What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

BassAle said:
just stop. you are completely wrong. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy, or even voluntarily turning over control of finances.
Click to expand...

It may not at the present time, but the loophole is open for abuse in the future.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Handyman said:
So now, even after you were proven wrong not once, not twice, but 3 times USING THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED we are supposed to now ignore that you were wrong because at some future date you might be right? And we should ignore the law YOU WERE RAILING AGAINST and the articles YOU POSTED railing against said law that said nothing of what you pretend they do because some other law somewhere MIGHT say what you pretend it says?

Your level of dissonance and paranoia makes youtube vloggers look on point. I mean the logical leaps you make in your posts on this subject are so out there I am not even sure Breitbart himself would have been able to follow them.

edit: you posted again about it. Now we dont get it because of spin and snark? YOU ARE THE ONE PROVIDING THE SOURCES!! So now the articles you believe are spinning it to sound less like what you think?
Click to expand...


Is it really possible someone can be this dumb? The very links he thinks proves his point very clearly say he is wrong.
 
BassAle said:
just stop. you are completely wrong. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy, or even voluntarily turning over control of finances.
Click to expand...

This specific rule is around finances. It is the same as the VA's rule around veterans who go bankrupt or turn over control of their finances to someone else.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
I'm going to take one more run at explaining the SSA gun grab. Between the political spin in the two articles I posted and my own snarky comments it is a bit hard to understand if you're not familiar with guns.

No one is losing their gun rights because of their disability or whatever reason they're on social security. That doesn't play into this at all. Where people lose their rights is when they either run out of money(there is probably a different term than bankruptcy) or someone else takes over their finances. It doesn't matter why someone else manages their finances. It should go without saying there is a wide range of reasons someone might manage a SS recipient's finances.

I have no problem with people losing their gun rights because they are judged to be a danger to themselves or others based on a medical expert's opinion. This had nothing to do with that though and is a blanket ban based strictly on finances. It is important to understand the distinction between the two. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.
Click to expand...

The text of the rule states:
Affected individual means an
individual:
(1) Who has been found disabled
based on a finding that the individual’s
impairment(s) meets or medically
equals the requirements of one of the
Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments
(section 12.00 of appendix 1 to subpart
P of part 404 of this chapter) under the
rules in part 404, subpart P, of this
chapter, or under the rules in part 416,
subpart I, of this chapter; and
(2) For whom we need to make a
capability finding under the rules in
part 404, subpart U, of this chapter, or
under the rules in part 416, subpart F,
of this chapter, as a result of a mental
impairment.
Click to expand...

The law in the CFR states this requires medical evidence:
Need for Medical Evidence: The existence of a medically determinable impairment of the required duration must be established by medical evidence consisting of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings (including psychological or developmental test findings). Symptoms are complaints presented by the child. Psychiatric signs are medically demonstrable phenomena that indicate specific psychological abnormalities, e.g., abnormalities of behavior, mood, thought, memory, orientation, development, or perception, as described by an appropriate medical source. Symptoms and signs generally cluster together to constitute recognizable mental disorders described in paragraph A of the listings. These findings may be intermittent or continuous depending on the nature of the disorder.
Click to expand...

You can find the listings of the mental disorders on page 513 (page 55 of the PDF) of this:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2...R-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf

Specifics can be found on page 518 (page 60 of the PDF).
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
...instead of receiving a few bucks from George Soros to rabble. ...
Click to expand...

Flaggy. I totally thought we were going to meet in the middle and reach some common ground. Then you go and dive back off the deep end again. *Sigh*

Also: "Obama's Seven Nations List"* caused hand cramps and paper cuts to anyone from/related/traveling through those nations. "Trump's Muslim Ban"** outright denies travel to those same handcramped and paper cut people.

*I want a nickle for every second this headline is used in a news broadcast chryon.
**I want $10 every second FOX News uses this in a broadcast chryon.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
This specific rule is around finances. It is the same as the VA's rule around veterans who go bankrupt or turn over control of their finances to someone else.
Click to expand...



the specific rule is around being ruled mentally incapable of managing your affairs
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Here is the reporting criteria:
The criteria are that the individual must have:
(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.
Click to expand...

All five must be satisfied to be reported to the NICS. None of these have to do with poverty or inability to understand finance. It has to do with being diagnosed with a mental disability.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
Here is the reporting criteria:


All five must be satisfied to be reported to the NICS. None of these have to do with poverty or inability to understand finance. It has to do with being diagnosed with a mental disability.
Click to expand...

