White House: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer
As promised, the White House released their proposal to enact a new Executive Order to increase gun control on gun buyers who obey the law. Aside from asking States politely to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) it really does nothing to prevent gun violence. It says that more gun dealers will be bound to do back ground checks, so I’m sure the FBI will be getting a lot of requests from darkened parking lots and alleyways from guys selling guns from the trunks of their cars. The plan also restricts firearm sales on the internet. A show of hands; how many of you folks have purchased firearms on the internet without background checks? Yeah, me neither. Nor have I bought a gun at a Gun SHow when I didn’t go through NICS background checks.
ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
[…]
The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
[…]
The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.
The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
Basically, they’re just throwing money at the fringes of the problem. When the government involves itself into “smart-anything-technology” it will probably too smart for any of us citizens. They’re going to hire more people to answer phones at NICS, but if they don’t do their jobs, as in the case with the South Carolina shooting last summer, it doesn’t matter how many of them there are. They’re also hiring 200 more ATF agents for enforcement. In an environment where prosecutors are willing to trade off firearms charges in favor of other criminal charges in deals with criminals, enforcement doesn’t help.
The only thing I see that might be helpful is;
Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
We’ll see how that works out, but I don’t have much hope. Mostly, I see this as a stop-gap for legislative action and just another step towards confiscation – when this doesn’t stop the next mass shooting or terrorist attack, the gun grabbers will claim that confiscation is the only option left for them to pursue.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Gun Grabbing Fascists
Like so much of Obummer’s Policy. It’s a beer fart in the whirlwhind. Until the major reasons behind violence are addressed these EOs do nothing but create red tape for law abiding citizens.
If there’s confiscation, it won’t end well for the libtards. The military, most police, and every gun owner knows the Constitution and knows that such a thing is illegal.
Some idiot on facebook the other day said the government just needs to go around and collect all the guns and be done with it.
I was nice enough to inform her that there are somewhere around 80 million gun owners in the US. If the govt. did that and just 1% of gun owners objected and shot just one person defending their rights, that would produce 800,000 casualties. That’s twice as many combat casualties that the US had in WWII.
That’s assuming that enough LEOs could be found to break their oaths of office and violate the Constitution. Also, let’s not forget Wyoming and their wonderful new FELONY when it comes to Federal firearms law enforcement.
In terms of the on-line gun sales issue, could this be interpreted that folks who want to simply sell a firearm online must have to have a FFL? That seems a little far-reaching to me.
For firearms transactions made on CheaperThanDirt and GunBroker, etc., a background check was required and was completed through a local FFL license holder.
Also: Just how the hell is the SSA going to craft the language necessary for prohibited firearms possession for mental health reasons without violating HIPPA? IIRC, the New York Safe Act was challenged in court because of similar nonsense.
I’m not sure how SSA is going to do that. But, if anyone has a joint checking account with a spouse, son or daughter, it might be worth giving that a second look.
What might be convenience to you may look like an inability to manage your finances to an administrative judge.
I’m not either sure.
How will the SSA go about making an ineligibility determination? At first glance, it appears the SSA will be making an irrational assumption that a person who cannot administer his/her finances should be considered a danger to society (based on what records/proof?).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the government’s credible interest in firearms ownership more about public safety and not whether or not a person is financially incompetent? There are due process issues here.
Whatever SSA comes up with, it won’t be pretty.
They’ll probably go the same route the VA does.
It’s the Obummer/bodaprez administration… your rights under HIPPA are meaningless in their eyes, as long as it advances their agenda.
Hopefully the next President uses the time between the election and inauguration to ID the EO’s that need to be removed.
IMO…if the wording uses the appropriate DSM/ICD coding as an authority and then makes the reporting mandatory then there won’t be a question of HIPAA being violated.
The current status is flawed and many states make any reporting for use in NICS voluntary, which leaves the practitioner waiting to be thrown under the bus.
Some time ago it was discussed here where a veteran was added to NICS as being prohibited from owning firearms because of his diminished cognitive abilities after suffering from TBI. Adding to that, PTSD has been re-characterized by some mental health professionals from a condition that was once a normal minds reaction to traumatic stimuli to a condition that has increasingly become associated and attributed to violent behavior. Overall, who can report certain medical or mental health issues is supposed to be tightly controlled by the Dept of Health and Human Services.
