Archive

ShareThis Page
Grabbing guns: Obama overreach? | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Grabbing guns: Obama overreach?

There’s a big difference between being unable to handle one’s finances — a common plight for senior citizens — and posing genuine danger to oneself or others. Congress must ensure that the Obama administration makes that distinction as it seeks to restrict the gun rights of Social Security recipients whose benefit checks are handled by fiduciaries.

Indeed, firearms should be kept away from the truly mentally ill. But as The Washington Free Beacon reports, the administration would have Social Security join the Department of Veterans Affairs in reporting beneficiaries who have fiduciaries to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), preventing them from buying guns.

Yale psychiatrist Marc Rosen, who has studied mentally ill veterans’ money management, told the Los Angeles Times that inability to manage finances and posing danger “are very different determinations.” Thankfully, Congress can safeguard the gun rights of VA and Social Security beneficiaries who aren’t dangerous.

The proposed Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a court ruling that a veteran poses danger before the VA reports that person to NICS. Congress should extend the bill to Social Security recipients and pass it.

Otherwise, this gun-grabbing administration will violate the rights of Americans who pose no threat to anyone.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.