View Full Version : Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/
So, from the same article.
"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."
What the hells the point? Unless.... (tin foil hat on) it's to prep/stack the system for future degradations of rights by setting it up to be abused at a future date with further changes. As it's quoted it does nothing. Unless my reading skills have degraded further than I suspect.
Grand58742
01-03-14, 16:30
Neither sounds completely unreasonable. The second one I'd like to get a more detailed explanation on, but neither really changes a whole lot.
However, this is the hand we can see. What's the other hand doing?
Not sure if these are the right moves or not, but at least they are focusing on mental health and not guns in these actions.
Yeah and that won't be abused.....
Yeah and that won't be abused.....
This and the fact that it is an executive order. Just a little harmless executive order that will be a stick to poke the sleeping bear with. If the bear doesn't wake up, we'll try a bigger executive order on guns.
platoonDaddy
01-03-14, 17:41
Might have posted this before: my son was in a VERY serious bicycle accident (never moved for 6 months), of course I was friggin nervous and stressed. Went to family doctor and asked for something to smooth things out: his reply "know you love to hunt & shoot, if I prescribe something for stress, I am required to report." Believe me, that was the end of any conversation with medical on stress. Fortunately #1 son is on the road to recovery.
For sure the administration will abuse exec order.
Start writing now. These executive orders are out of control. We collectively need to fight this idiot on every front, no matter how small or unaffected you think you will be.
More of the executive orders when they can't actually pass any legislation. This is getting ridiculous. Didn't we used to have a system with checks and balances?
GeorgiaBoy
01-03-14, 18:02
More of the executive orders when they can't actually pass any legislation. This is getting ridiculous. Didn't we used to have a system with checks and balances?
We have always tried, but rouge executives will do whatever they want.
Take Andrew Jackson, in the early 1800's, for example.
Neither sounds completely unreasonable. The second one I'd like to get a more detailed explanation on, but neither really changes a whole lot.
However, this is the hand we can see. What's the other hand doing?
The other hand will be deciding what constitutes what is a mental health condition. I'm sure have a few posts from around the time Omaocare was first talked about and how this is the endgame.
If anything, it'll help establish a precedent, a handhold. Denials will be easier to uphold due to "safest course" reasoning.
More of the executive orders when they can't actually pass any legislation. This is getting ridiculous. Didn't we used to have a system with checks and balances?
We're supposed to have that. However, we have Legislation from the Oval Office and Courts. Our govt. has run off course, a run-away freight train, if you will.
To whoever says, "sounds reasonable to me".... Come back into reality, and realize that side hates you, hates the ideals and morals you hold near and dear, hates the Constitution and will stop at nothing to erode your Constitutionally Protected Rights.
No more giving even an inch....know and see right through their Lies. "It's for the Kids safety" is complete and utter bullshit....it's despicable, and downright disgusting.
Don't think for a second that ANY trip to the Doctor, VA or any counselor or Professional that has been documented, most likely will eventually be used against you.....it will start with Denied NICS checks, and guaranteed it WILL eventually lead to confiscation.
It has gotten to the point that anything coming from this tyrannical administration, is automatically met with a healthy case of absolute paranoia and hesitation..... If my family was in the cold freezing, and this admin offered me blankets, I'd refuse out of fear of being laced with smallpox.
An Undocumented Worker
01-03-14, 19:45
They'll probably make some other executive order that if you are arrested for peeing in the woods or some other random misdemeanor that you must then go through a psychiatric evaluation and that will count as being involuntarily commited.
ICANHITHIMMAN
01-03-14, 19:59
It's a tactfully deceptive play on words, "PC Bulls Shit", the guise of "caring" to achieve the thus unachieved goal of disarmament. I see more than a few of you saying, "well that's not so bad, at least.....". However if past experience with this administration tells us anything, it's that you can not trust the government, regardless of party affiliation, they all only want to control!
The proper way would be to propose legislation, let it work it's way thru Congress, study and debate it, and if a majority agree, make it law for the President to sign. This is bass ackwards, and is precisely why it's dangerous. Ruling by Presidential fiat is a slippery slope; first comes the easy stuff to create validity for the PROCESS, then use the newly validated PROCESS to work the harder stuff...
This is one of those things that doesn't look too bad at first glance.
Then there's that little question of exactly who makes the rules and what is "mentally disturbed".
---Ever been prescribed Xanax?
---Got PTSD?
---Ever expressed to a doc that you're depressed, maybe a spouse or child has died?
---Ever admit to having "anger" issues?
etc. etc.
Seems like they are chomping at the bit to link private ownership of firearms with mental illness.
Grand58742
01-04-14, 00:28
This is one of those things that doesn't look too bad at first glance.
Then there's that little question of exactly who makes the rules and what is "mentally disturbed".
---Ever been prescribed Xanax?
---Got PTSD?
---Ever expressed to a doc that you're depressed, maybe a spouse or child has died?
---Ever admit to having "anger" issues?
etc. etc.
That's the $64,000 question right there isn't it?
If you want the facts of what is being proposed, read these:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00039.pdf
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf
There is a danger here. It's buried on page 9 & 10 of the top document. Specifically when the
§ 478.11 Meaning of terms. beginning at the top of page 16 is taken into account.