The precedent is already set in other areas that concern public safety, such as communicable disease. It’s not impossible to consider and properly implement.
…btw, the acronym is HIPAA
If you don’t know that much, you may not be as familiar with it as you think.
Please don’t take my use of the word “you” to be directed at anyone specifically. It was not my intent…nor is this comment directed at anybody specifically.
Public safety issues that conflict with specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution have in the past been required to undergo what is known as “legal strict scrutiny”. That means having your day in court, and the public good obtained by infringing on that right must be conclusively shown to outweigh the curtailment of the Constitutional right involved.
I have no problem with someone who has been found mentally incompetent by a court of law being barred from firearms ownership. I can live with those who have previously been involuntarily committed likewise being prohibited from firearms ownership – though I find even that somewhat problematic, since we are talking a fundamental Constitutional right. And I have a big problem with allowing medical professionals and/or administrative officials – or, indeed, anyone except the courts – to decide, by fiat and acting alone, to take away someone’s rights under the Constitution. The 14th Amendment requires due process of law before that can happen, and administrative fiat is NOT due process of law.
Until someone has been adjudged mentally incompetent, I see no justification for allowing medical personnel or faceless SSA (or VA) bureaucrats to make such a call. Firearms ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Taking away that right – or any other fundamental Constitutional right – should ALWAYS require strict scrutiny and court action.
Perhaps because I’ve worked in mental health, I’m not as willing to cut of an individuals rights without significantly more judicial oversight and a method to reverse that decision when an individual is not a threat to himself or other. From what most folks are proposing, it is only a one way street.
Unfortunately, L4C, not all in the mental health field (or any other field, for that matter) are as respectful of others’ Constitutional rights as you.
Wherever authority can be abused, sooner or later it will be. The only questions are when and how badly.
If you know of a single counterexample in World History, please enlighten me. I can’t think of one.
“And I have a big problem with allowing medical professionals and/or administrative officials – or, indeed, anyone except the courts”
It is often the professional that is simply acting at the ground level as an arm of what is legally mandated.
For example a person diagnosed with a seizure disorder, has to be reported to the DMV, because by law, they are not supposed to drive.
There are many examples of such interference which is mandated above personal liberty for the good of public safety.
Perhaps, and you’ve picked a poor one. There is no Right under the Constitution to operate a motor vehicle.
Bingo. Driving is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Regulating driving thus does not require legal strict scrutiny; state/Federal governments have broad latitude to do so – and do.
Firearms ownership, in contrast, is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. This makes it legally a fundamental right. Laws/regulations that restrict a fundamental Constitutional right are required to undergo strict scrutiny. Laws affecting other behavior are not.
The Wikipedia article on strict scrutiny is actually a good one. It details what is required, and under what conditions, quite accurately.
The proposed regulations the Current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, is attempting to foist on the public do not pass muster with respect to compliance with strict scrutiny.
reductio absurdum
“The proposed regulations the Current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, is attempting to foist on the public do not pass muster with respect to compliance with strict scrutiny”.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say they never will. 🙂
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
That is all.
so….nobody is ever too mentally unstable to have their access to firearms restricted…because that will set off a cascade of far reaching legislation that will deny gun ownership to all Americans.
lol…ok
No one is saying that, and you know it.
Current federal law specifically excludes people selling a single gun from the FFL requirement. The executive order can not trump existing federal law.
I agree Bobo, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this administration tried such over-reach.
Bobo, Bobo, Bobo; since when did this asshole ever give a shit about what the law says? He does what he wants and then dares congress to do something, which they never do, so he goes on doing whatever he wants, whether legal or not, and laughs at the gutless wonders in congress.
Well, that just makes me butthurt all over now. The USGOV is going to pump $500 million into mental health care but there’s no COLA for Social Security or VADC, so people who need it and are getting it won’t be able to get to it. But people who need it and are NOT getting it still won’t go get it.
Way to go, you stupid frakwart. You really do know how to screw taxpayers three ways to Sunday, don’t you?
One way to avoid a background check each time you buy a weapon is to have a CHL/LTC/whatever your state calls it. Here’s what the Federal Law says:
TITLE 27 CFR CHAPTER II
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
§ 478.102 Sales or deliveries of firearms on and after November 30, 1998.
