(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

What other rights should you lose?

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Plenty of people can't manage their finances. See: most lottery winners and former professional athletes.

(02-15-2017 09:12 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Plenty of people can't manage their finances. See: most lottery winners and former professional athletes.

Hell, most soldiers can't manage their finances.

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

Anyone with lots of credit card debt and bad credit should be precluded from gun ownership according to liberals.

If they are over the age of 18 and don't have a felony I say **** it. Let them own guns and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong?

(02-16-2017 01:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

that already happened. when a judge had his say in dictating they couldn't manage their finances.

This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

(02-16-2017 10:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  If they are over the age of 18 and don't have a felony I say **** it. Let them own guns and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm honestly ok with some other restrictions but when talking about a constitutional right you can't through a blanket as big as "mentally ill" in there.

I'm not saying I have the answer as to how small we make the blanket but it's a conversation worth having.

(02-15-2017 05:32 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  I get all my self defense objects from private dealings to begin with, so what would exactly be stopping them from doing so in the first place?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

Handguns, even in a private transaction, require a permit (at least in NC) depending on the definition of "mentally ill" one wouldn't be able to legally purchase a handgun without said permit.

Not really much in there that would have prevented someone from purchasing a long gun from another individual.

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

That is a very good point. Where exactly does PTSD fall? Is it considered a temporary condition?

Consider the fact that some of the recent domestic terrorist attacks have come from former soldiers.

Good question. Is depression temporary? Is having the blues? Is not being able to sleep well?

Define mental condition and you can define what is a limiting condition regarding firearms.

(02-15-2017 05:33 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Wouldn't you rather have the "mentally ill" be on record as buying them?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

The big problem is the definition of "mentally ill" and the way the data is collected.

Personal anecdote on the topic:

My grandfather is 91. He does everything on his own but lives with me as a precaution. He drives the 15 miles into town, goes grocery shopping, doctors appointments, etc. He manages his own medications, about 6 pills a day, and goes to the doctor on his own.
Sometime last year he was assigned a PA at his doctor's office (which he has been going to and seeing the same doctor for 40 years) who asks him a bunch of questions on every visit. (I know because I have accompanied him to the doctors office when he was sick and didn't feel up to driving himself.) She asked him about his living situation and he told her he lived with me. I informed her that I don't provide any sort of care, but she still put down that he doesn't/can't (thats the way it was worded on the form) live on his own. She asked if anybody helped with his medication and he said that he did it on his own, but told her I'll pick up his prescriptions for him (pharmacy is 20 miles away and he isn't in town everyday). She marked that he had assistance with his medications. She asked if he managed his own finances. He replied that he did, but I wrote checks for him and he signed them. (At 91 his writing isn't exactly perfect anymore). She wrote down that he needed assistance with finances. I told her he was perfect capable of doing all himself and she asked him if he was comfortable doing so and he replied yes, but didn't make that note on the form.

That's three different questions that can be used to determine he is unfit to own firearms since according to the PA he requires assistance with living/medications/finances. GTS is correct in his comment, this isn't just restricted to true "mentally ill" or even unstable people. It's an undo infringement on second amendment rights. It was too broad of a net cast and needed to be overturned.

(02-16-2017 10:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

that already happened. when a judge had his say in dictating they couldn't manage their finances.

No they didn't.

When it is something as significant as a Constitutional right it needs it's own, standalone hearing.

Does this mean the Spin Room Liberals can have guns now?

(02-16-2017 11:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:33 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Wouldn't you rather have the "mentally ill" be on record as buying them?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

The big problem is the definition of "mentally ill" and the way the data is collected.

Personal anecdote on the topic:

My grandfather is 91. He does everything on his own but lives with me as a precaution. He drives the 15 miles into town, goes grocery shopping, doctors appointments, etc. He manages his own medications, about 6 pills a day, and goes to the doctor on his own.
Sometime last year he was assigned a PA at his doctor's office (which he has been going to and seeing the same doctor for 40 years) who asks him a bunch of questions on every visit. (I know because I have accompanied him to the doctors office when he was sick and didn't feel up to driving himself.) She asked him about his living situation and he told her he lived with me. I informed her that I don't provide any sort of care, but she still put down that he doesn't/can't (thats the way it was worded on the form) live on his own. She asked if anybody helped with his medication and he said that he did it on his own, but told her I'll pick up his prescriptions for him (pharmacy is 20 miles away and he isn't in town everyday). She marked that he had assistance with his medications. She asked if he managed his own finances. He replied that he did, but I wrote checks for him and he signed them. (At 91 his writing isn't exactly perfect anymore). She wrote down that he needed assistance with finances. I told her he was perfect capable of doing all himself and she asked him if he was comfortable doing so and he replied yes, but didn't make that note on the form.

That's three different questions that can be used to determine he is unfit to own firearms since according to the PA he requires assistance with living/medications/finances. GTS is correct in his comment, this isn't just restricted to true "mentally ill" or even unstable people. It's an undo infringement on second amendment rights. It was too broad of a net cast and needed to be overturned.

Excellent post.

What restrictions are currently being proposed for "mentally ill" people? I'm sure advocates for these people are being vocal about potential legislation on this matter.

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

Its no different than if a Vet loses their eyesight, that they shouldn't be able to drive a car.

It sucks, and thanks for their service, and give them the money they need to work with their injury.....but no firearm.

If they want to go to a range and fire a gun, sure, that's probably okay. But if you're so impaired by injuries received that you're getting a check for it? Sorry, no private gun collection that isn't supervised.

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

(02-16-2017 11:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:32 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  I get all my self defense objects from private dealings to begin with, so what would exactly be stopping them from doing so in the first place?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

Handguns, even in a private transaction, require a permit (at least in NC) depending on the definition of "mentally ill" one wouldn't be able to legally purchase a handgun without said permit.

Not really much in there that would have prevented someone from purchasing a long gun from another individual.

No permit in SC required except for concealed carry.