White House proposes rules for gun owners

| January 3, 2014

This Friday afternoon, Vice president Bite Me’s office announced that the president will propose two new rules in regards to mental health and gun ownership, according to Fox News;

One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit “the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands,” without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

“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.”

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution — both inpatient and outpatient — count under the law as “committed to a mental institution.” According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.

On it’s face, I see no problem with these proposals, in light of the fact that all of the headline-producing multiple-victim shootings in the last couple of years were perpetrated by folks who should not have guns because of their history of mental health issues. That seems to be the biggest problem – normal gun owners aren’t killing people, it’s the not-so-normals. Holmes, Loughner and Lanza were all being treated but they weren’t entered into the national background checks system. Maybe this will help, but it worries me that government will do like it always does and abuse the new authority. I’ll wait to read the new Proposed Rule when it publishes in the Federal Register before passing judgement.

Meanwhile, the White House/Obama Administration is passing the buck on gun control to Congress according to the Washington Post;

“The administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system,” the White House said in a statement. “The administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.

Yeah, well, if the White House can close the “lunatic loophole”, that ought to be all of the gun control we need. And why isn’t the Washington Post asking why, if the President can do this now, didn’t he do it before? Was he hoping for another mass shooting he could blame on Congress?

The Washington Times quotes the White House;

“While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide,” the White House said in a memo outlining the actions.

Yeah, well an even more vast majority of gun owners are not violent either, they don’t commit suicide or homicides – but they’re the ones who are punished by the government every time there’s a shooting. Colorado, New York, Maryland, Connecticut.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Gun Grabbing Fascists

37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UpNorth

So, if this is an “executive action”, why didn’t Barrycade do this when he was inaugurated back in ’09?
Just once, I’d like to see a liberal actually commit their “common sense gun safety legislation”. Before they require the lemmings to line up to register their long guns.

Frankly Opinionated

Will the new rules contain a sub-paragraph outlining the suggestion by the Next High Hoo Haa, Biden, that we buy a shotgun and shoot through the door? Some people might have missed his directive on this defensive tactic.

Hondo

Here are two interesting questions – and they’re not rhetorical questions, because I don’t have a clue as to the answers:

1. Will in-residence rehab for alcohol or drug dependency count as “involuntary commitment”?

2. If someone is committed for a single psychotic episode – say, because they took or were slipped some psychoactive drugs and had a bad reaction – do they stay on the “no gun list” after they’re over the issue and medical authorities deem them no longer a danger?

xbradtc

1. Will in-residence rehab for alcohol or drug dependency count as “involuntary commitment”?

That’s not too scary. What’s scary is they will decide that court ordered alcohol education courses (like for every DUI or public intoxication charge) will count.

Hondo

xtratrac: not sure I agree. Consider the following scenario:

1. Guy or gal develops a drinking problem.
2. Same guy or gal gets minor stupid, is ordered by court to rehab in lieu of doing time.
3. Guy or gal beats the habit, becomes a teetotaler, stays clean rest of life.

Do they get put on the “no gun list” permanently for having once been “involuntarily committed”?

OWB

The answers to those questions would be yes, depending upon who you can prove to have voted for in the last election cycle. Or no, maybe, depending upon whether you are here illegally or not.

It’s all relative to the situation, and who you are.

And who is in charge.

Richard

@5 Hondo – my questions

If one gets blocked, can one get unblocked? Federal gun law defines a felony as any crime for which the individual can be sentenced to more than 1 year in jail. In some states, there is an automatic restoration of civil rights after 7 years or so. But not in others.

Does it bother anyone else that the Administration is changing the rules without involving Congress? The President is altering the meaning of HIPAA. Can he do that?

Hondo

Richard: it bothers the hell out of me that this is being done without affording the individual in question either substantive or procedural due process of law. Both types of due process are generally required in the event that a fundamental Constitutional right is to be taken away from an individual. Here, it’s being done by Presidential order instead.

