The Obama administration has been taking the lower road by working out of the public eye on its latest gun grab. Now it is known they have new ammo for the president’s tighter gun control agenda. They now want to extend background checks on purchases of firearms to include Social Security.

The Social Security Administration has never participated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Up until now, the agency had always determined it was not required to submit records to the NICS. This latest move by the Obama administration is to force the Social Security Administration to do so. As part of the existing federal regulations, they want to add Social Security records to the database to help determine which American citizens get reported to the NICS.

The proposed move shall infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of millions in the Social Security system.

Specifically, it would target the large group of those who receive monthly Social Security benefits, but who lack the mental capacity to manage their own personal finance affairs. These people have their monies handled by a fiduciary known as a “representative payee.”

President Obama hopes to be able to ban these Social Security recipients from being able to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to legally bear Arms.

Statistics show about 2.7 million Americans with mental health problems currently receive disability payments. Another 1.5 million beneficiaries of Social Security have others manage their personal finances for a number of reasons.

Part of the strategy here for gaining the upper hand would be to apply restrictive federal gun law language to this large group in the Social Security system. The Obama administration would use terms such as “marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, and incompetency” to deny legal gun ownership.

There will be plenty of critics to argue against using financial competence to expand the list of prohibited gun owners. Some Americans may just have money management issues such as trouble balancing a checkbook. Others may have a faulty memory.

Dr. Marc Rosen has researched how veterans with mental health issues manage money. The Yale psychiatrist summed up the Social Security issue perfectly in the LA Times. “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe.”

Surprisingly, even the totally wired Washington insiders of the National Rifle Association just became aware of the gun grab tactic. Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist of the NRA issued this statement: “If the Obama administration attempts to deny millions of law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights by executive fiat, the NRA stands ready to pursue all available avenues to stop them in their tracks.”

The National Council on Disability added it would also oppose such an political attempt to trigger expanded gun background checks to take away the fundamental rights of people with disabilities.

Nah, we don’t need more eyes on ISIS threats. Nah, we don’t need help on a horrible healthcare system. We have Americans over a barrel on that. What we need to do is go after the Second Amendment and people’s guns…yet again.

More gun control. More gun control. More gun control. This seems to be the mindset of President Barack Obama and his administration. Take the lower road to get the upper hand on guns.

June 2015 brings no jumping for joy when it comes to gun rights. Consistent with the past six years, the president’s latest “gun safety” measures mean danger for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Now, word out over the weekend has Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department loading up to carry out orders with more than a dozen new proposed sweeping gun regulations (a.k.a. restrictions).

“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, of the National Association for Gun Rights.

There are two new primary targets (a.k.a. excuses) for this new round of gun grabbing by the Obama Administration. They are:

1. Americans convicted of domestic violence.

The new rules being proposed would strip gun ownership from anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime…including misdemeanors. A past attempt at this restriction failed in 1998. “This could be a person who spanked his kid, yelled at his wife, or who slapped her husband,” said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America told The Hill.

2. Americans who are unstable or “mentally ill.”

The “mentally ill” would be prohibited from owning rifles or handguns legally.

“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun if they are seeing a psychologist,” said Hammond. The NRA called it unjust and stigmatizing, saying it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment. The idea is they won’t get the help they need out of fear it will cause them to lose their gun rights.

According to the just released Unified Agenda, (a list of new rules federal agencies are developing) gun control efforts will be expanded to disqualify more people from purchasing and owning firearms. This next assault on gun rights also will also include the following proposed regulations:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATPE) restricting high-powered pistols.

• Imposing more strict requirements regarding gun storage and safety devices.

• Requiring gun dealers to report gun thefts, and more.

President Obama is still trying to get the gun restrictions he has wanted since the Sandy Hook shootings in 2012. Congress has shot down his attempts to enact such laws which violate Constitutional Rights. So, it appears the Justice Department will push to move the anti-gun agenda forward through regulations by November or at least before the end of the Obama administration.

Mr. Hammond summed it up nicely. “The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear it will push every place where it can. This is an indication of an anti-gun administration trying to annoy us any way it can.”

Here we go…yet again.

Dr. John Lott, Jr. Takes Aim at N.Y. Times & Gun Control Advocates

Today, isn’t about the smoke beginning to clear. It’s about the sound of the expert shots fired yesterday which deserve to be heard as far as the ears in America can hear. Dr. John Lott, Jr. armed himself with the truth in taking aim at the New York Times, and other gun control advocates. That’s a good thing.

Add to it that, Dr. John Lott is a leading expert and author on guns, and heads up the Crime Prevention Research Center. That’s a better thing. Add to it that he’s dead on target with his opinions, and has the facts to support them…that’s even better. Here’s a closer look.

His latest piece just published as a columnist for FoxNews.com is titled, “Guns and the New York Times: Why shouldn’t Americans be able to defend themselves?” In his writing, Dr. Lott is quickly returning fire against a recent opinions post by the N.Y. Times Editorial Board. It was regarding the number of deaths attributed to individuals who have legal permits to carry concealed weapons. They called it, “Concealed Carry’s Body Count.”

Dr. John Lott, Jr. argued Americans who have gone to the trouble, and through the trials and tribulations of becoming legal concealed handgun permit holders are not criminals. He rightly defended them as true law-abiding citizens. He packed his position with solid proof showing permit holders are even more law-abiding than police.

A highlight of his powerful rebuttal to the N.Y. Times, Dr. Lott points out a study by Police Quarterly. It showed crimes committed by police officers were reported at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 officers. Whereas concealed handgun permit holders committed crimes at just one sixth of that rate, 20.5 per 100,000.

Ares Armor would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Dr. John Lott, Jr. for taking on the New York Times. We appreciate his latest well-researched article in support of the 2nd Amendment, gun rights, and specifically permit holders across the United States of America.