The future of gun control is not the “Brady Campaign” method; it is a redefining of who is “qualified” to retain their Second Amendment rights.
The jig is up; after decades of frontal attacks against our Second Amendment rights, those who have sought full-on bans and ludicrous limits to what kind of firearms and accessories one can own have failed.
Now, in keeping with the new style of gun control advocacy, the Obama Administration is seeking the means to prohibit Social Security beneficiaries from enjoying their Second Amendment rights.
In the months after Newtown, a handful of states were able to gruesomely capitalize on our national grief and pass draconian gun control laws. However, the efforts stalled on a national level and support for bans have fallen.
Now, the new wave of gun control is being fought state-by-state with outside money like Michael Bloomberg’s and, on a national level by redefining who is and who is not qualified to own a firearm. While few want the severely mentally ill to have access to firearms, the Obama Administration is seeking to lump common people into the same category as institutionalized bipolar schizophrenics as a means of keeping them from gaining lawful access to firearms.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Obama Administration is attempting to use the Social Security Administration to report those beneficiaries who do not manage their own finances. Such an inability to handle their own finances, the Obama regime argues, is a sure sign of mental instability or feebleness that should be used to deny a law-abiding citizen a firearm through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Remember, these are the same background checks the left has maintained is a “common sense” measure designed to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, the drug-addicted and the insane.
Already, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has succumbed to the pressure and reports anyone who receives their pension or disability through a third party fiduciary.
If Social Security follows suit, an estimated 4.2 million Americans who receive their checks through a “representative payee” would instantly lose their Second Amendment rights- a right, the Constitution declares, that “shall not be infringed” and which offers no additional clarification of the unambiguous wording.
“Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations.”
Already, with veterans, the Obama Administration has applied overly-broad interpretations of who is and who is not “mentally unfit” to be deemed worthy of retaining their rights. Many Americans veterans have been shocked to discover that after going abroad to fight for their country, upon their return, their adjustment period is marred by a federal government who insists that because they may have difficulty managing their finances, they are no longer allowed the right of individual firearm ownership.
The move by the Obama Administration is only the most-recent gradual steps towards disarmament. The conversation that once was centered on a belief that Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have certain guns has now shifted to a perspective that certain Americans shouldn’t be allowed to own any guns.
In the wake of several high-profile Supreme Court decisions that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, the left has shifted their tactics. While asserting that they are comfortable with individual firearm ownership, gun control crusaders like President Obama and Michael Bloomberg are eager to assert that responsible gun owners should have no issue with the government prohibiting the “mentally ill” from obtaining firearms.
Further, the determiners of who is and who is not “mentally ill” are those who have long sought the means of civilian disarmament.
If we follow this linear standard of mental illness, it’s a roundabout method of extralegal gun control: instead of deciding who is and who is not allowed to have a firearm, the government now seeks to decide who is and who is not “mentally ill” with the understanding that even the most-ardent Second Amendment supporters would agree that the mentally ill should be denied access to firearms.
Whereas once this “mentally ill” label included veterans, the Obama Administration now seeks to augment this title to include those who have been forced, for decades, to pay into the Social Security Ponzi scheme.
Thus ends today’s lesson on the dangers of incrementalism.