Firearms ownership is such a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Absent a felony conviction or a finding of mental incompetency by a court of law, I see absolutely zero justification for permanently taking that right away from an individual. Even a temporary revocation bothers me until same is ratified by a court.

To me, this establishes an incredibly dangerous precedent. Why? Answer me this question: if it can be done with respect to one fundamental Constitutional right by Presidential order – then why can’t the same be done for all the others?

I have no wish to live under a dictatorship, where the ruler’s word becomes law, or in a police state. I’ve seen a couple of those overseas. Um, no thanks.

Hondo

Richard: sorry, forgot to answer your first question.

I don’t know. I believe in theory one can go through the courts (or an administrative appeals process) and get such a decision reversed. How difficult that would be to do in practice, I don’t know.

I do know that it shouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Absent an immediate threat to life/safety, the process should begin and end in a court of competent jurisdiction – not in some bureaucrat’s office.

sqrlhntr

I know guys in Virginia and NC that have felonies from youthful mistakes, back in the eighties. Can never purchase or possess a firearm. Ever. And that’s every liberal’s wet dream. A lifetime ban.

Richard

@5 Hondo:

Here is a link to the press release.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/03/fact-sheet-strengthening-federal-background-check-system-keep-guns-out-p

I read your note above. If we are a civil society then open court and due process are — everything. I apply the same rule to NSA and the FISA court. I know its off topic but I know what can be done with that data so I am pretty excited about that.

Another question came to mind. Suppose that Bob (any Bob) has a breakdown and is “committed”. Can the cops go to his house and seize any weapons that he might have? Or, maybe, seize his wife’s weapons because he still lives there?

Hondo

Interesting you should ask that 2nd question, Richard.

In some states, the answer seems to be yes:

http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=34532

Ex-PH2

Do any of you have even the faintest idea how easily this kind of thing can become corrupted?

AW1 Tim

Corrupted? Of course it can.

For example: The leftist in the White House decides that he wants to prevent veterans from having access to firearms. period. How to do this?

Well, involve the VA. Have every single veteran evaluated for PTSD. Have every single veteran with chronic pain diagnosed for depression resulting from chronic pain.

Now, promulgate that PTSD and Depression among veterans is a contributing factor in veteran suicides. Later, add that it’s a contributing factor in Domestic Violence cases.

Require that any veteran diagnosed with PTSD or Depression undergo a 5-day in-house program as either an inpatient or outpatient.

Now issue an executive decision, backed by the DOJ, that those programs represent Commitment for treatment of a mental disorder.

Issue orders to disarm those veterans.

Voila. problem solved.

BTW: This is already being done. PTSD and Depression based on Chronic Pain is being treated by a 5-day program at VA Hospitals called the ACT program.

Hondo

Ex-PH2: damn straight I know exactly how easily this can be corrupted and abused. That’s why I’m so damn bothered by this, and why I think it’s so freaking dangerous.

A Proud Infidel

It’s obvious that B. Hussein 0bama & Company want nobody but the Government and drug cartels armed!

Grimmy

Yeah, some nut cases went slaughter fest. That’s happened and that’s bad.

But, is giving the psycho industry, the same industry that decided that pedophilia and pederasty weren’t bad things after all, the same industry generally filled by those who sought the psycho analization that came with the eduction as their first motivation for going into that career… even more direct power over persons’ lives?

Lets also not forget that this is the same industry that, so far, has showed itself onboard with the whole “all vets are psychodamaged” bullshit too.

Keep looking for a better way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Oh, and check your six on this too.

This is coming from the Obama shitheads. You know, the same peeps that sold the LIV thumbsuckers on that whole “free medical insurance” crap that we’re suffering through at this very moment.

Anything the Obama shitheads suggest, desire or want is poison by design. No breaks in that pattern yet.

Matthew House

two words

Lautenberg Amendment.

We already have people losing their 2A rights permanently, without due process.

And this new trick isn’t ‘possibly flawed’ it’s going to function -exactly as designed-. And strip more people of their 2A rights. Intentionally.

