115th United States Congress

[Andalusian girls]

that was quick. cynicism aside, glad he proved amenable to persuasion and came around.

[Aerin]

House rolls back rule restricting gun sales to severely mentally ill

The Republican-led House voted Thursday to repeal an Obama-era Social Security Administration regulation to keep people with severe mental illnesses from buying guns.

The vote was 235-180.

"The Social Security Administration not only overstepped its mission with this regulation, it discriminated against certain Americans with disabilities who receive Social Security benefits. The agency should be focused on serving all of its beneficiaries, not picking and choosing whose Second Amendment rights to deny," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee.

[zoobernut]

I was just coming here to post that. I don't see how they can possibly argue that buying a gun is such right that everyone should have access even if mentally ill.

[dasva]

I'm not sure that's entirely honest. Going thru the rules it seems like they include anyone under their list of mental disorders they use for disabilities and going thru that... well it's really long and complicate but looks like it includes things that are far from what "severe mental illness" evokes. While some in that section are indeed ones that you'd not want to have guns a quick look I'm seeing things like depression somatoform issues, low IQ, anxiety, personality disorders, autism (which is fairly broad spectrum)... it seems like basically any mental illness

So this might be a tad more complicated than the headlines suggest

[Aerin]

I'm not sure that's entirely honest. Going thru the rules it seems like they include anyone under their list of mental disorders they use for disabilities and going thru that... well it's really long and complicate but looks like it includes things that are far from what "severe mental illness" evokes. While some in that section are indeed ones that you'd not want to have guns a quick look I'm seeing things like depression somatoform issues, low IQ, anxiety, personality disorders, autism (which is fairly broad spectrum)... it seems like basically any mental illness

If you're concerned that the regulation was too broad, but are still concerned about the safety of others, then you could change the regulation rather than a blanket repeal with no replacement in sight. I find it surprising since it's always Republicans claiming that it's only the mentally ill (a term broadly used) that do mass shootings, and here they are opening the door for the same mentally ill they claim are guilty of carrying out mass shootings, to go ahead a buy guns.

[dasva]

If you're concerned that the regulation was too broad, but are still concerned about the safety of others, then you could change the regulation rather than a blanket repeal with no replacement in sight. I find it surprising since it's always Republicans claiming that it's only the mentally ill (a term broadly used) that do mass shootings, and here they are opening the door for the same mentally ill they claim are guilty of carrying out mass shootings, to go ahead a buy guns.

Thing is mental illness has long been a disqualifier and still will be. What this this regulation did was probably the ssa into it and have them use their definitions and lists for it

[Aerin]

I'm still not seeing a reason to repeal it

[dasva]

I'm not seeing why the ssa should be involved in the first place

[Aerin]

If it was the DEA or ATF instead of the SSA, would that make you more concerned about it's repeal or not at all?

[dasva]

Given that those agencies to tend have guidelines based combating crime or based on actual regulations as it pertains to weapons and in the case of the ATF is a body whose function is actually to regulate firearms sales vice an organization that has guidelines as they pertain to qualifications for disability check yes I would be more concerned

[Aerin]

The problem there being those 2 agencies don't have any ability to deny gun sales to anyone. Ideally it would come through legislation from Congress, but we know virtually nothing has come out of there recently. It would seem to me the Obama administration saw the SSA as a way of implementing a regulation they felt would help curb mass shootings. The fact that it wasn't done in a way that you like shouldn't blind you to its importance.

[dasva]

The problem there being those 2 agencies don't have any ability to deny gun sales to anyone. Ideally it would come through legislation from Congress, but we know virtually nothing has come out of there recently. It would seem to me the Obama administration saw the SSA as a way of implementing a regulation they felt would help curb mass shootings. The fact that it wasn't done in a way that you like shouldn't blind you to its importance.