By refusing to back down despite mountains of evidence proving he is wrong (much of which he provided himself) Drew S. has exposed himself as the biggest moron in the history of USCHO
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
All five must be satisfied to be reported to the NICS. None of these have to do with poverty or inability to understand finance. It has to do with being diagnosed with a mental disability.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that someone wanting to claim a disability is setting themselves up for that mental evaluation to determine competency.

Besides keeping someone incompetent (as defined by medical evaluation) from buying a weapon, that seems like it would stop some fraud as well. ;)

"I'm disabled."
"OK, so let's try this little exam ... oh, gee, you passed. No benefits."*


*Yes, yes, yes, there is far more to a diagnosis that than. I am guardian and POA of a parent due to their medically declared incompetence (Alzheimer's).
 
Last edited:
The Sicatoka said:
Seems to me that someone wanting to claim a disability is setting themselves up for that mental evaluation to determine competency.

Besides keeping someone incompetent (as defined by medical evaluation) from buying a weapon, that seems like it would stop some fraud as well. ;)

"I'm disabled."
http://www.dementiatoday.com/wp-con..... gee, look, you passed."[/I]Examination.pdf
Click to expand...

This is spot on. There definitely are people getting jammed up who exaggerated what is wrong with them. This is likely going to be repealed though.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
This is spot on. There definitely are people getting jammed up who exaggerated what is wrong with them. This is likely going to be repealed though.
Click to expand...

So when you cut through all the facts of the issue, your problem is that people commiting fraud by faking mental disability may be denied their right to own a gun?
 
BassAle said:
By refusing to back down despite mountains of evidence proving he is wrong (much of which he provided himself) Drew S. has exposed himself as the biggest moron in the history of USCHO
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Here are the list of people who are included:

Organic Mental Disorders: Psychological or behaviorial abnormalities associated with a dysfunction of the brain
Schizophrenic, Paranoid and Other Psychotic Disorders: Characterized by the onset of psychotic features with deterioration from a previous level of functioning.

Affective Disorders: Characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.

Intellectual disability: Intellectual disability refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.

Anxiety Related Disorders: In these disorders anxiety is either the predominant disturbance or it is experienced if the individual attempts to master symptoms; for example, confronting the dreaded object or situation in a phobic disorder or resisting the obsessions or compulsions in obsessive compulsive disorders.

Somatoform Disorders: Physical symptoms for which there are no demonstrable organic findings or known physiological mechanisms.

Personality Disorders: A personality disorder exists when personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress. Characteristic features are typical of the individual’s long-term functioning and are not limited to discrete episodes of illness.

Substance Addiction Disorders: Behavioral changes or physical changes associated with the regular use of substances that affect the central nervous system.

Autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders: Characterized by qualitative deficits in the development of reciprocal social interaction, in the development of verbal and nonverbal communication skills, and in imaginative activity. Often, there is a markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests, which frequently are stereotyped and repetitive.


All of which have numerous inclusion criteria that must be met. For instance, on organic mental disorders, the text says:
12.02 Organic Mental Disorders: Psychological or behaviorial abnormalities associated with a dysfunction of the brain. History and physical examination or laboratory tests demonstrate the presence of a specific organic factor judged to be etiologically related to the abnormal mental state and loss of previously acquired functional abilities.
The required level of severity for these disorders is met when the requirements in both A and B are satisfied, or when the requirements in C are satisfied.
Demonstration of a loss of specific cognitive abilities or affective changes and the medically documented persistence of at least one of the following:
1. Disorientation to time and place; or
2. Memory impairment, either short-term (inability to learn new information), intermediate, or long-term (inability to remember information that was known sometime in the past); or
3. Perceptual or thinking disturbances (e.g., hallucinations, delusions); or
4. Change in personality; or
5. Disturbance in mood; or
6. Emotional lability (e.g., explosive temper outbursts, sudden crying, etc.) and impairment in impulse control; or
7. Loss of measured intellectual ability of at least 15 I.Q. points from premorbid levels or overall impairment index clearly within the severely impaired range on neuropsychological testing, e.g., the Luria-Nebraska, Halstead-Reitan, etc.;

AND
B. Resulting in at least two of the following:
1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or
3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or
4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration;

OR
C. Medically documented history of a chronic organic mental disorder of at least 2 years’ duration that has caused more than a minimal limitation of ability to do basic work activities, with symptoms or signs currently attenuated by medication or psychosocial support, and one of the following:
1. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration; or
2. A residual disease process that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in mental demands or change in the environment would be predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; or
3. Current history of 1 or more years’ inability to function outside a highly supportive living arrangement, with an indication of continued need for such an arrangement.
Click to expand...

So tell me, who on this list of people should have guns?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top