“possibly misused” christ, dont be such a sucker.

Ex-PH2

This is a quote from an article by someone else, not me:

‘Believe nothing you hear or read that doesn’t agree with your own sense of reason. The next four months will likely be a challenge between theory, ideology, and reality. And when reality is recognized, a series of policies will either have to be reversed or modified – again. To force the ideology over the reality of actual experience will make others question your sanity and/or real intentions.’

Make a note of that: sense of reason.

The article was written about the colossal mess called obamacare, but it applies here, as well.

A Proud Infidel

We need to beware of EVERYTHING B. Hussein 0bama & Company propose, they always have an ulterior motive!

streetsweeper

I love reading OWB’s explainations. Slays me every time, lol.

Hondo

Mathew House: as much as I disagree with the Lautenberg amendment, it does not remove anyone’s Constitutional rights without due process. Due process was present in the individual’s original trial and/or the hearing at which the protection order was granted.

IMO the Lautenberg amendment is bad law and should be repealed; no misdemeanor crime should revoke a fundamental Constitutional right. But it’s not a denial of Constitutional rights without due process.

sqrlhntr: the same is true of the individuals you mention. They received due process in their original trials. Bad choices often have lifelong consequences.

2/17 Air Cav

We all know that certain lunatics are prohibited from possessing guns. And most of us know that there is a federal database that is dedicated to identifying those who are prohibited from possessing guns. It is this database (NICS) that is tapped when one goes to purchase a gun at a store or gun shop. But that wonderful thing called federalism prevents the federal government from mandating that states feed the database, and the states are far and away the largest contributor to that database. HIPPA is something of a red herring inasmuch as involuntary commitments are legal—not medical—actions and, as such, are not subject to HIPPA constraints. It is true that the legal order is always based upon some medical (psychiatric) exams and findings but one can separate the two (conclusion and basis) for NICS reporting purposes. Thus, so far as removing the HIPPA reporting impediment goes, I don’t see that the floodgates will open. It will remain up to each state what—and whether—to feed the NICS database. And the only thing I see that will change that and result in active participation by most states is the one thing that has always worked: give ‘em money—and lots of it.

Sparks

@13 Ex that was my thought at first reading this. It is too easy to be corrupted by the same administration who put it in place. Government by written dictate of the President is not what I consider democracy or a Republic. There are so many open questions about this that will be decided “on the fly” and according to liberal dictates. That is scary. It has opened a huge can of worms. I am all for keeping weapons out of the hands of those who committed all the recent massacres. But in many of those cases the person stole the weapon(s) used. How will that be dealt with unless the liberals get their way and move to simply abolish all gun rights. I know that is the Second Amendment but I am not fooled that there is a huge liberal agenda eager to repeal it if they at all believe it is possible. Leaving aside the Second Amendment this, like most of Obama’s programs will not resolve the intended problem but instead be a huge federal and state debt in its implementation and enforcement. Also the reality is, it will never stop the truly insane, bent on committing these types of crimes. Criminals always find the weapons they need, so will the mentally unstable.

OWB

Thanks, street! We are here to amuse.

This is another of those instances where I really would have preferred to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Has it really been 10 years since people laughed at me for opining that this is how it must have felt in Germany during the 30’s? Indeed. A dictator taking us down inch by painful inch.

That Guy

And ACLU files in 5, 4, 3…

Ex-PH2

@24 – I see this announcement as a clueless attempt to ‘do something’ that will placate everyone, pro-gun or anti-gun.

For some reason, there is a disconnect in the minds of the anti-gun crowd between people who commit the heinous acts that Lanza, Homes and Loughner committed, and the fact that the prima facie evidence was already available to prevent the violence, but NOTHING WAS DONE TO PREVENT IT.

If anyone is at fault, it is the people who knew in advance what would happen and did nothing to stop it. The exception is Adam Lanza’s mother, so I don’t include her in that, but the fact that she was trying to get him committed for treatment and was blocked is the fault of the people who are truly mentally ill, like Adam Lanza, just have ‘a problem’.

