POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Thank you so much! I think I might be wrong on part of it, but 90% of what I said is absolutely correct. What triggers this specific rule is more finances than mental health, but it seems that it might not apply to people without mental health issues. The VA rule encompasses everyone(or at least everything I have ever read about it says that.)

No, literally most of what triggers this is mental disability. Again the five inclusion criteria:
(1) Filed a claim based on disability;
(2) been determined by us to be disabled based on a finding at step three of our sequential evaluation process that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listings;
(3) a primary diagnosis code in our records that is based on a mental impairment;
(4) attained age 18, but have not yet attained full retirement age; and
(5) benefit payments made through a representative payee because we have found him or her incapable of managing benefit payments. We will not include any beneficiary who does not meet all of those criteria in our reporting to the NICS.

So they are:

1. Disability
2. Disability
3. Disability
4. Age
5. Can't manage finances due to 1-3

So three out of the five are directly related to disability. The next is an age requirement. The final is a classification based on disability.

Can you point to the exact text that says this doesn't apply to mental disabilities?

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

No, I'm completely against fraud.

You might want to review your posts today...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Neither do I. I don't have any problem banning people with mental issues from having guns. I don't think they should use finances as a backdoor to do so though.

Point to the EXACT place where it says those who have financial issues without mental disability are included.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

It's setting up a system that asks, "Is this person mentally fit? If not, report them to the NICS and do not let them have a gun."

If someone has Alzheimer's, I don't want them to have a gun.

Had my mother been permitted access to a weapon, more than once I'd have been shot. People with Alzheimer's become easily confused and provoked once the disease hits a certain stage that they become dangerous. There was a ECW wrestler from the 70s who was in a MN nursing home (I forget his name - not much of a wrestling fan) who would become violent, like many Alzheimer's patients. He made the news because he put a few of his attendants into the hospital one day, ended up having to transfer to a more secure location.

[Drew S.]

Point to the EXACT place where it says those who have financial issues without mental disability are included.

I didn't say that at all. Review the post two below yours and get back to me.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

If someone has Alzheimer's, I don't want them to have a gun.

No disagreement there at all; I just like the secondary effect of possibly preventing fraud.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

This section should provide enough to show that this isn't about finances. It has to do with someone who meets ALL FIVE inclusion criteria:

Comment: One commenter stated,
‘‘Presumably, a current recipient who
can manage his/her own financial affairs
and is in fact receiving benefits directly
(e.g., direct deposit to bank account)
would not fall under the abovementioned
phrase, and would retain the
right to own, possess, etc., firearms. If
this is true, I would recommend making
that clearer in the [final] Rule.’’ Another
asked, ‘‘If disability benefits under Title
II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act
are NOT received through a
representative payee (i.e., a third party),
does the proposed rule to the NIAA still
apply?’’ Many commenters expressed
concern that an individual who assigns
a representative payee for a temporary
period or for convenience would be
unfairly reported for inclusion in the
NICS. A common scenario described by
commenters was that of retired
individuals who asked their children to
pay their bills during an extended
vacation. Another scenario described
was that of a mentally capable
individual with a physical disability
who, due to an inability to write checks
or drive, was assigned a representative
payee.


Response: We clearly state in section
421.110(b) of our rules that the
beneficiaries whose names we will
submit to the NICS must meet all five
well-defined criteria. We will not
include any beneficiary who does not
meet all of these criteria. We will not
report a person to the NICS simply
because the person has a representative
payee if he or she does not meet all of
the other criteria. Conversely, we will
not report information regarding an
individual who has a mental
impairment if we have not appointed a
representative payee for the individual,
because that individual would not meet
all of the criteria for NICS reporting in
our rules.
Beneficiaries cannot appoint a
representative payee, nor can we name
a representative payee without evidence
indicating that the individual is legally
incompetent or unable to manage or
direct management of his or her benefits
due to a physical or mental condition.31
We presume that a legally competent
adult beneficiary can manage or direct
the management of his benefits unless
there are indicators to the contrary.
Therefore, we do not appoint a
representative payee for beneficiaries
solely because they require assistance
with financial matters or as a matter of
convenience for the beneficiary.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Not disagreement there at all; I just like the secondary effect of possibly preventing fraud.

Oh, well, me too.

My mistake

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I didn't say that at all. Review the post two below yours and get back to me.

Which post?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Because, if it's this post:

Thank you so much! I think I might be wrong on part of it, but 90% of what I said is absolutely correct. What triggers this specific rule is more finances than mental health, but it seems that it might not apply to people without mental health issues. The VA rule encompasses everyone(or at least everything I have ever read about it says that.)

Then you couldn't be more incorrect.

Not only does it not apply to people without mental health issues, it even cautions that not all of these people with mental health issues will be included on the list.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?

Yes. They should not have a gun. In either circumstance.

ETA: In fact, I'll go a step further. In the case of B, I really don't want them to have a gun. If they are so incapacitated that they can't even manage their own finances, they are well beyond the time that their guns should have been taken away. Well beyond.

Case B is just an extreme example of case A.

ETA2: And if there is a database of A or B and a database of people who can't own guns, I want those databases linked. I don't want mentally ill people to have access to firearms.

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?

with (A) you don't know how far it has progressed. with (B) you know it has progressed to the point where they are mentally incapable of managing their affairs. They could be a multi-millionaire and be unable to manage their finances. It has nothing to do with being poor.

I think you are confusing 'can't manage their finances' (as in does not spend money wisely or set a budget and live within it) with being mentally incapable of managing finances.

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Like I said before people don't just give away control to all their finances because they really want to do that. Not that that alone should imply mental incompetency or what have you but it's just not common a occurrence.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

with (A) you don't know how far it has progressed. with (B) you know it has progressed to the point where they are mental incapable of managing their affairs. They could be a multi-millionaire and be unable to manage their finances. It has nothing to do with being poor.

To your point, the page from GPO.gov linked on Snopes goes out of its way to say just that:

Conversely, we will not report information regarding an individual who has a mental impairment if we have not appointed a representative payee for the individual