§ 478.102 Sales or deliveries of firearms on and after November 30, 1998.
(a) Background check. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer (the licensee) shall not sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this part unless the licensee meets the following requirements:…….
(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if—
(1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that—
(i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;
(ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and
(iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS;
(2) The firearm is subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act and has been approved for transfer under 27 CFR part 479; or
(3) On application of the licensee, in accordance with the provisions of §478.150, the Director has certified that compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section is impracticable.
Also, here’s a link to what the ATF just published in regards to the FFL requirement:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
Considering that a) the seller notes down the CHL (OK, now in Texas it is a LTC (License to Carry) number as proof you showed it and b) CHL/LTC holders nationwide have a lower crime rate than the police themselves do, these are people who already have a track record of obeying the law.
Exactly. So all the talk of “expanded” background checks does nothing…
Thanks for the link nbcguy54, that was a useful document.
Again, no liberal has yet to give me a satisfactory answer as to how any of this shit keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
It doesn’t. It only stops law-abiding citizens from being able to buy guns.
Not a single one of these actions would have prevented ANY of the mass shootings in the past decade.
It’s all just security theater to make the fucking hippies feel all happy-happy-joy-joy about the pResident.
As usually there is really nothing being proposed that would stop the overwhelming amount of gun violence, as the majority of felons are not buying their guns legally.
This is not meant to solve anything, it is only meant to appease low information voters, and as stated to help the case to be made down the road that we have to ban all guns.
So just WHAT has the current administration done about straw purchases like those done in say… Fast & Furious? *crickets*
I ASS-U-ME that asking about that is still “waycist”.
WTF?
“but the executive action also contains instructions for the Defense Department to “conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms.”
The Justice and Homeland Security departments also are charged with similar research. Secretaries from all three departments are directed to provide a report by mid-April outlining their “strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology.””
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/05/obama-gun-control-military/78297496/
That research and strategy has already been conducted and developed … Here it is:
“Keep your ‘bugger hook’ off the ‘bang switch’ until you are ready to destroy your target”.
Sorry, the language in that response has been deemed too high of a reading level for most High School graduates. Can you please dumb it down a little more so Joe doesn’t get confused.
“Don’t be fingering dat trigger else you bust a cap in yo own dumb ass”
The government’s ‘smart technology’ end game in this situation will be to develop the structures necessary for the government to have the guns, and the citizens to have none. Anything else is just sweetener to make that bitter pill more palatable. Curtains don’t erase the fact that the new window will have bars on it.
You already have states like NJ who have already passed legislation that once ANY ‘smart gun’ is available for general sale anywhere in the US, that NO non-‘smart-gun’ can be sold in the state of NJ again. That is why several organizations have resisted – if you allow even one to hit the market, even for $100,000 a pop, you have just killed the market for existing guns.
More feel good bullshit for the liberal masses. I am not at all surprised that 0bummer is throwing money at things that will have no discernible effect on gun crime. I do believe this will not be the last EO we will hear from him on this…
Dumbass.
Øbama is on the box now, lying his ass off about guns, and his “actions”.
In summary, pResident Buh-rock, go pound sand.
I’m beginning to think that B. Hussein 0bama & Company are going to try and throw up as many bureaucratic hurdles as they can make against law-abiding people purchasing and owning firearms like what Mexico has, and look at what a wonderful job THAT has done at preventing gun violence down there!
MCPO’s Crystal Ball:
“It is very hazy, but I can see it! Yes! There it is, ah …
Long lines, anxious shoppers, discounts, free lessons at guns shops around our great Nation.
Yes, the crystal ball says, another record breaking week for gun and ammo sales in the US this week”.
Barak Obama – NRA gun salesman of the year.
Seven years running…..
DANGIT! Why didn’t I buy that S&W stock when I had the chance! 🙁
The only S&W stocks I have are some gorgeous Goncalo Alves on my M-17 K frame .22, but those are pretty sweet, I have to say!
Not too late – at year end S&W was up 116%, earlier today it was reported that compared to January 2015 it was now up 180%.
My gun guy sold out of ammo today. Really.
Obama is giving his gun speech right now. FBI Director James Comey is sitting in the front row. Watching his reaction to all this is priceless. A lot half hearted clapping from him. Obama said something about his plan and was given a standing ovation and Comey just sat there. His body language says it all. He knows this is all bullshit and won’t stop a damn thing. Now Obama is standing there literally in tears. This is fucking pathetic.