As a result, and in an attempt to PLEASE everyone who has an issue here, we get this dumbass end run-around announcement, which is only going to piss off as many people as possible, on both sides of the fence.

Oh, while we’re at it: Sotomayor is so far refusing to change her mind about the requirement for free birth control under obamacare. Heehee. A group of nuns don’t like it and want it blocked, but why should they be paying for it? They’re nuns. I know – their employer The Church is paying for it, but still — it’s that concept that has me lauging myself silly.

Ex-PH2

Oh, my word – such a Freudian slip I made!!!

‘the people who are truly mentally ill’ should be ‘the people who think that people like Lanza, who are truly mentally ill,’.

Sorry about that. My bad. That is a serious Freudian slip!

AW1 Tim

@22 Hondo:

In fact, the Lautenburg amendment DOES strip people of their 2a rights in violation of the Constitution. It has never been fully challenged in court, to my understanding.

The amendment was a retroactive law, thus violating the Ex Post facto provision of the Constitution. It first expanded the definition of Domestic Violence, the retroactively applied it to people who had, for example, been convicted of simple misdemeanor assault.

Those folks had already been aressted or summonsed, had a trial, been convicted and served their sentence. Their debt due to the state was paid if full. Now, years later, comes this horrible law and re-sentences folks with a cruel and unusual punishment (that’s the only way that stripping someone of their rights in this manner could be interpreted) without any benefit of representation, of appeal, of even the slightest whiff of due process.

Think about that: This law successfully convicts and resentences someone without benefit of trial, of even notice, years after the conviction, years after completion of sentence, all because the law was changed. The Constitution explicitly prohibits that.

I would also think that this would run afoul of other portions of the Constitution, such as the 5th, 6th, 8th, & 9th amendments.

Laws such as this are the foundation to which the shackles of slavery are fastened, and ought not to be tolerated by anyone who values freedom and an individual’s liberty. Either our Constitution says what it means, and means what it says, or we’ve crossed the Rubicon into a very dangerous place.

John

Quoth the WH: “Strengthening the Federal Background Check System to Keep Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands.”
You know what these [ http://flic.kr/p/iVtSD1 ] are? The wrong hands.

“That seems to be the biggest problem – normal gun owners aren’t killing people, it’s the not-so-normals.”

That’s not the case. The general argument rests on the assertion that over half of the perpetrators of mass shootings “displayed signs of mental illness prior to killings.”

First, the definition of “mass shooting” is an unofficial, and arbitrarily and inconsistently defined, category. Do “rampage”-type murders disproportionately have a mental illness element? Probably. A category, however, that disqualifies massacres just because there was more than one shooter, because the shooter was “related” to the victims, or because gang activity was alleged leaves out the vast majority of gun violence, very little of which is connected to mental illness by any reasonable threshold.

Second, “signs of mental illness” encompasses so much behavior, sans organic pathology (i.e., the habits of being narcissistic, grandiose, paranoid, socially and sexually inept, and/or deeply resentful) as to be not the slightest bit predictive, and basically lets the DSM colonize most of the human experience (cf. the relative rise and fall of the words ‘depressed’ vs. ‘unhappy’). In fact, excluding suicides and justifiable homicides, less than 5% percent of gun deaths are caused by individuals with a gun-disqualifying illness.

Also, it is a mistake to assume the sole purpose of NCIS is to conduct background checks on gun purchases. Believe me when I say the DOJ operates under the presumption that dissemination of NICS information to law enforcement agencies to further all sorts of criminal investigations is wholly compatible with the law’s purpose. Were I a vet, displacing the HIPAA regulations with respect to the NICS would be especially troubling.

There’s a reason stuff like this is dumped on Friday afternoon.

Hondo

AW1 Tim: au contraire, amigo. Apples and oranges.

In plain language, “due process” means a trial and/or court hearing where one’s Constitutional rights are respected. The Lautenberg Amendment requires that (conviction or court hearing to issue a protective order) BEFORE it becomes operative. Thus, Due Process is protected.

