# Obama Executive Actions on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260 "2016-01-05T19:57:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/181 "2016-01-11T19:12:19Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Thanks JXJohns. As a non 2nd amendment enthusiast, it is difficult to keep up with the correct terminology. And I don’t mean that in a snarky way. And there are some 2nd amendment enthusiasts that get their panties in a twist on the subtle meaning of “this” versus “that” and might even have an opinion on whether capitalization of “amendment” vs “Amendment” has some sort of overt vs subvert meaning? When I’m just having trouble with my keyboard. 🙂 > > Is it correct to say that AW’s are simply “scary” looking combat M16 kinda lookalikes? These are still semi auto, correct? Not full auto? And then may have something like a bayonet, flashlight or “big” magazine options that magically make these from basic “long guns” into “scary looking but not military grade” long guns, is that correct? > > In other words, “assault weapons” in this case really means jack shit and are not comparable to US military grade firearms? (Gawd, \*if \*this is the case, the sheeple really are focused on a rathole rather than trying to address something that might actually make a difference…) Damn, now I have to take you seriously again. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/182 "2016-01-11T19:36:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Damn, now I have to take you seriously again. Reading the thread before the reply wall may help out here. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/183 "2016-01-11T23:01:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You sound a bit culturally elitist. > > Virtually every south American country has a higher murder rate than the USA. Are these all undeveloped nations? > > How about Russia? > > With that said, we do have high levels of violence and murder and maybe guns have something to do with that. maybe they don’t but its not as clear as you seem to think. Those are “emerging markets” (and to be honest many are basket cases as well) and not considered “developed markets” by standard definitions. Your [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)has the US at 109th place with 4.7 firearm deaths per 100,000out of 218 countries or right in the middle. I think if you objectively look at the list, you don’t get to any country that is even roughly comparable until Canada ranked 47 with 1.7 firearm deaths per 100,000. Me, I don’t think it helps the argument that guns are not a problem in the US because we have the same firearm death rate as Niger and it’s nearly 3x what the Canadians have. And if you showcase the poster child Switzerland, their firearm death rate is 0.6. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/184 "2016-01-11T23:57:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s not a gotcha because just like I did you can point out that Obama did not in fact decide to sell those guns. No one is got. Well, at least it shows that Obama is not a rabid gun grabber. The bill also includes language that prevents the EPA from regulating ammo (something that pops up from time to time (turns out bullets are made of lead and its probably not a good idea to swallow primers)). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/185 "2016-01-12T00:00:36Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its irrelevant. Like I said, its an excuse. Opponents of the buyback want more guns in circulation. > > Since the purpose of the buyback is to reduce guns and not “not waste resources”, reselling the guns defeats the purpose of the program in the first place, which is of course the goal of the pro-gun people. In fact, its not a waste of resources to destroy the guns since that prevents them from being used. In fact, we spent resources to achieve a goal. Just because guns could be sold doesn’t mean that its the best use of them. I think you have an inability to read between the lines > > Depends on the goal. If the goal is to get money, then we should sell them. If the goal is to reduce guns, then they should be destroyed. If the goal is to kill Martians who are allergic to peanut butter, then the best use of surplus guns is to coat them in peanut butter and jettison them to Mars. > > You want to create a false dichotomy where guns are either being sold for capital or destroyed as waste. That world isn’t the real world. The real world looks at the goal of the buyback program. Its to remove guns. Therefore, the most efficient way of achieving that is to destroy them. Its about as effective as book burning because the publisher can’t possibly publish more books). But I’m sure its achieving some objective (mostly making some people feel better). ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/186 "2016-01-12T00:27:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, at least it shows that Obama is not a rabid gun grabber. The bill also includes language that prevents the EPA from regulating ammo (something that pops up from time to time (turns out bullets are made of lead and its probably not a good idea to swallow primers)). I know you’re joking but shitloads of lead in lakes, marshes and forests probably isn’t a good thing. I doubt Ducks Unlimited loves lead shot. