Social Security and Firearms Purchases - H.J.Res. 40

The House passed H.J.Res.40 (235-180), which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Under the proposed rule, The SSA would identify individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits due to a mental health disability. They would then report those individuals to the FBI’s NICS database which is used to determine the individual’s eligibility when purchasing a firearm.

The joint resolution would nullify a Social Security Administration rule that outlines reporting of information by the agency for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for gun purchases about certain non-elderly individuals with mental impairments who receive disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefits and use a "representative payee" because they cannot manage their benefit payments.

The resolution disapproves of the Social Security Administration (SSA) Rule on implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments.  The rule provides for the names of anyone who is receiving benefits from the SSA, has a mental disability and requires a representative payee for assistance with their finances to be automatically entered into the NICS system, thereby restricting those persons from purchasing a firearm.  President Obama issued this executive order in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings.

Those in favor argue there are plenty of people who are incapable of managing their own funds but are not dangerous, violent, or unsafe. They point out this Rule would take away their Second Amendment right without in anyway proving they are mentally ill. Opponents say using whether beneficiaries can handle their own finances or not as a way to keep law abiding Americans from owning guns is just another way for the Obama Administration to attack the Second Amendment.

Those against argue if a person lacks the mental capacity to manage their own affairs and receives federal money because of a mental health issue they shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. They say this is one more step in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those who have no business owning them.  They also point out some of the worst mass shooting over the last couple of years were due to agencies not being required to report mental health statuses. Supporters say there is a way for people to appeal to the agency if they feel they were placed on the list by mistake. 

________________________________________________________________

Hoyer Statement on the Passage of H.J.Res. 40

For Immediate Release:

February 2, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement regarding the passage of H.J.Res 40: 

“I have always been a strong ally of the disability community and have paid close attention to the concerns many have had with this rule. I’m proud to have been the lead sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.  That law opened doors of independence, access, opportunity, and equity for millions of Americans with differing abilities.  

“In Congress, Democrats have put forward commonsense gun safety laws that would prevent violent and dangerous individuals with mental disabilities from purchasing firearms.  However, the Republican-led Congress would not allow even a vote on such legislation. That’s why President Obama took a series of limited steps within his authority, one of which was this rule, whose aim has been to prevent those who shouldn’t have guns from obtaining them.  I believe that, absent action from Congress to enhance our background check system, this rule represents an imperfect but necessary step – imperfect because it stigmatizes the disability community unfairly and needs a stronger appeals process to protect the rights of those who fall under its purview. 

“I disagree with the premise that having a mental disability that precludes independent management of one’s finances correlates with a heightened risk of violence.  I have read the rule and recognize that it was written in a narrow way so that it applies only to those with ‘severe’ mental illnesses. I’ve had many discussions over the past several days with leaders in the disability community and have grappled with the very difficult questions this resolution poses.  Ultimately, given these circumstances, I believe the best step right now is to oppose this resolution, which is why I voted against it.

“I look forward to working closely with the disability community and gun safety advocates to push for Congress to take up legislation that keeps all Americans safe from gun violence while protecting the rights of those with differing abilities.”

###