Making “good” on a warning issued in this column a year-and-a-half ago, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration issued its final ruling, reclassifying some of the most vulnerable citizens among us literally as “mental defectives,” and thus ineligible to own a gun. The ruling applies to recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and virtually ignores over 91,000 public input comments, most condemning the move.

“[T]he SSA did not attempt to answer most of the legal questions raised about its authority,” the National Rifle Association observed. “Incredibly, the SSA also brushed aside empirical evidence the NRA submitted suggesting that the proposed rule would have no public safety benefit … The administration further acknowledges that the rule would not provide those subject to its terms the ability to defend their suitability to possess firearms before the actual loss of rights took place.”

This can happen because a citizen”adjudicated” by SSA* needs help managing finances, something everyone unable to decipher all the various federal, state and county/municipal tax codes and reporting requirements and schedules could well admit to. That can now be used to make certain these citizens are defenseless.

And that must be viewed across the backdrop of recent headlines such as:

• Violent crime against NYC’s elderly continues to rise
• Help Seattle Police ID thief who attacked elderly woman — all for $7
• Chicago man, 26, is charged with beating and robbing elderly US Navy veteran, 94, who served during WWII while she was on her way to the dentist
• Attacks on elderly women, carjackings and muggings raise fears among residents, shopkeepers

We could go on, but the point has been made. And would a gun have made a difference in any of these reported incidents? The question should be “Whose decision is that to make?”

Americans who have not been adjudicated as posing a danger to themselves and others are being denied a fundamental right without the due process that would be afforded criminal suspects. Nor is it clear how rights could be restored, and how anyone in need of financial affairs assistance would even be able to afford a challenge or be in a position to try. Even less clear are incentives for “mental health professionals” to risk a liability lawsuit by giving officially-designated “prohibited persons” a clean bill of health – particularly noting the extreme anti-gun agenda dominating their profession.

What’s apparent is those in power positions representing themselves as “the government” want to disarm the citizenry and this is one way to make incremental gains toward that goal using a divide-and-conquer strategy. From the monopoly of violence point of view, disarming veterans makes sense, because these are people who have been trained to arms. And disarming all “civilians” of Social Security age who meet the arbitrary disqualifying criteria is another way to diminish a demographic that includes – or will include before too long – many, including Oath Keepers, who are among the strongest proponents of the right of the people to keep and bear arms

* Correction made in response to a Facebook critique by a former SSA adjudicator. I’ll be looking at this in light of that comment to see if further changes are warranted.