The argument that the Lautenberg Amendment is an unlawful ex post facto law would seem to me to have merit, at least regarding those persons conviceted prior to the law’s effective date. Unfortunately, the Lautenberg Amendment has been challenged in the courts – repeatedly – on those grounds. To date, no US District or Circuit Court has bought that argument. The specific cases are:

US v. Brady, 1994 (2nd Circuit)
US v. Waters, 1994 (2nd Circuit)
Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 1994 (7th Circuit)
US v. Emerson, 2001 (5th Circuit)

Brady and Waters specifically challenged the Lautenberg Amendment as an ex post facto law. The courts rejected that argument, in my view incorrectly.

I agree that Lautenberg is horrible law, as IMO it causes forfeiture of a principle Constitutional right for insufficient cause and is (for those convicted prior to it’s effective date) clearly an ex post facto law. However, the courts haven’t bought the ex post facto argument. And it does provide for due process prior to loss of rights.

AW1 Tim

Hondo:

My argument is that it changes the law and sentencing without grounds for appeal. There are literally tens of thousands of citizens whose 2a rights were stolen by this amendment. I know two of them personally.

These people were convicted of a Class D misdemeanor assault more than 20 years ago. They received suspended sentences of 7-10 days and a year’s probation. They successfully completed that and got on with their lives.

Now, more than 20 years later, they suddenly find that they cannot own or even handle a firearm. In fact, the police threatened to arrest one of them because his wife and son both owned firearms which were kept in his home. They were given a choice of removing the firearms from the home or seeing him arrested and heading to jail.

The law COULD, i suppose, be used against people convicted since it was enacted, but I still cannot understand how a court could let it stand against someone convicted decades earlier.

Hondo

AW1 Tim: that’s why I noted above that IMO the Lautenberg Amendment, applied to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence before its effective date, is clearly an ex post facto law. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so people barred by Lautenberg for convictions occurring prior to its effective date IMO have a valid beef. They got due process originally, but are now being punished again ex post facto due to a later change in law. That’s not right, and I have no idea why the courts allow that BS.

That’s a very different thing than denial of due process. Denial of due process would be if they’d not had a trial in the first place, but were merely banned on a Sheriff’s order.

Again: no argument that Lautenberg is bad law. Just discussing the distinction between ex post facto and due process. IMO it’s clearly the former when applied retroactively, but it doesn’t deny due process.

Ex-PH2

As much as I dislike using Wikipedia as a reference, you might find this info here to be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

Scroll down to near the bottom of the page, which includes a reference to banning gun ownership by people who are considered mentally defective or who have been involuntarily committed for treatment.

It seems to me that if anyone in government BOTHERED to dig up what is already in place, then this entire argument AND the two executive orders mentioned in the article up top are both redundant and unnecessary.

Maybe we should remind politicians that about 86% of the laws they want to pass were already passed a while back and they should do a better job of researching those laws, and stop wasting our tax money on their incompetence.

Anonymous

Next month, HHS will declare being conservative, a veteran and/or elderly (you know, DHS’ “rightwing extremist” definition) a “mental illness,” too…

rb325th

There seems to be a bit of confusion on what “involuntary commitment” is… If you go in and seek out care on your own, that is not involuntary. When it is ordered by a Judge in a court of law, that is involuntary.
There are only two ways a person will go to mental health treatment, on their own or with a court ordering it. Not sure why people get confused on this.

rb325th

@34, the Executive Order is redundant only in that it is telling the States and Doctors to do their jobs, that to this point many have been reluctant to do. That due to their concerns about violating Patient Privacy and the Federal laws that cover that.
otherewise, had States and Drs been reporting under the current guidelines as they should have been, the number of people on the list of those deemed “Mentally Defective” would be a lot larger than it is now. How many shooting would have been prevented is another story. We just really don’t know. The “Batman” shooting in Colorado probably could be counted as preventable had the Shrink done her job…