|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
House Rolls Back Obama Era Gun Control Regulation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The House voted to roll back an Obama era regulation that mandated the Social Security Administration reveal information about people with mental illness through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The measure passed 235 to 180.
The intention of the regulation, put forth during the final days of President Obama’s term, instructed the SSA to show information about individuals with mental illnesses would be deemed incapable of owning a firearm.
However, critics of the rule say that the SSA went out of bounds with the regulation and denied due process to Americans with disabilities. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/4/2017)
|
| This wording has some spin to it. No, they're not rolling back the mental ill label. They're rolling back a declaration that folks who can't handle their finances equates to a mentally ill label, without any due process. Our govt should never eliminate citizen rights by adopting a list of names. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