If you mean unilaterally all on their own against federal laws and regulation... sure no agency really has that power. However enforcing said federal laws and regulation of such is definitely the ATF's domain. And the fact that this doesn't do what you want it to do shouldn't blind you to what it actually does. Seriously it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this much flac if it was something small like hey SSA you need to come up to speed and help us with already existing regulations of the Brady Act instead of letting them use their own determinations. And would've gotten even less if it was automatic and the appeals process wasn't so onerous

[Aerin]

If you mean unilaterally all on their own against federal laws and regulation... sure no agency really has that power. However enforcing said federal laws and regulation of such is definitely the ATF's domain. And the fact that this doesn't do what you want it to do shouldn't blind you to what it actually does. Seriously it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this much flac if it was something small like hey SSA you need to come up to speed and help us with already existing regulations of the Brady Act instead of letting them use their own determinations. And would've gotten even less if it was automatic and the appeals process wasn't so onerous

Indeed, the ATF enforces, it has no ability to set policy which is what the SSA was able to do in a limited fashion. I'm not sure what you think it is that I want this to do. But you wouldn't have a problem with this regulation if, as you said, the SSA used the language of the Brady Act in its determinations instead of their own. Your sole gripe here is how this was done? Did this regulation not make it harder for those with a mental illness to get a gun?

[dasva]

Indeed, the ATF enforces, it has no ability to set policy which is what the SSA was able to do in a limited fashion. I'm not sure what you think it is that I want this to do. But you wouldn't have a problem with this regulation if, as you said, the SSA used the language of the Brady Act in its determinations instead of their own. Your sole gripe here is how this was done? Did this regulation not make it harder for those with a mental illness to get a gun?

Well you stated what you guessed Obama's reasoning was in a way to make it sound appealing so I assumed that's what you want. That said not really sure that was this was one of those last minute out the door EOs possibly for pure optics reasons. Which ironically not only makes it much easier to repeal but might be the reason they are repealing instead of amending like you suggest. Congressional Review Act allows for an expedited means of nixing new regulations within 60 days though still requires presidential signature or 2/3s to veto the president but I from what I can see amendments have to go thru the full process still. So blame Obama for not doing this anytime in the last like 2 years it's been being talked about.

As far as problems yes and no. No in that honestly kind of surprised they weren't already reporting like most (maybe all?) agencies and they should have been. Yes in that they really can't use the exact same language since it wouldn't really do anything but using terms for a similar intent would definitely be fine for the rules themselves. And even possible expansion/greater clarification to a limited extent thru actual changes in federal law. Or just by changing/clarifying the term as the has already been done by the ATF since that is notably easier than actually changing the legislation

Now stop being purposefully dense. First how things are done do matter. But that can be overlooked to an extent but that aside we've already gone back and forth about how it's what was done that is getting so much criticism. Trying to reduce this down to a matter of methodology is as patently dishonest as trying to say your only gripe with police brutality is how they enforce the law. It's the same shit the VA pulled that has gotten so much criticism from mental health professionals along with gun rights advocates and well vets. Being very new and complex looking set of rules with tons of cross referencing I'm not 100% on what it is saying and I can't find too awful much not clearly super biased but the few sources I got like everyone's favorite snopes seems to suggest it's using guidelines of people unable to handle their financial affairs. Cause finances are clearly the same as guns and not being violent.

Would it make it harder for some people for some mentally ill people to get a gun? Sure would. So would banning guns but man the collateral. It's also not the point or intent or what that article was even stating. The point isn't to make mental illness a legally defined form 2nd class citizen (unless you really want people to stop seeking help and further stigmatize mental illness) it's to recognize some not all forms (and certainly not the ones being used here) of mental impairment make you an added danger much like saying having a history of violence or being a drug addict might (though I'd also add depends on the drug for that one). And this does not even come close to trying to hit that mark nor does it even try let alone hit the "severe mental illness" accusation. And the really sad part is it wouldn't have been all that hard to actually do it. The SSA already has large set of guidelines and different sections for different illness. How hard would it have been to been like ok section 12.02 (schizophrenia) section 12.03 manic disorders etc instead of referencing the entire mental illness category? Note those section numbers aren't exact but are approximates from what I remember of reading the appendix. It is section 12 of Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 if you are curious about federal codes about specific impairments.


The more I read up on this the more it looks like political maneuver to cause a repeal to make the republicans look bad than a well intentioned if somewhat misguided attempt to help

[Aerin]

Well you stated what you guessed Obama's reasoning was in a way to make it sound appealing so I assumed that's what you want. That said not really sure that was this was one of those last minute out the door EOs possibly for pure optics reasons. Which ironically not only makes it much easier to repeal but might be the reason they are repealing instead of amending like you suggest. Congressional Review Act allows for an expedited means of nixing new regulations within 60 days though still requires presidential signature or 2/3s to veto the president but I from what I can see amendments have to go thru the full process still. So blame Obama for not doing this anytime in the last like 2 years it's been being talked about.