So the cocksucker sheds a big fat crocodile tear over the kids…
Where was that tear over the four men in Benghazi or the rest of the ones that have been killed in Afghanistan after he declared the end of military combat operations…
They don’t even rate a mention do they…
Talk about bull shit…
Fuck, now he sheds a phony tear over Newtown and Chicago. Because it’s everyone else’s fault that they happened.
Congress blocks gun laws because they want to win elections? Maybe those laws don’t get passed because our rights “shall not be infringed”.
Maybe because for ONCE Congress is doing what the people who elected them are wanting them to do.
I wonder if he can make some executive orders making it illegal to carry a gun in Chicago. Maybe he can also strengthen the murder laws, while he’s at it. I mean, it’s illegal to shoot someone, but they should make it illegal to break the law. That’ll solve all their problems.
When is he leaving? I will be so GLAD when he is gone.
It’s been said that he wiped the tear from his eye with his MIDDLE finger. Coincidence? Happenstance? Methinks not.
The real back door threat is through the smart gun technology provision. The government will be able to deem smart gun technology ready for use and then require any company selling weapons to the government to have civilian smart guns. Suddenly anyone who wants a big money government sales contract will only be making smart guns for the rest of us.
If “Smart Guns” are such a panacea, then let’s see the IRS, FBI, the Secret Service and the DHS as well as the TSA use them first. It’s been said in the past that said “Smart Guns” work eighty percent of the time at best, are those good enough odds to bet one’s life on? NOT FOR ME!!
The problem with that idea is that smart guns only work in the hands of their owners. Fingerprint have been an unsuccessful venue. So if you buy the handgun and you’re the only person who can use it, what happens when or if you decide you just don’t want it any more? No body else can use it, you see, so it’s a colossal waste of cash to even own one.
I can understand the desire for safety and having a way to prevent small children from using them as toys, when they aren’t, or preventing an LEO-owned gun from being usable to criminals. But it won’t make gun owners who want to trade the smart gun for something else at all happy.
The ‘smarter’ thing to do is teach weapons safety to everyone and learn to stop cringing at the sight of something like that. If this is a requirement fo licensing in some states, why is that never brought up. You have to jump through hoops in some states just to own a gun, never mind get a CCW permit.
The control freaks are at fault here, because they refuse to listen to reason. Fingers stuck in ears, you know.
If all it takes to solve problems is to issue an executive order, why hasn’t he simply ordered world peace? After all, he got that peace prize thingy – you’d kinda think it would be very high on his agenda.
No? Oh, OK.
Oh, dear! I just read this. I missed the best idea ever! My bad, OWB.
And I’d ask that question, too. Why not just order world peace? It’s so easy, isn’t it?
It’s a start.
Yeah, they want to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone and everyone on the “No-Fly List”, something that one gets added to on a bureaucrat’s whim and it’s impossible to be removed from it, we’ve also seen plenty of accounts of how ill-managed that list is as well!
This is a fundamental point.
Being added to the ‘no fly list’ is a gray area in terms of application of due process as it is a government list not the commercial air travel industry. Mere or reasonable suspicion and you Joe citizen can be added, not even probable cause. WHAT?
So mere suspicion is now the standard for warrantless removable of one’s 2nd Amendment right.
This is troubling!
Check out this article that I just found in my Google Net News Notifier Thingy …
http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/riddled-errors-impossible.html
It is a wee bit long, but worth the read for all you non-lawyers, future non-lawyers and non-LEO types …
The Sergeant Major of the Army was on the list for a short time. Does that mean he shouldn’t have access to military secrets?
I think the solution to the addlepated ‘no-fly list’ is to require that the airlines notify someone who is purchasing a ticket that he/she IS on the no-fly list before taking the money.
That avoids the unpleasant surprises at the airport, the angry retorts at TSA people, and a whole lot of other stuff that should not happen.
I think, in fact, that it IS the responsibility of airlines to inform someone of this.
That’s what the Weimar Republic said in 1932, when they passed gun registration.
It is indeed a start. Under this policy, a fundamental Constitutional right can now be tossed aside by administrative fiat by an appointed bureaucrat, or based on the opinion of of certain non-government employees.
