JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
They are Executive Actions, not orders, similar to the list of 23 items he talked about back in January just after the Connecticut school shooting. There is a difference between the two....and the article you linked to has it wrong, in this case. Just a "wish list" for this fool in office. Don't take this to mean I agree with anything but there is a difference between Action and Order. Just like the list proposed last January, this has yet to happen but the DOJ is proposing new rules for mental health info to come into play for firearms sales. One of the new proposals comes from the DOJ the other from DHS.

Nothing has been done yet, it is all proposed rule changes to the existing system on the topics the referenced article talks about. That much is correct. However, these proposals still have to make it through Congress after the proposals are finalized. Now would be a great time to write your representatives and express your feelings on these new restrictions. This is also why you can't find any new EO's in the Federal Register.

Personally, my medical records are none of their damned business and are protected by HIPAA. Hell, my wife can't even get them, why should the government?

For an explanation of the difference between Executive Action and Executive Order:

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.

When Executive Actions Are Used Instead of Executive Orders

Presidents favor the use of nonbinding executive actions when the issue is controversial or sensitive. For example, Obama carefully weighed his use of executive actions on gun violence and decided against issuing legal mandates via executive orders, which would have gone against the legislative intent of Congress and risked enraging lawmakers of both parties.
 
I think most people will think these are pretty common sense changes and care a lot more that the economy is stable enough for them to scale back QE, that their house value is returning and slowly but surely UE is coming down.

Your reply has nothing to do with the subject of the original post.
 
RK lets not muddy the water with facts and clarifications my man. Lets just keep sticking to our principles & defending positions without all the facts as usual.
 
Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't make them a plant or whatever your implying. I'm just a regular, gun owning Democrat that lives in Seattle.

It doesn't stop anyone from stealing a gun what does that have to do with anything.

You can Google the feds comments about QE easily. just like you can get the numbers for retail sales, durable goods, housing starts, unemployment. Debating whether the economy has improved is pretty silly.
Don't take his bait folks, he's talking Quantum Easing and the economy (the only one in the thread talking about QE) in a thread about Obama's Gun Grabbing Executive Orders. Don't play his game, keep this thread about Obama's EO's taking your gun rights away.

Since this thread is about a very real and provable Obama 2nd amendment infringement, he can't counter it as false so what he does is to try to divert the thread, get everyone side tracked so that the thread will be closed.

Don't take the bait folks, ignore all points not having to do with the OP subject...

Subject---> Obama's taking 2nd amendment rights through EO's, basically acting as a dictator.
 
I am sorry as far as I am concerned " shall not be infringed " means just that!!!!!! There are so many laws on the books already to prevent this, yet for some reason they are not enforced !!!!!! So instead of using what is there, they just want to rewrite the laws to better suit their purpose!!! And poo all over Our Constitution!!!!!!!!
 
But before "shall not be infringed", there is the phrase "well regulated militia". Is that an absolute as well?

Back to the OP, why wouldn't I want firearms kept out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and others?
 
But before "shall not be infringed", there is the phrase "well regulated militia". Is that an absolute as well?

Back to the OP, why wouldn't I want firearms kept out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and others?

Why would you want any EO or law from one person that breaks the constitition and take our rights. If you really are ok with that then send in your guns makes, models and serial numbers for the database then you can really feel good about giving up your rights while leaving the rest of our alone. Thats was a real patriot would do in your world.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words...

gun-control-guncontrol-obama-dictators-politics-1330714217_zps0b9c9fe0.jpg
 
But before "shall not be infringed", there is the phrase "well regulated militia". Is that an absolute as well?

?


original proposed draft
of
the right to keep and bear arms
of the
BILL of RIGHTS
(17 TH of 20 amendments)

on display at the Karpeles M****cript Library
Santa Ana, California

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."


any Q????? nope clear to what it means
 
Man, I don't know about you guys, but whenever I read the work of Corsi I get all excited, but without enough lube I start to get sore and soft, and then my hand goes numb and I just feel let down.

But in all seriousness, this is one of those "revisions" that are within the executive purview of the office, and frankly they are WAY OVERDUE.

I think we all realize that the "mental health" prohibitions are definitely a slippery slope, however the place to address that is within our state legislatures (who should be reporting to the feds) not with the feds. The NICS system is a pretty good system compared to most of the state systems I've seen, it's fast clean and effective, the deficiency of it lies in the reporting (or lack thereof) by the states. Clear guidelines and reducing red tape are a far cry from gun prohibition.

Now if you want to see me go ape, bring up FTB, I dare you.
 
Wasn't this whole mental health thing done back during Reagan then the libs shut it down because it was unconstitutional? So he closed the mental hospitals and let them out because of the unconstitutionality of it? They can't have it both ways. That's the difference between libs and progressives.
 
Lol okay well you're free to think that it's pretty clear that a vast majority want steps taken to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill

I doubt anyone wants the mentally ill to have a firearm, that is such a broad simplistic statement.

Speaking of broad and simplistic therein lies the problem... what is the line for the label "Mentally Ill"?

I just did a quick Google search "How many people in America are currently on antidepressants", results say 1 in 10 Americans. So do we deny these people guns? How about we take it further? How about we take guns from anyone that has ever been on Antidepressants? now how many have been excluded? 3 out of 10?

Do you see the problem with such broad and simplistic legislation? There is already precedence, I point to returning Veterans who are already being denied their 2nd amendment rights under the name of Mental Health
 
I doubt anyone wants the mentally ill to have a firearm, that is such a broad simplistic statement.

Speaking of broad and simplistic therein lies the problem... what is the line for the label "Mentally Ill"?

I just did a quick Google search "How many people in America are currently on antidepressants", results say 1 in 10 Americans. So do we deny these people guns? How about we take it further? How about we take guns from anyone that has ever been on Antidepressants? now how many have been excluded? 3 out of 10?

Do you see the problem with such broad and simplistic legislation? There is already precedence, I point to returning Veterans who are already being denied their 2nd amendment rights under the name of Mental Health

How dare you use critical thought and reason!
 
I doubt anyone wants the mentally ill to have a firearm, that is such a broad simplistic statement.

Speaking of broad and simplistic therein lies the problem... what is the line for the label "Mentally Ill"?

I just did a quick Google search "How many people in America are currently on antidepressants", results say 1 in 10 Americans. So do we deny these people guns? How about we take it further? How about we take guns from anyone that has ever been on Antidepressants? now how many have been excluded? 3 out of 10?

Do you see the problem with such broad and simplistic legislation? There is already precedence, I point to returning Veterans who are already being denied their 2nd amendment rights under the name of Mental Health

This EO by obammy is very broad and could and may lead to what you describe by the next radical in power the perfect setup. This is the missing critical thinking by the low info voters. Opps unintended consquences we did not mean or want that, Too Late Live with it.
 
OK, I must be blind. The article posted by the OP said Odumbo signed 2 executive orders but I only saw:
One of these executive orders will permit states to provide mental health information to government gun control authorities, totally ignoring HIPAA privacy restrictions
WTF is the other EO?
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top