I wasn't trying to make it sound appealing, I was trying to simply make sense of it. Just because I don't it's a liberal plot doesn't mean I'm trying to water it down. I may be to the left on a lot of issues, but let me just say I believe that most politicians hearts are in the right place and they genuinely want to make things better for people, we just disagree on how to get there or what exactly would make things better. I think being talked about for 2 years is conservative, there were a fair number of mass shootings during his presidency. As for the why, at risk of being accused of making it sound appealing simply because that's what I want, my best guess would be that he (as any President) would want Congress to come up with some legislation to curtail this rather than having to go through some back channels to try and implement something. As you're implying, how it's done does matter. But, in my humble opinion, it's not all that matters.

As far as problems yes and no. No in that honestly kind of surprised they weren't already reporting like most (maybe all?) agencies and they should have been. Yes in that they really can't use the exact same language since it wouldn't really do anything but using terms for a similar intent would definitely be fine for the rules themselves. And even possible expansion/greater clarification to a limited extent thru actual changes in federal law.

Now stop being purposefully dense. First how things are done do matter. But that can be overlooked to an extent but that aside we've already gone back and forth about how it's what was done that is getting so much criticism. Trying to reduce this down to a matter of methodology is as patently dishonest as trying to say your only gripe with police brutality is how they enforce the law. It's the same shit the VA pulled that has gotten so much criticism from mental health professionals along with gun rights advocates and well vets. Being very new and complex looking set of rules with tons of cross referencing I'm not 100% on what it is saying and I can't find too awful much not clearly super biased but the few sources I got like everyone's favorite snopes seems to suggest it's using guidelines of people unable to handle their financial affairs. Cause finances are clearly the same as guns and not being violent.

Wanting to know part of your reasonings doesn't make me dense. I was simply trying to understand what part of this you didn't like or agree with. I agree that the way things get done do matter and that's why we should always try and do things the "right" way. Sometimes, when nothing is getting done and you feel strongly that it needs to be, you find creative ways to make something happen. And of course, by creative I don't mean illegal. I don't fault Obama or his administration for trying to get something done here. And again, I'm not trying to reduce it down to methodology, I just haven't heard anything else from you in terms of what you dislike about it. If a person feels that actions do need to be taken, just not in the way it happened, I'd expect them to say exactly that and not solely point out what they don't like because the argument can get a little muddied. It can seem like you're only concern is one part of a whole picture.

Would it make it harder for some people for some mentally ill people to get a gun? Sure would. So would banning guns but man the collateral. It's also not the point or intent or what that article was even stating. The point isn't to make mental illness a legally defined form 2nd class citizen (unless you really want people to stop seeking help and further stigmatize mental illness) it's to recognize some not all forms (and certainly not the ones being used here) of mental impairment make you an added danger much like saying having a history of violence or being a drug addict might (though I'd also add depends on the drug for that one). And this does not even come close to trying to hit that mark nor does it even try let alone hit the "severe mental illness" accusation. And the really sad part is it wouldn't have been all that hard to actually do it. The SSA already has large set of guidelines and different sections for different illness. How hard would it have been to been like ok section 12.02 (schizophrenia) section 12.03 manic disorders etc instead of referencing the entire mental illness category? Note those section numbers aren't exact but are approximates from what I remember of reading the appendix. It is section 12 of Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 if you are curious about federal codes about specific impairments.

And once again, if it is so easy to adjust it and you care about people with real mental issues having access to guns, then a form of replacement should be what happens here rather than a blanket repeal.

The more I read up on this the more it looks like political maneuver to cause a repeal to make the republicans look bad than a well intentioned if somewhat misguided attempt to help

Now who's trying to make things sound like they want them to

Edit: Looking at more information coming out about it now, it does indeed cast a wide net. But I maintain I would like to see a refinement rather than repeal. Much like with Obamacare, I would very much rather see refinement than a complete repeal.