Which other fundamental Constitutional are you willing to make subject to the whim of a bureaucrat, or the opinion of some private citizen who you barely know? Your right to free speech? Association? Voting? Freedom of religion? The
5th4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?“The 5th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?”
Ummm, 4th. 5th protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.
You’re correct – an example of the famous “off by one” error. It’s now fixed above. (smile)
(In best Maxwell Smart voice) “Missed it by THAT much.”
Procedural due process is found in the clauses in both the 5th and 14th Amendment, which supports your earlier argument of how mental competency is determined.
True, but the 4th Amend protections against unreasonable search and seizure were indeed what I meant. Memory failed me regarding the correct Amendment.
I was thinking the same thing. I was planning on typing it on here but thought I would scroll down through the posts to make sure somebody else didn’t say it first, and you did. The people that think this is a great thing, will be the one screaming the loudest when this government takes more illegal action and decides to go after another amendment that does affect them. I cannot understand why liberals are for this. I do understand that they don’t believe in individual gun rights, but this is a very dangerous precedence for the other amendments to be stolen away from us.
I think the President explained it pretty well today. “… But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”
And this is a step towards that goal. If people don’t want to see the day where the 2nd is really trampled on, perhaps they should support measures like these. Agree or not with today’s measure but fact is he was a lot more lenient then he had to be given the potential scope.
I bet that a demitasse would fit on your head like a sombrero! If Gun Control is such a great panacea for crime then places like Chicago, DC, NJ and Mexico would be crime-free utopias but the opposite is true. You’re what I refer to as one of the “Sheeple’, you just say “*BA-A-A-A-A-A-H!* as you do and think what your herders tell you to!
You sir, are 100% correct.
NICS is already established, and if it were used like it’s supposed to be, there would have been no need to “do something”. (I am talking about the govt. side and not the seller).
But there are a lot of laws not being enforced and the government feels the need to make more instead of using what is already there.
I’m preaching to the choir though.
C. Long is such a ducking idiot.
“…he was a lot more lenient then he had to be given the potential scope.”
What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” do you not understand???
….a well regulated…..
Tell us what he could have done, given “the potential scope”, moron.
A well regulated what?
If you say “militia”, you’d be wrong. In D.C. v. Heller, SCOTUS differentiated between the “militia” and “the right of the people” and held that 2d Amendment protections extend to “all members of the political community”. McDonald v. Chicago defined firearms possession as a fundamental right.
Great reply MSgt, but it is wasted on C. Long. He’s a complete idiot. He’s done this before on gun threads…displayed a complete and total ignorance of the issues and dynamics. I’m surprised he hasn’t thrown out his “just brainstorming” canard yet. He’s a fucking moron.
yeah that “militia” thing is a hackneyed phrase, the supreme courts has no less than 3 (not just the most recent Heller decision) times come to the conclusion that this mean personal gun ownership. It is a non-argument.
holy fukking bad grammar…apologies
Which, according to the text of the ruling, has no bearing on the government regulating who can and can’t have what and where.
Stronger\wider background checks don’t infring on gun owners rights, they help protect them.
depends what a stronger/wider check entails exactly..in unambiguous, precise terms
even then you’re sane until you aren’t, you have no record until you do something and get convicted…no law, no check, no fee will stop every evil act
Good point. The president touched on that as well today. Clearly the background checks in place can’t stop all but they do stop some, closing the loop hole can only help.
please tell, what loophole?
..and hold offenders accountable…how many times in recent history have we seen a violent offender shooting someone or finally getting killed in a shootout and his rapsheet has a half dozen charges or more for previously carrying an illegal weapon and using it in a crime. FFS….why the hell was this person back on the damn street?
That’s certainly a linked issue.
Well then why didn’t Obama address it under the “potential scope”? Just being lenient I gues…
Really?
Care to explain just how wider background checks help protect gun owners rights?
Popular opinion for one. Keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys and nobody will be willing to take them away from the good guys to that end.
That’s what I’m saying…if you revisit recent shooters that obtained firearms legally, going back further wouldn’t have turned up anything any different, because no history meant no history. Recent shooters that obtained a gun illegally…well obviously they weren’t going to follow any law anyway, so there was no background check even there was a positive history to flag.
