Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks

[bnsaibum]

Also check this thread out. Go if at all possible, tell anyone/everyone about it too.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/157546-rally-oregon-capitol-january-19th.html

 

[DMax]

The only executive order by the ballot box in 2014 we need now is progressive impeachment.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

So why should it be mandatory that I (if passed/invoked) have to PAY a third party?
Why does it even cost anything at all?
The system is a slow painful joke anyway.

And whos to say when you can and cannot purchase a firearm?
If limited to FFLs there will be days where things wouldn't be available what about a power outage or even some kind of ridiculous wage strike or understaffing LIKE WE'RE STILL SEEING.. All of that can easily be manipulated and prevent good honest Americans from purchasing a firearm.. Which is unconstitutional..
Whats next, an arbitrary waiting period?

I dont believe a god damn word these snakes say.. There is ALWAYS an ulterior motive, scam or back door deal.. And yet again we lose another freedom..

 

[Steve06]

When you blend law enforcement data systems and medical records it will be ugly. PTSD diagnoses will eliminate a lot of vets from purchasing firearms and so will those using psychotropic medications. Then are the people who require psychiatric, psychological or social work services. And when someone has a mental health diagnosis how do they get cured and get their rights back? I hope to God I am wrong.

 

[simon99]

While I certainly don't want a certified lunatic having access to weapons, I am against the President dictating who is or who is not mentally competent to do so. If this is not a big issue, then why was it done through EO? Another question, does mental capacity exclude you from a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Does a mentally handicapped person not have the freedom of speech or are they excluded based on how others feel about them? Not saying its right or wrong, just the facts.....

 

[Dunerunner]

So, if a child under the age of 18 is not competent enough or mature enough to enter into contracts and even after 18 not mature or competent enough to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, I can see them edging up the possession or ownership of a fire arm until after a person's 21st birthday. How about the elderly? You have periods where you cannot remember certain things "Senior Moments". And you mention that to your Doctor that you have that kind of issue, bang you are on the prohibition list. May not be that way now, but just give them time.

Like a buddies sig line on another forum, "Give them an inch and they become a ruler!"

 

[Bam]

Shall not be infringed . Why is anyone even considering this? To allow a pass on this is to say LOUDLY
well we can adjust the 2nd a little. JUST SAY NO. ITS A TRICK, A MODIFICATION OF ANY KIND TO OUR SECOND IS A MODIFICATION.
once you allow any modifications the end will begin.

Wise up people, what next you say some people should not speak cause of some law ?

It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of a crazy person with psychotic thoughts than try to fix the system over big brother fears. News flash, the constitution isn't unconditional, there are conditions and limits. You simply can't have a free for all, it just doesn't work, nor will we ever see a time where back ground checks don't exist.

While I don't agree with Obama using executive orders, I strongly feel more needs to be done with mental health.

And some of you sound just as thick headed as single view liberals. With any good relationship there is some compromise and this isn't a relationship where both can simply divorce.

 

[simon99]

It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of crazy person with psychotic thoughts than try to fix the system over big brother fears. News flash, the constitution isn't unconditional, there are conditions and limits.

While I don't agree with Obama using executive orders, I do feel more needs to be done with mental health.

So, per the discussion, does a person who has Downs Syndrome not have the freedom of Speech under the First Amendment? What about the 5th?
I just don't think its proper for a failing president to make that conclusion. Do you?

 

[DMax]

It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of a crazy person with psychotic thoughts than try to fix the system over big brother fears. News flash, the constitution isn't unconditional, there are conditions and limits. You simply can't have a free for all, it just doesn't work, nor will we ever see a time where back ground checks don't exist.

While I don't agree with Obama using executive orders, I strongly feel more needs to be done with mental health.

And some of you sound just as thick headed as single view liberals. With any good relationship there is some compromise and this isn't a relationship where both can simply divorce.

What you don't understand is progressive NEVER compromise they take and take till they ultimately get what they want and then start again. Why don't you just send in your gun info for the database now and that will make you feel better about giving up your rights all in the name of compromise. Give up your own rights leave the rest of ours alone.

 

[erudne]

It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of a crazy person with psychotic thoughts than try to fix the system over big brother fears. News flash, the constitution isn't unconditional, there are conditions and limits. You simply can't have a free for all, it just doesn't work, nor will we ever see a time where back ground checks don't exist.

While I don't agree with Obama using executive orders, I strongly feel more needs to be done with mental health.

And some of you sound just as thick headed as single view liberals. With any good relationship there is some compromise and this isn't a relationship where both can simply divorce.