[dasva]

Also that reasoning well is appealing and at the heart should be the goal also I think it was stated somewhere as the actual driving force for this. Given that it seemed logical that your stance and I'd imagine most reasonable people would agree it's a worthwhile goal.

Sorry the way you were asking again and again looked more accusatory than actually questioning especially when I opened with it looking like it casted too wide of a net. As far as methodology... I do understand the desire to get er done but even then their are degrees of "right" if only in optics though also in terms of actually getting it done.But a change like this in one unrelated agency looks pretty bad man. Like imagine if somehow the republicans snuck in something into the fda guidelines about farmers need guns to protect their farms. People would be like wtf mate. A slightly better way would be to get the AFT to ahem clarify/expand the definitions that would set the standard for how all this should be enforced by everyone. Like maybe have the DOJ propose a change to the atf... like they did for this very part of this very act back exactly 3 years ago which as far as I can tell was actually carried out and reading the supplementary information on it suggests it because of it's scope and the way it was done it got around a lot of requirements that are generally needed and possibly might have made it not applicable for the CRA. Not only would it have looked better but it looks like it would've been more successful/harder to change back

Again look back above where repealing is at this moment currently much easier for congress to do than amendment and that there is a time limit on using that. Bannon er I mean Trump could probably also just change it but not sure anyone would be happy with how that would turn out. That said as far as I can tell the ssa already was supposed to be following the guidelines already established so repealing this might be at least a partial solution to what you are looking for though it looks like it needs to be a legal body that makes this kind of determination.

Yes I am making some assumptions upon his intent though I stated them as such not as fact. But the timing, method and content is somewhat suspect that he expected to stay especially with an incoming president basically vowing to undo everything he did. Could have been completely accident and somehow he forgot until last minute. But he is pretty good at baiting republicans not that they make it all that hard and he's certainly no fool.

Obamacare is a bit different and kind of silly at this point since it's probably much harder to repeal than amend. But hard to back down on something that's helped you win elections I suppose at least if winning elections is your main goal

[Aerin]

Unfortunately, I think it being easier to repeal than fix applies to nearly everything at this point and for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't necessarily use the term "suspect" to describe the timing, method and content of it. It's pretty clear he and his administration were trying to get as much done as possible the last few months, for better or worse. But I understand your point of view here.

The Obamacare example was just to point to another thing I'd like to see compromise on, but it extends to a lot of other things. And for the record, I felt this way while Obama was President. I don't think any one party has all the answers.

Finding compromise on things like regulations is going to be rough the next 4 years with Trumps EO of repealing 2 for every new 1. Ugh.

[dasva]

Well I know some people will claim/see it as easier. But idk enough about all the crazy shit that happens in there to know if it will. Given Trumps need to anger top politicians on both sides I don't see much coming together and deal making unless it's against him. Oh boy that would just be amazingly fun and maybe even accomplish some good. Cmon Ryan stop being such a cuck you stood up to him before.

Well a lot of my suspect is upon learning this is like the perfect opportunity to use something that has only succeeded like once before to easy peasy repeal lol. Assuming I understand it right.

I just meant Obamacare is an odd duck because even if you believed we were better off without it and shouldn't compromise genie is kind of out of the bottle now. And hell I'm pretty sure I heard some conservatives arguing that point way back before it was law. We at the point compromise isn't in that sense really a preferable outcome so much as straight repeal is foolhardy and should be political suicide but who knows these days. That said our nation was founded on compromise and true growth occurs from clashes between opposites not isolating yourself in echo chambers. Even the final missions of ffxi know that!!!

I understand the whole cutting back on the sheer volume and am way behind what I assume the goal is... but real talk doing it arbitrarily like that idk if that's even enforceable. And if it is I can just imagine the teams of interns scouring federal records for outdated, unused, possibly contradictory, repetitive regulations still on the books to try and meet the letter but not necessarily the spirit. Luckily I love watching shitshows so I can laugh while I cry

[myreality]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...e-bill/861?r=5

H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

From reddit

Cosponsors:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] 02/03/2017
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS-4] 02/03/2017
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] 02/03/2017

[Byrthnoth]

Supposedly a bill like that one regularly gets put to congress and regularly fails. It doesn't mean it'll fail this time and it's worth telling your senators not to be idiots, but the EPA isn't as worried as they could be.