Committed to a mental institution.
(a) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes an involuntary commitment to a mental institution for inpatient or outpatient treatment. The term includes an involuntary commitment for mental defectiveness, i.e., mental illness, to a mental institution. It also includes a commitment to a mental institution for other reasons, such as for drug use.
The last sentence here is the operative change. Everything is specific, until the last sentence. There, it suddenly (and I believe intentionally) gets quite vague. The part about "such as for drug abuse" is a red herring and draws the eye away from the fact that "other reasons" are not described or enumerated. Drug use is already covered under another section. Specifically:
These prohibitions apply to any person who:
4
(1)
Has been convicted in any court of
a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year;
(2)
Is a fugitive from justice;
(3)
Is an unlawful user of or addict
ed to any controlled substance;
(4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Remove that last sentence and it entirely changes the scope of the proposed regulatory change.
For those that didn't bother to read the linked documents, there is still no legal mechanism that allows any health provider to report a person to NICS. The changes only apply to "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority".
The VA already reports to the ATF and veterans have been losing their 2nd amendment rights since the 2008 veteran disarmament act was penned even though in many cases they had no record, not adjudicated or committed any crimes. This is a game changer and this gives these tyrants more tools.
Mauser KAR98K
01-04-14, 02:11
if it's coming from Obama, there is always something underhanded. Period. Be suspect.
Where does Obamacare fit into this? We are still finding crap in it everyday.
ETA: The Blaze's take:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/03/obama-administrations-two-quiet-new-executive-actions-on-who-can-buy-a-gun/
"Examples given by the Justice Department are the statutory terms “committed to a mental institution” and “adjudicated as a mental defective” to include involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitments, anyone found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, someone lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane, and persons found guilty but mentally ill."
Seems like they are chomping at the bit to link private ownership of firearms with mental illness.
You're quite right.. Actually, I'd think it'd be easier to link the liberal socialist mindset to mental illness, than gun ownership.. After all, look at the last school shooting, The perp was a well know, admitted socialist, anti-gun, was convinced that the republican party was the root of all evil, and when he gets disciplined by one of his teachers, (A debate coach, if I'm not mistaken, I wonder if the coach didn't at some point give him a verbal lashing over his socialist views, and he wanted revenge) and look what he does. Funny, how the Libs and the press swept that under the rug as quickly as possible, when they found out it was one of their own who did the shooting....
Here is a post from a member who doesn't have enough posts for GD....
[QUOTE=48J]It appears that the administration is once more re-writing current legislation without congressional concurrence. Based only on the article, the EO circumvents HIPPA legislation. It will be interesting to see which states implement the direction and which push back. The ACLU may challenge on privacy grounds as well.
v/r,
if it's coming from Obama, there is always something underhanded. Period. Be suspect.
Where does Obamacare fit into this? We are still finding crap in it everyday.
ETA: The Blaze's take:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/03/obama-administrations-two-quiet-new-executive-actions-on-who-can-buy-a-gun/
"Examples given by the Justice Department are the statutory terms “committed to a mental institution” and “adjudicated as a mental defective” to include involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitments, anyone found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, someone lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane, and persons found guilty but mentally ill."
Agree 100% about being suspect, especially when the quoted material is already on the 4473 in section F.
This is bad on BOTH the firearms AND privacy front. When they toss around the public safety phrase everyone should be afraid.
"Thus far, the health privacy laws have gotten in the way, so the HHS wants to “eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands.”"
"There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “This proposed rulemaking is carefully balanced to protect and preserve individuals’ privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the public’s health and safety.”
Obama-Holder-Sebelius = Danger Will Rodgers
Hmmmmm.
So the admin who repeatedly lied about being able to keep our insurance plans and doctors sets in motion a way to gut your right to keep medical data private and to administratively define who is sane and who isn't. And I shouldn't be worried.... yeah right.
Mauser KAR98K
01-04-14, 23:16
Start writing, everyone. He is doing illegal acts with this EO. He said he would do it.
I said almost the same thing elsewhere. The administration that spent 600,000,000 on a healthcare website of doom (where security experts have said your information is ripe for compromise) is going to be able to put this into place without screwing it up massively. Sure thing. I would rather hire an Afghan to run my Porkaplooza website.
Hmmmmm.
So the admin who repeatedly lied about being able to keep our insurance plans and doctors sets in motion a way to gut your right to keep medical data private and to administratively define who is sane and who isn't. And I shouldn't be worried.... yeah right.
Nightvisionary
01-05-14, 06:05
So, from the same article.
"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."
What the hells the point? Unless.... (tin foil hat on) it's to prep/stack the system for future degradations of rights by setting it up to be abused at a future date with further changes. As it's quoted it does nothing. Unless my reading skills have degraded further than I suspect.
Everything is a game of chess with this bunch.
And they also said obamacare wouldn't add a penny to the federal deficit ...
To hell with the lot of them!
Sent from my DROID X2
Mauser KAR98K
01-05-14, 09:35
Everything is a game of chess with this bunch.
And the GOP is playing checkers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.