving disability benefits for mental disorders". It applied to anyone collecting social security benefits, but are for one reason or another, unable to handle their affairs, whether it be dealing with insurance companies, keeping up with multiple prescriptions, or just unable to write checks because of arthritis or vision impairments. It would also be imposed on those that needed help with their affairs temporarily, but the ban would be permanent.

I don't know if your mischaracterization was intentional or because you just didn't understand what the rule was all about. either way, as the rev stated, it was much too broad.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am not a liberal, but the Rev. insists that everyone who doesn't believe as he does is one of the hated L words. A tactic he and many others on the board have used with smug righteousness for many, many years.



If it were true, I would hardly be the first. Besides, what is "actually going on:? The good Rev. didn't say, except to call names. But perhaps he will make it clear ...



Ah, but it does politically.



I see. murder statutes, after all, affect relatively few people. Guess we don't need them either.




Let's see all the facts not in evidence: that this so-called infringement of the 2nd Amendment was for "dubious reasons" and it was a "foot in the door for abuse and to remove the right of far more than need be (whatever that means).

No evidence to support any of these statements. Just typical knee-jerk name calling and reflexive acknowledgement of America's worship of the gun come hell or high water.

[/QUOTE]

Yes because saying people worship the gun is neither reflexive or knee jerk.

 

[rsr]

Not in this case. You have a long track record here. Anyone can look it up.

Tell me: Are there any limitations on the right to bear arms?

 

[rsr]

Besides, I see no response that my charge that you are a liar. I guess it must be true.

 

[rsr]

I don't know if your mischaracterization was intentional or because you just didn't understand what the rule was all about. either way, as the rev stated, it was much too broad.

Any mischaracterization is based on the Rev's initial post, I guess. Still, does it appear likely that someone will try to fix it,or is it just a reflexive repeal? I'm saying no.

 

[carpro]

Tell me: Are there any limitations on the right to bear arms?

Of course.

 

[carpro]

Any mischaracterization is based on the Rev's initial post, I guess. Still, does it appear likely that someone will try to fix it,or is it just a reflexive repeal? I'm saying no.

As someone else said, it actually affected few people.

Basically, it was unneeded in the first place. There are already restrictions on ownership of firearms for the mentally ill.

 

[TCassidy]

Tell me: Are there any limitations on the right to bear arms?

In my opinion, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment, there should be no limits on any law abiding citizen owning the firearm of his choice and carrying that firearm in any manner he sees fit as long as doing so does not harm another.

 

[Shadowlands]

Improvement Amendment, my foot! The only "improvement" there would mean
more Democrat rules over gun owners. I know where to get a gun, no questions
asked, no paperwork, no background checks, for $50.00 so forth. So much for
"improving public safety."

But I'm a good guy. I purchased all my firearms legally from a gun store after filling
out an ATF Form 4473.