I’d like to see examples of what any new legislation would have prevented before it is simply put in place because somebody’s bleeding heart needs to do “something” to feel good about.
Clong.
Are you saying popular opinion about wider background checks help protect firearm ownership rights, or that keeping the guns out of the hands of bad guys protects gun owners’ rights? (Think about the original question again).
Yeah, and increasing background checks will do something between diddly and squat to achieve that end.
Multiple recent studies based on interviews with incarcerated criminals have shown that criminals simply DO NOT obtain the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes from legal sales at gun shows. That number is somewhere around 1%.
Rather, 90+% of firearms used in crime are obtained from illegal sources and/or via straw buyers. The recent proposals by Current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, do squat to change that fact. All they do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Oh, hey, let’s apply that ‘gov’t can regulate who, what and where’ to television.
You only get to watch cooking shows from the 1990s, or maybe the Kartrashions 24 hrs a day. Otherwise, Big Brother stares at you out of the screen.
That’s how that works, CLong.
Long: you do realize that Federal law defines “the militia of the United States” as including all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age – right? Along with all female citizens who members of the National Guard?
(See 10 USC 311.)
That is not a new development. The first militia acts passed in the 1790s – as in, essentially contemporaneously with the Bill of Rights – used similar language. So any contention that “that’s not what the authors of the Bill of Rights meant” is bullsh!t. That was the common legal usage of the term then, and is the legal usage today.
Typhoid Mary.
Just out of curiosity…what happens if the president attempts to ban guns using an EO? Anybody know? I’ve never seen this discussed.
For openers he gets slapped in the face with the Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that firearm ownership is an individual right. It’s one thing to flip off a bunch of the America electorate, it’s a whole other deal to piss off the Supreme Court.
He can’t use an EO to change a law. He can use one to color in the gray areas, provide “guidance”, and direct additional resources at enforcing the law; but only Congress can change the law.
So, your answer is that he can’t, he knows it, and won’t try it.
Really? He just announced a change to HIPPA. I don’t remember that going through Congress.
Change to HIPPA? Please provide backup for that. Thanks.
If you’re referring to changes in HIPAA, I checked to see what they are. They appear to be more stringent than ever, to protect a patient’s privacy and prevent hacking into patient records.
ni, he is waiving some of the privacy rules to allow doctors to report people that are mentally unstable, a threat to themselves or others etc directly to the FBI without having to worry about getting sued.
If this is what you’re talking about, I think you have it backwards. It indicates that there will be MORE litigation, not less.
“Additionally, there is likely to be more private litigation using HIPAA compliance as the standard of care, even though HIPAA itself does not give patients the right to sue for violations. The November 2014 ruling in the Connecticut Supreme Court discussed on this blog here and here recognized HIPAA’s requirements as a standard of care in a state breach of privacy lawsuit. Elizabeth and I observed that the Connecticut case will spawn copycat lawsuits using HIPAA the same way for state breaches of privacy, negligence and other causes of action.”
– Source: http://hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/01/articles/hipaa-enforcement/hipaa-compliance-trends-for-2015/
Ex-PH2 – you ought to check out Montgomery v. Cuomo – a challenge to New York State’s SAFE Act.
I did. And the article I linked to precisely makes my point – more litigation instead of less.
He’s exploiting a “law enforcement” exemption in the HIPPA law. Coloring the gray….
He’s a slick bastard.
Barry’s new EO? Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Except if one is on SS, and has some undefined malady where someone else handles the funds. This turkey will hang up in the courts for years before being rescinded by the next President or found (clearly) unconstitutional by a Federal Judge. But Barry “did something!”
Well, I’m on SSRI, and if I decide to take a prolonged trip that lasts several months, I may find it necessary to put my affairs into a revocable trust and give someone power of attorney to pay bills and maintain the appearance of my property while I’m gone. This is a very normal thing to do, as is a health care POA.
This is NOT an indication of helplessness or mental deficiency. It is common sense. Doing something like that should never be misinterpreted as mental deficiency by anyone, because it is nothing of the kind, but there are people who will take it to mean you can’t handle your own affairs, regardless of your real mental capacity.
If you’ve put your affairs into a trust and issue a power of attorney, that satisfies the criteria for having both testamentary and contractual capacity in most states. In other words, if you’re of the presence of mind to execute a will, you must be of sound mind to be considered mentally competent to manage your affairs.
