Congress Blocks Obama-Era Gun Regulation GOP Criticized for Denying Due Process

The Senate voted 57-43 on Wednesday morning to block an Obama-era regulation that would have affected the gun rights of federal disability recipients whose benefits are managed by a third party due to a mental impairment. The rule, proposed last May, would have required the Social Security Administration to report such individuals meeting the criteria to the FBI’s background check system used for firearms purchases.

The House voted earlier this month to rescind the same rule. The disapproval measure will now go to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley said the regulation would result in “a national gun ban list.”

“It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on it at all. And it deprives those people of their constitutional rights without due process,” he said on Tuesday.

The congressional action was backed by the ACLU and mental health advocates, forming an outside coalition with the NRA that prevented the measure’s supporters and detractors from breaking down on predictable political lines.

National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke wrote earlier this month of the myriad reasons to oppose the rule:

On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable. On due process grounds, there was nothing to recommend the measure (as the ACLU made abundantly clear in its opposition letter). On statutory grounds, it seems clear that the SSA was acting ultra vires. And, as political matter, the vacillation of the Obama administration — which insisted simultaneously that “incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system” and that it was “not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence” — was downright embarrassing. But one does not have to agree with me on process or in outlook to see that as a matter of positive policy, the idea was a terrible one. As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first adumbrated, ​the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak: “‘Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,’ said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. ‘They are very different determinations.'”

More on the vote from the Associated Press here.

Related Content