Skip to comments.Social Security Office
Posted on 07/30/2013 12:00:36 PM PDT by chittlin
Went to the local Social Security Administration Office today with my wife who will be retiring in near future. The office is in a rural low crime area in Western Kentucky. We were greeted by two armed, courteous "Rent-a-Cops" upon entry. While waiting to be served we observed the Rent-a-Cops doing a thorough search of a an elderly lady's purse prior to her being allowed to see the Social Security worker. These guys were opening every thing in the purse, unzipping every zipper. Voicing our disapproval over the search, we departed. The entire scenario was ridiculous.
Does anyone know the rationale behind the searches?
Did all mine by computer. And some very polite and professional lady called me to confirm everything i did on line. The Cookeville, TN Social Security office is the best!
I have never gone there in person. saved me a 40 minute ride.
We’re suprised that you’re surpised at that.
Guess you thought there would be more than just two “rent-a-cops”?
Welcome to Obammie-land. Where they need federal agents to watch other federal agents.
Much like at U.S. Airports, she was probably a little old white lady. Now, had she been wearing a “burka” w/part of her face hidden, from a middle-eastern country, and looked suspicious, the so called Rent A Cop probably would not only have done no searching of her personal belongings, but neither would he have questioned her presence in any way. Racial profiling, you know.
Wow! I didn’t know they were searching people at the Social Security office. That’s pretty egregious if you ask me. Nevertheless, millions of Americans like these sort of (unconstitutional) searches. It makes them feel secure.
Can’t answer your question, but I was able this year to apply for and receive Medicare and Soc Sec completely via internet.
i cant say i know the reason other than hightened security, but i think we need to not let the marxists blur the lines of liberty. to me, there is a huge difference in unreasonable searches and siezures when we are going about our business, say just walking or driving, when we have an expectation of privacy.
however, when we go to a place like ss, that is an arm of government, i think we should have an expectation of loss of privacy.
to me, these two are different, and if we complain too much about the latter, we allow the marxists an inroad for both types.
Irrelevant: either the 4th, and 2nd Amendments are law or they are not.
Tell that to the security guard with the Glock on his hip.
All federal building require this. Nothing new.
The feds are afraid lately across the board.
Last fall, my mom died and I had to go to the SS office near downtown Minneapolis. I thought it might be easier to visit than call on the phone and wait forever to talk to someone.
By the way, this SS office is in a not-so-great part of Minneapolis just south of downtown.
I was greeted by a rent a cop too and told to dump EVERYTHING in my pockets, take off my belt and walk thru the metal detector. I complied because I had to get this stuff done.
I assume that these security rules were put into effect sometime after 9-11 and in true government wisdom, they issued a blanket edict for ALL govt offices to have security.
OTOH, given the neighborhood I was in, I can easily understand the reason for the added security.
I’ve been to Soc Sec offices in many towns over many years, never once saw an armed guard or a search.
You take a number, sit down, and go gray waiting for an agent who, invariably, detests people and lets you know it. Peon, you couldn’t pay him to touch your great-unwashed self and stuff!
besides regular SocSec there is SSI and Disability benefits clients, and unlike the straiht forward record of the working-life amount of SocSec contributions paid in and the regular eligibilty questions, SSI and Disability claims can be disputed and the applicants can be irate when they are
I saw one lady at our local soc sec office throwing a tantrum over some matter relating to her disability claim - it was ugly.
Decided not to go back and just use the computer and the Internet instead.
Yes. Government workers are afraid to do their jobs without protection. Animosity towards the Government and by connection its workers is at an all time high.
So while a young women working 7-11 in a high crime area in most cities may not be armed to protect herself, rest easy knowing that our highly paid, well benefited government employees, get paid armed protection..
Next time have your wife wear a burka. You just stand next to her and mumble, “tic, tic, tic, BOOM”. They will let you folks in right away.
I would not have enjoyed your experience.
The thing I don't understand is how it is constitutional to do stop and frisk searches in NYC. Sharpton was complaining about that yesterday, but I don't know how anyone just walking down the street can be forced to submit to a search and being frisked.