B. Hussein 0bama & Company continue to rant, hype and screech for more Gun Control while ignoring recent history like the Congressional turnover in the 1994 election after “Blowjob Willie” signed a gun ban into law, let’s hope history repeats itself with a bunch of RINO’s biting the dust in primaries as well!
Well, let’s all do go back and read that article, which says that a half billion dollars ($500,000,000) will go to some undefined mental health access program related to this. And then, there’s that old Grinch in the puddin’ that requires funding of the other SH & IT required for this stuff. And it IS, after all, an election year, and Congress will have to approve funding for the SH and the IT, and so forth and so on. Cruz has already said the ‘once I’m in office, I’ll overturn it’ thing on camera.
Quit being such a bunch of moaners. Y’all sound like a hooker that didn’t get paid ahead of time.
Seriously, this is all done to make that ‘last stand against the bad people’ speech. The playacting on-camera was repulsive, as was the huddle of bereaved people who blame the means, not the perpetrator. The stench of the Bog of Denial can be smelt all the way over here in my kingdom.
But bodaprez DID SOMETHING, didn’t he?
What an asshole.
So what was done here was nothing. It’s all smoke and mirrors
Yes, but dangerous smoke and mirrors in many respects.
I heard that the FBI Director wanted to set a specific number of sales where a private individual would be considered as being in business (I believe the report said it was 50 a year). BHO and his cronies chose to go with no number which will leaves a lot of gray area for the ATF and the various federal courts to sort out down the road.
Yesterday I worked with a guy who actually bought the “loophole” crap. I explained to him that while the private seller online or at the gun show doesn’t need to go through NICS for the sale, he/she still has to conduct the actual transfer through an FFL dealer, who DOES have to get a 4473 from the buyer, send it off to NICS, and hold the weapon for the mandatory waiting period (10 days here in California), and therefore Barry is lying out his ass about this executive edict of his.
Suffice it to say, he was quite disturbed to learn that the Glorious Leader was being deliberately deceptive.
“…he/she still has to conduct the actual transfer through an FFL dealer”
Depends on the state.
I think it all boils down to progressives really “get off” on sticking it to us “hillbillies, rednecks, and other low life’s” with whom they are forced to share this country.
HJ, I’m offended that I have to share it with them. They don’t want to do anything to earn the right to be here.
Meanwhile, every down-ticket democrat office holder with a brain is polishing his or her resume because if the democratic party is hellbent on making 2016 a “gun control” election, they will get a reminder of why they lost control of both houses in 1994.
Martinjmpr, it might be more relevant to no COLA in Social Security or VADC for 2016. You may consider the whole gun control issue to be a personal thing, but hitting people in the pocket financially carries a lot of weight, also, especially in election years.
Federal employees get a 1.3% raise, but I don’t? Allotting a half billion ($500 millions) dollars to a questionable and undefined mental health program, but Social Security and VADC get nothing?
Guns don’t vote. People do. That includes people with and without guns.
Do not be so sanguine about the doctor/mental health thing. It’s not just doctors but any mental health professional that will be required to report. Ever have a psychotic ex-girlfriend that happened to be a Psycho Therapist and in the middle of an argument brag about how many people she had involuntarily committed and threatened to do it to you? Boom! There goes your gun rights just like that.
What person with authority can’t misuse it?
How often has there been a bona fide instance for example of a provider Brady acting someone purely out of spite?
It’s likely damn few and that’s a fast ticket to losing your license.
I think the potential for misuse while not impossible is wildly overstated.
Since when do doctors in private practice have any legal authority over other private citizens? Unless I’m mistaken, even in cases of quarantine they have to go to local government officials for enforcement.
Exactly….Duty to report.
Develop seizures.
Get certain communicable disease.
Beat your wife/kid.
Present with a gunshot wound.
That’s a few.
Duty to report is not synonymous with authority. I was referring to the latter, not the former.
Duty to report is not limited to medical or other professionals. Look up “misprison of felony”.
If you don’t think some medical personnel with an anti-gun agenda will abuse this, you are certainly living in a dream world. Far too many doctors today already think (and act) as if they are gods, when in reality they have the same flaws as anyone else.