There's nothing original in what you are saying, Socialists have been saying it for 100 years because their #1 priority is disarm the citizens prior to enslavement, my response as always: Bite me

 

[Dunke]

This really makes no sense. It takes a court/Judge to remove your gun rights under mental incompetence (commitment). Even the temporary doctors hold at a medical facility does not remove your right to own firearms. And when the Judge makes the determination it's already a matter of record and will show up under a background check. If as stated a person is seeking mental health care and the physician can now report it easier - so what, a person can still own firearms unless they have been committed and the right removed.

 

[bnsaibum]

It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of a crazy person with psychotic thoughts than try to fix the system over big brother fears. News flash, the constitution isn't unconditional, there are conditions and limits. You simply can't have a free for all, it just doesn't work, nor will we ever see a time where back ground checks don't exist.

While I don't agree with Obama using executive orders, I strongly feel more needs to be done with mental health.

And some of you sound just as thick headed as single view liberals. With any good relationship there is some compromise and this isn't a relationship where both can simply divorce.

Did you mean the standard dictionary definition of compromise or the progressive newspeak version? The only "compromise" gun control advocates have accepted is not getting the entire pie. When portions or better yet the entire laws of the NFA of '34, GCA of '68, or FOPA of '86 (etc.) are deemed defunct and repealed then we can talk compromise. Until then, not one more inch!

 

[bnsaibum]

Looks like a 60 day comment period will open up on Tuesday Jan 7.
White House: New gun rules for mentally ill - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

 

[biggie24420]

I don't trust the CoNmander-in-chief.

 

[freestoneangler]

How about just simply addressing the pandemic issue on mental health in this country and not tie it to firearms... ahhh, that would be because they really could give a bubblegum about mental health except that it is serves as a perfect Trojan horse.

I predict cyber-bullies then people who glare at someone are next... you heard it here first

 

[PiratePast40]

From PDXoriginal ...."It scares me more that you're willing to put a gun in the hand of a crazy person with psychotic thoughts...."

And this is where the BS starts. Salted Weapon didn't say that. It was your imagination and now you're fighting for your imagined scenario.

As others have pointed out, the laws are already on the books. This is another example of people wanting to jump and shout, and tell the world that they did something to stop the carnage. Because they're good people and anyone who opposes them must be scum. I don't know you, and don't know your motives. Perhaps you just haven't yet seen how you're playing into the hands of the control freaks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

We could dig up threads that look exactly like this from last year, and they would be the exact same arguments. It all boils down to something along the lines of "we need to do something, even if it's wrong or ineffective, because we have to show that we care and are taking the moral high ground".

Pretty soon, this will degrade into racial arguments when someone again makes the argument that we can't do anything about inner city crime because "it's a social issue". Just like last year.

 

[chariot13]

I don't have a problem with this and I think it is one of the few rare reasonable proposals they have made.

Despite what the constitutionalists and hard core second amendments supporters feel, there are people out there that simply should not own or possess firearms. If you have a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, psychosis, or think about harming others you don't need to have a firearm during this time. If it's treatable, great once you demonstrate you're not threat and not someone who will stop taking their meds, you have have a firearm, but if you're someone that isn't going to take care of themselves and relapse you're a threat to everyone.

Blah blah blah some of you will say the constitution is unconditional... wrong the constitution has its limits. You can't invoke the first, second or amendment to cause unjust harm.

Both Seung-Hui Cho the Virginia Tech shooter and James Holmes the Colorado theater shooter were seeing doctors for mental health issues before they purchases their firearms used in the shootings and both were extremely good candidates for having mental health holds placed on them. If they had holds, the background check system would have actually worked.

And I'm not saying we should open up back ground checks to a mental health free for all, a doctor will need solid reasoning such as the patient will actually have to say they have violent thoughts and pose an actual threat.

Look what the 'undercover' ceasefire goon wrote on a firearms forum. Oh and looky, theres his cohorts that liked his comment.

 

[PiratePast40]

Wish I could sign up for the Ceasefire Oregon notifications, but I got banned. Got caught in my "covert mission" last year when they called and asked me to call my representatives. Ceasefire was saying that Maxine Waters could be swayed to vote with Ginny Burdick on her citizen control bills. When I told them that I had in fact called her office and spoken with her, and that I had written emails and snail mail letters to her, and that she was rock solid in her support of 2A rights, they took me off their list. Course, it might have been when I told them that I was letting Congresswoman Waters know that they were spreading lies about her.