Welcome to Amerikka.
cause the local SS office in Owensboro, Kentucky ranks SO HIGH on all the potential AQ hit lists. /SARC sarcsarcsarcsarcsarc
At the Federal Court House here in Pittsburgh, there is a handsome bronze plaque on the wall containing the Bill of Rights.
This is right next to the door where you are lined up to empty your pockets and get patted down and wanded (and who knows what else) before entry.
I’d LOL if it didn’t want to make me CRY.
Spoken like a man who doesn’t work in a SS office so he doesn’t care if someone shoots up the place.
Owensboro is a huge metropolis compared to the town we were in.
Nowadays? Obammie has the DOJ, the IRS and thousands of of other agencies armed to the teeth with millions of rounds of ammo, weapons and assault vehicles ready willing and able to put down any violent and rebellious actions some blue-haired Tea Party pensioner might start at the Social Security office. We see this as a normal daily occurance, and we think nothing of it.
Doesn't that just comfort your so? Ya can just sleep better at night know that, right?
Wonderful Lake Street.
They are the law, but that has nothing to do with building security. If you don’t like the way a building is secured don’t go into it.
The IRS is afraid of We The People, because they are on the wrong side of the U.S. Constitution, and people are not going to put up with this much longer.
My wife had to stop by a rural social security office in eastern Kentucky last week to drop off some items to an employee for the local high school sports team. She said essentially the same thing as the original post. Armed guards barking orders, rude staff, in general making anyone who walked through the door feel like a criminal.
She has worked in private business and in health care and said she had never seen such abuse and crude customer service in her life. She told the friend who worked at the office she would not under any circumstance set foot in that office again with those goons who worked the front area, that she would send school related items through his wife.
When she told me about it I said we’ll how does it feel brushing up against the leviathan? She was not a happy citizen.
Spoken like someone who thinks it's ok to violate the law's guarantees in the name of
security. (Perhaps also someone who thinks that government agents are deserving of special protection, above and beyond that a normal citizen would receive at his office of employment.)
Yeah, Patti Duke’s commercial did it for me. She was on TV and the SSAN site. Her husband, with her in the bit, was a sergeant in the Army whom she met when she did “A Time To Triumph” in 1986, about becoming a helicopter pilot and thus holding her family together.
In any case though, it was really easy for me too.
Not always possible; consider courthouses where one may be compelled by law to go and, even though he has committed no crime, disarmed. [Jury-duty; you can be fined/jailed for ignoring/refusing summons.]
If you want to make an issue of your treatment call your congressman/senator. Trust me if they get a call or letter from your congress critter they will expedite the case. They deny this but it is a lie.
Next up call the regional office in Atlanta and complain. Keep in mind this will put you on their radar.
I worked for this outfit over 20 yrs. ago for all of a year and it turned my stomach so I quit.
Unzip my wife’s purse and you will find a loaded pistol.
Could have something to do with it.
Logical profiling, little old grey haired ladies most likely put money into SS and are expecting a fair payment out. Tend to get irate when they find cat food in their future. All the young “disabled” and foreign “visitors” are rarely angry when they get handed checks for nothing.
So, the logical profiling is done in this case.
Oh no one ever gets searched before they go into a venue.
Well they should be. Let us know when they also become ashamed of themselves.
“Wonderful Lake Street.”
Actually, it was closer to Franklin Avenue - but in that part of town, there’s really no difference.
Oh, then you're saying it's a-ok for the government to require searches of persons and effects prior to allowing their subjects an audience?
If all you were doing was death notification in order to stop benefits, that’s been the purview of the funeral homes for years now. I know I didn’t have to do anything when my mom passed in 2007.
Due to annoying family members I hit 3 court buildings in one day last week. To get into all of them involved emptying pockets and going through a metal detector, one of them I emptied my pockets into a locker and THEY kept the key. That’s how it works and if you don’t like it too bad. I’ve done jury duty in 2 of those buildings in the 90s, same drill back then. When the people in charge of a building decide it’s a security zone then it’s a security zone and you’re going to be searched to go in, and nobody has ever successfully challenged that as a rights violation.
security does not triumph over the law. In my state, New Mexico, the State Constitution says the following:
New Mexico Constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
This means that a
no weapons, violators will be prosecuted sign on the courthouse is blatantly stating (a) that the the court does not respect the Constitution, and (b) therefore does not respect the law either.