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/187 "2016-01-12T16:15:07Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I know you’re joking but shitloads of lead in lakes, marshes and forests probably isn’t a good thing. I doubt Ducks Unlimited loves lead shot. I’m only sort of joking. I don’t hunt very much I find it boring and unrewarding, mostly because you spend a lot of time waiting and not drinking or talking or eating. just sitting up in a tree stand looking for a brown animal in a largely brown landscape. And by the time they let us rifle hunters out there, the archers and black powder dudes have gotten all the stupid deer and the only ones left are smarter than me. So I don’t personally give a shit about hunting restrictions and frankly if you told hunters that they had to use special ammo for hunting I think the biggest gripe would be that they would have to figure out the ballistics of that new bullet all over again (AFAICT hunters are real picky about their ammo and many of them personally load their own ammo for precise quality control), the hunters I know probably don’t fire 20 rounds during a season. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/188 "2016-01-12T17:33:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > But I thought the goal was to reduce gun homicide and other gun violence? If there were less guns, but the levels of homicide and other gun violence is unchanged, does that satisfy the goal? Sure, lets try for a total gun ban for 20 years and compare it to now. You can’t have a valid experiment without being willing to try and test your hypothesis. We’re much closer to the side of having no gun restrictions than having a gun ban, so that’s why we should do the ban first. After 20 years, we’ll give you back your guns, promise 😉 > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its about as effective as book burning because the publisher can’t possibly publish more books). But I’m sure its achieving some objective (mostly making some people feel better). We’ve never destroyed enough guns to matter in the big picture because such methods are always under attack. How about this? Obama’s executive actions recently are generally known factually as clarifications of existing law and some very legal changes to how existing departments do things. Even he is the first to admit they do little to change the status quo. As a gesture of honest discourse, how about you and everyone who is pro-gun on this board come out in favor of those actions, and say they are a good way of creating gun safety but not tampering, as some of you feel, with the rights of Americans? Or these people can continue howling about how evil Obama is and anti-gun those orders were and how our rights are just now right at the precipice of being totally taken away. The gun lobby is fond of saying we have too many laws on guns and they’re not being enforced so why make new ones. I would like pro-gun people here to name 3 laws already existing that regulate guns that are not being enforced that they would happily support the enforcement of. Enforce the laws already on the books! Isn’t that the rebuttal to every new proposed law? So which ones should we enforce? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/189 "2016-01-12T18:43:57Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > … how about you and everyone who is pro-gun on this board come out in favor of those actions, and say they are a good way of creating gun safety … What if I don’t believe they are a good way to create gun safety? What if I don’t believe they’ll have any net positive effect on our homicide rate? Should I say otherwise “as a gesture of honest discourse”? ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/190 "2016-01-12T19:19:54Z")
HurricaneDitka, fair enough, please suggest a good way to create gun safety? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/191 "2016-01-12T19:39:53Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Those are “emerging markets” (and to be honest many are basket cases as well) and not considered “developed markets” by standard definitions. I thought we said, developed nation, not developed market. Is implementation of full fledged capitalism the gauge? > [@](#): > > Your [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)has the US at 109th place with 4.7 firearm deaths per 100,000out of 218 countries or right in the middle. > > I think if you objectively look at the list, you don’t get to any country that is even roughly comparable until Canada ranked 47 with 1.7 firearm deaths per 100,000. > > Me, I don’t think it helps the argument that guns are not a problem in the US because we have the same firearm death rate as Niger and it’s nearly 3x what the Canadians have. And if you showcase the poster child Switzerland, their firearm death rate is 0.6. YMMV I tend to agree that America has a problem as well. But I realized LOOOONG ago that the apparent problem was not guns, its was handguns. And not even all handguns, handguns in the hands of criminals. And there isn’t a law in the world that will make a bit of difference with respect to handguns in the hands of criminals in the short or medium term. If you acknowledge you can’t do anything in the short or medium term then you can focus on more long term solutions and then things like assault weapons bans look retarded and licensing and registration looks much much better. One of the reasons that there is so much resistance by some elements of the gun rights crowd to licensing and registration is because it is possible (unlike large scale gun bans and confiscation) and the fear is that once we have that in place, other things will become possible that were virtually impossible before. And the gun rights folks do not trust the gun control folks to stop at licensing and registration. Its not that they cannot imagine a way to draft the bill to fully address their concerns; its that they CAN imagine a way for gun rights advocates to keep coming back for more and more until there is nothing left. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/192 "2016-01-12T19:45:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m only sort of joking. I don’t hunt very much I find it boring and unrewarding… > > …the hunters I know probably don’t fire 20 rounds during a season. I don’t think it’s hunters that the EPA is worried about. It’s primarily [outdoor ranges](http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/leadshot/epa_bmp.pdf) where lead accretes in substantial quantities if the range doesn’t clean it up. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/193 "2016-01-12T19:49:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > We’ve never destroyed enough guns to matter in the big picture because such methods are always under attack. How about this? Obama’s executive actions recently are generally known factually as clarifications of existing law and some very legal changes to how existing departments do things. Even he is the first to admit they do little to change the status quo. As a gesture of honest discourse, how about you and everyone who is pro-gun on this board come out in favor of those actions, and say they are a good way of creating gun safety but not tampering, as some of you feel, with the rights of Americans? Hey, don’t look at me. I voted for Obama… twice … just in the last election 😛 I don’t think he is doing anything he isn’t allowed to do. I don’t think he is doing anything bad. In fact I don’t think he is hardly doing anything at all and the things he is doing are probably mild improvements. > [@](#): > > Or these people can continue howling about how evil Obama is and anti-gun those orders were and how our rights are just now right at the precipice of being totally taken away. Are you hearing a lot of that sort of consternation? I mean Bone is pretty sanguine about these executive actions and he is about as militantly gun rights as we have on this board. So who is throwing these conniptions about the executive actions? Fox News and Ted Cruz? > [@](#): > > The gun lobby is fond of saying we have too many laws on guns and they’re not being enforced so why make new ones. I would like pro-gun people here to name 3 laws already existing that regulate guns that are not being enforced that they would happily support the enforcement of. Enforce the laws already on the books! Isn’t that the rebuttal to every new proposed law? So which ones should we enforce? The penalty for lying on the form 4473 seems to be the most popular one. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/194 "2016-01-12T20:20:27Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > HurricaneDitka, fair enough, please suggest a good way to create gun safety? I don’t really want to derail the thread with a discussion about criminal justice and deterrence or causes of suicide. Let’s just say that I think focusing on reducing the supply of weapons is the wrong focus in a country where a substantial portion of the population wants to be able to own guns. 99.99% of American guns didn’t kill anyone last year. I don’t think that turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons is likely to “create gun safety” either. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/195 "2016-01-12T20:47:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t really want to derail the thread with a discussion about criminal justice and deterrence or causes of suicide. Let’s just say that I think focusing on reducing the supply of weapons is the wrong focus in a country where a substantial portion of the population wants to be able to own guns. 99.99% of American guns didn’t kill anyone last year. > > I don’t think that turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons is likely to “create gun safety” either. So what would? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/196 "2016-01-12T20:55:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So what would? I think as it relates to the Executive Actions, increasing staffing in various areas, funding for mental health, and increasing NICS coverage is good. Nothing else offered would. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/197 "2016-01-12T21:03:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think as it relates to the Executive Actions, increasing staffing in various areas, funding for mental health, and increasing NICS coverage is good. > > Nothing else offered would. What do you think? I think it’s a good start, and we should see how far that gets us in terms of safety. I don’t think " turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons" is a very good idea…but since that was never proposed in the first place, I don’t know why it was brought up. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/198 "2016-01-12T21:50:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think " turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons" is a very good idea…but since that was never proposed in the first place, I don’t know why it was brought up. Huh? Did I misunderstand something? [WhiteHouse.gov says](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our): > [@](#): > > Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. What did I get wrong? Is the highlighted portion not talking about rep payees? Did I get the number wrong? Or are people that are prohibited from purchasing firearms are not “prohibited persons”? Something else? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/199 "2016-01-12T21:55:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think it’s a good start, and we should see how far that gets us in terms of safety. I don’t think " turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons" is a very good idea…but since that was never proposed in the first place, I don’t know why it was brought up. Here is from the fact sheet: > [@](#): > > The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, **or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent**. (my bold) That is not the standard as set forth by [18 U.S. Code § 922 (g)(4).](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) That prohibition reads in part: > [@](#): > > (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— > (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; [Here is a letter from the BATFE (pdf)](https://www.atf.gov/file/83751/download) regarding how they interpret this definition: > [@](#): > > **Adjudicated as a Mental Defective** > a. A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a > person, 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. > b. The term shall include — > 3. A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and > 4. Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason > of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the > Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b. > > **Committed to a Mental Institution** > This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, > commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental > institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or > mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not > include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a > mental institution. > > ATF has historically interpreted these provisions as constituting two distinct prohibitions. > Each prohibition represents a separate disqualification. For example, a “commitment” > means a formal commitment, not a voluntary stay. Excluded are stays for observation only. > Nor does the term include a stay in a mental institution that never involved any form of > adjudication by a lawful authority. However, a stay that began as a voluntary stay may be > subsequently transformed into a disqualifying stay if a court, board, or other lawful > authority makes a determination that the person is a danger to self or others. Moreover, a > voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal > commitment and therefore be disabling. > > For purposes of a Federal firearms disability, ATF interprets “adjudicated mental defective” > to include anyone adjudicated to be a “danger to him or herself,” “a danger to others,” or > lacking “the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs.” For purposes of > Federal law, “danger” means any danger, not simply “imminent” or “substantial” danger as > is often required to sustain an involuntary commitment under State law. Thus, for example, > adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in > Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or > outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental > illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability. > > It should be emphasized that whatever adjudication procedure a State employs, the > Constitution requires certain guarantees of due process. In order for a particular > commitment order to qualify as a prohibiting commitment, ATF historically has required that > traditional protections of due process be present, including adequate notice, an opportunity > to respond, and a right to counsel. Such protections are important because whether a > person has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, the > firearms disability is permanent. In the context of the SSA, which this part of the Executive Actions is referring to, legal incompetence is a decision by a court of law that a claimant is unable to manage his/her affairs. This varies state by state but often refers to financial management in connection with receipt of SSA benefits. [See here:](https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502005) > [@](#): > > The following individuals are prohibited from receiving payments directly: > legally incompetent beneficiaries; and > children under age 15 (see GN 00502.070 for direct payment to children 15 – 17). > You must appoint a representative payee for these beneficiaries. > > 1. What is Legal Evidence of Incompetency? > > Legal evidence is one type of evidence that establishes an individual’s ability to handle **his/her financial affairs.** There must be a court order in place for a finding that an individual is incompetent. (my bold) Inability to manage financial affairs is incongruent with the prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code § 922 (g)(4). And this isn’t the first time the Obama Administration has floated the idea of adding those on Rep Payee to the list of prohibited persons. [Back in July there was this](http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1): > [@](#): > > Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others. > > The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others. > > A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” > > … > > Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue. It’s false to say it was never proposed in the first place. Assignment of a rep payee can be voluntary as well. It is not an adjudication that carries with it due process protections. There was [H.R.3516](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3516/actions) that would prohibit this type of action directly, though I don’t know how to interpret the status. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260/200 "2016-01-12T21:55:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Huh? Did I misunderstand something? [WhiteHouse.gov says](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our): > > What did I get wrong? Is the highlighted portion not talking about rep payees? Did I get the number wrong? Or are people that are prohibited from purchasing firearms are not “prohibited persons”? Something else? I don’t see “a few million” mentioned, nor does it say that the people being looked at would automatically be “prohibited people”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-executive-actions-on-guns/742260.md?page=11)