The doctors themselves dont have to have authority. They just need a judge to ok it. In Cali the new bill requires cops to show up if a complaint is made.
This stuff happens, folks. I know first hand.
I didn’t say they did have “authority” in the context you are using to drive the point.
Duty to report means if you don’t report you can face charges ….and please tell me more about a medical professional’s opinion having no weight with a judge…because in my time walking this planet that’s precisely the opinion the judge seeks (and police if they were involved of course)and ignoring it puts a liability on them.
And just how does that psycho ex-girlfriend manage to keep her license when she says things like that? Did you bother to report it? Are you sure she was actually a licensed mental health practitioner, and not just lying her ass off about it?
Yes, she has or had an MSW and was a licensed Therapist in a couple of states. Remember, something said in private is a he said – she said thing without proof and I didn’t tape it.
How did she keep her license? That pseudo profession is full of people like her.
The Power of The Pen…strikes again! Please, please, let that ink well run dry before he’s gone or I’ll have 5 Syrian refugees sharing my guest bedroom.
Black Guns Matter
Hey! Dude! Pink Guns Matter!!!!!
Daughter texted me the other night out of the blue to ask what kind of purple handgun she should get. She just had to have a purple gun to match some outfits. Yes, she is in the military. oy….
http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/pistols/9mm-pistols/hot-purple-beretta-nano-9mm-handgun.cfm?gun_id=100397109
Here ya go!
I pointed her towards the EAA Pavona in purple sparkles. The CZ platform isn’t for everyone but it is a darn good handgun.
I wish I could find a little pink 9mm for my wife. I’d get a gunsmith to draw a picture of *Pinkie Pie’s face on it just to prove how non-scary it is. Also, can you imagine an idiot who tries some shit and get’s shot by a little woman with a My Little Pony pistol?
*Pinkie Pie is a My Little Pony character that my wife likes.
Here you go, Flag. Though you may have to settle for the .380. 🙂 http://pinkhandguns.com/
https://eaacorp.com/guns/handguns/witness-pavona-polymer-compact-by-tanfolgio-26
Ooo! A pink 38 Special! Now I’m excited.
Now if I can just get one with Grumpy Cat, too….
Hello Kitty AR?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/17/hello-kitty-ar-15-assault-rifle-makes-you-wish-it-was-photoshopp/
🙂
I’m ok with that, I like something with a little more stopping power
One can order replacement stock kits for AR-15s that are bubblegum pink.
I could call it my party canon
My gf carries a Charter Arms Pink Lady 38 special. And hits what she aims at!
My Mom has one. She won it in a drawing at NRA Wittington Center several years ago while on a womens week shooting camp or something. I gave her a box of bullets for Christmas, in a pink box.
Mini-14, all dressed up. Nice.
One thing that continues to bother me is the villianizing the “gun lobby” such as the NRA.
The NRA is made up of voluntary members who agree to pay a fee for membership. In other words, what Obama sees as “evil lobbyists” is simply a group of people being represented by a voluntary organization.
Compare that to unions where membership is often mandated and fees are taken involuntarily. I could be wrong but I have never heard of the NRA advocating violence against companies or employees such as unions often do.
And of course, unions are some of the most powerful lobbyists in the land.
So why is the NRA evil and unions “the voice of the people?”
(It’s a rhetorical question. My point is that every time someone says “gun lobby,” we should stand up and ask why representation by one group is evil and another group is a good thing.)
Why? Because GUNNNNZZZZZ!
Damn, an honestly condemning commentary on Obama.
An observation worth pointing out – the federal government can only provide incentives to states to encourage them to report criminal history and other prohibitive factors to NICS. They can’t be compelled to report.
(Printz v. United States)
Got the feeling that the answer to my inquiry is already here, but buried somewhere.
Could someone strip out all the parts of this EO that are already federal law so that we can study what’s left?
There’s bound to be something in there that they wanted to add to their “authority,” or further confuse things, or maybe it’s just to give the appearance of doing something to a very small percentage of the population. Not buying that last one. Entirely too much drama – makes me seriously want to see what’s behind the curtain as they direct our attention elsewhere.
Wonder how long until credit checks, GPAs, sexual orientation and other stupid crap gets added to the “enhanced” background check protocol? Once they realize that the background check thingy doesn’t produce the desired results, you know they’ll look for something else…