Your state, Arizona, says the following:
AZ Constitution, Art 2, Section 26.and is likely at least a case of forgery,
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
13-2002. Forgery; classificationwhere
A. A person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person:
1. Falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument; or
2. Knowingly possesses a forged instrument; or
3. Offers or presents, whether accepted or not, a forged instrument or one that contains false information.
B. The possession of five or more forged instruments may give rise to an inference that the instruments are possessed with an intent to defraud.
C. Forgery is a class 4 felony, except that if the forged instrument is used in connection with the purchase, lease or renting of a dwelling that is used as a drop house, it is a class 3 felony. For the purposes of this subsection, "drop house" means property that is used to facilitate smuggling pursuant to section 13-2319.
written intermentis defined as:
12. "Written instrument" means either:because
(a) Any paper, document or other instrument that contains written or printed matter or its equivalent.
(b) Any token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, graphical image, access device or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege or identification.
other instrumentincludes signage.
Well then my recommendation is to go be a test case, sue them for unlawful search and seizure and see what happens. Of course we all know what’s going to happen, you’ll lose, because they aren’t trumping the law, they are APPLYING the law. That law does not mean what you’re trying to make it mean. It means you can own guns, and carry them in unregulated areas, but owners of buildings (which includes the government) are free to make areas gun free. Some states (your neighbor TX) require a specific notice be posted, but that’s the only functional limitation. Your space, your rules, people who don’t like it don’t have to come. It’s been very standard in this country for multiple decades for government buildings to limit who can and can’t be armed, and the federal government has generally been the most restrictive.
Here’s some reading, they’re called administrative searches:
And they’re legal, and constitutional, though often times what they take during them isn’t usable as evidence, but they can still seize it, and most importantly they can still search you to bar it from the building.
Yup. I'm thinking next time I'm called down for jury duty I'm going to raise enough of a ruckus over their unconstitutional procedures, that I'll probably end up in jail. It's not like they are going to pick me for a jury, since I can read.
Some of us are not surprised by that.
Ummm...yes. That way people don’t sneak weapons into airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers.
I think metal detectors in certain public buildings might be appropriate. NOT xrays that reveal your body in graphic detail, and NO frisking or pat downs. That is an invasion of privacy and treats citizens like criminals being arrested. Those bother me quite a bit, but nothing like the idea of people being stopped and frisked on the street, and having their bags and cases inspected. How has that possibly been ruled legal?
Free food, right?
My local SS office in Ft. Myers had a Glock-armed guard who kept us geezers from getting too rowdy so that we could hear our numbers called when we were up to see the staff.
I was surprised to see the Glock and I looked closely at his badge and it said “Federal Protective Service.”
This is NOT a “rent-a-cop” operation, IMO, and the officer I saw appeared to be extremely fit and likely former military, possibly a former Marine.
These officers appear to have 100% police powers on federal property and inside federal buildings.
I've thought about it.
Of course we all know whats going to happen, youll lose, because they arent trumping the law, they are APPLYING the law.
No, they aren't; the NM constitution that I pointed out flatly prohibits any law from abridging the citizen's right to keep and bear arms for his own defense. So if there's a law on the books about it (which there isn't; I looked) it would be null and void according to the State's constitution.
That law does not mean what youre trying to make it mean. It means you can own guns, and carry them in unregulated areas, but owners of buildings (which includes the government) are free to make areas gun free.
No; it says that there are limits to laws, and one is that there is no valid law which abridges the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Your space, your rules, people who dont like it dont have to come.
What do you think the Constitution is? It's the rules for the government! They are to be bound thereby, not exempt under words like
Its been very standard in this country for multiple decades for government buildings to limit who can and cant be armed, and the federal government has generally been the most restrictive.
And I showed you that my state's constitution prohibits such.
Heres some reading, theyre called administrative searches
And theyre legal, and constitutional, though often times what they take during them isnt usable as evidence, but they can still seize it, and most importantly they can still search you to bar it from the building.
They might be legal, but they are unlawful. (Huge difference between the two.)
How does granting special privilege and security to government agents stop people flying planes into skyscrapers? (The question was whether government agents deserve to have special protection/security.)