And to borrow the metaphor from another thread, here's the next slice of salami:
Quote:
|
The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...m-owning-guns/
Any disabled Vets that applied for social security disability on the basis of PTSD are in line for this one...
Quote:
Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence.
After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability.
The VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.
Upon being notified that he was being reported to the background check system, he gave his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back.
Overman grew up hunting in Wisconsin. After his return from Iraq, he found solace in target shooting. "It's relaxing to me," he said. "It's a break from day-to-day life. It calms me down."
Though his wife had managed their financial affairs since his deployment, Overman said he has never felt like he was a danger to himself or others.
"I didn't know the VA could take away your guns," he said.
|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...ry.html#page=1
Get ready, here comes the full court press for the last 18 months of the administration. And let's not forget the second order effect that Veterans will stop seeking help for PTSD if they think their right to bear arms will be revoked.
Why is it that liberals think they can win a fight when only the other side is armed?