Obama’s new rule enlisting Social Security in his gun ban efforts may have an especially dangerous effect in California. Suppose your spouse is prohibited from owning a gun under this new rule. Further, suppose upon discovering the prohibition, you do what you feel is the right thing to comply and take your spouse’s guns to the gun dealer for transfer. Now suppose one of those guns is a bullet button AR and suppose all this takes place on 1/1/2017 when that AR becomes an “assault weapon” meaning there is no exemption for you to possess it. Well, you thought you were doing the right thing but just committed an accidental felony. Should have had an AW-permitted dealer pick up the nefarious evil black rifle. See how important it is for all of your estate planning documents, even the humble power of attorney, to be drafted with the latest gun laws in mind?
The administration further acknowledges that the rule would not provide those subject to its terms the ability to defend their suitability to possess firearms before the actual loss of rights took place. In other words, it offers no due process on the question of losing Second Amendment rights.
Instead, the rule forces affected beneficiaries to file a petition for “restoration” of rights and to somehow prove their possession of firearms would not harm public safety or the public interest, even though the government never established, or tried to establish, the contrary. Regarding the expense of the psychological and medical evaluations required for this purpose, the administration claims it should be “reasonable,” although it does not and cannot claim it will actually be affordable to those who are affected by the rule.
The major parameters of the final rule are the same as those we detailed in an earlier report on the proposal. It will affect those who receive SSI or disability insurance because of a listed mental health impairment and who have been assigned a representative payee to manage the benefits because of the person’s mental condition. The bottom line, however, is that tens of thousands of completely harmless, law-abiding people will lose their rights every year under the rule, a premise the SSA did not even try to refute.