Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

The Socialist in Chief will use Executive Orders for Gun Control after Senate Defeat

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by GOG, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote

    Published April 19, 2013
    Associated Press


    Blocked by Congress from expanding gun sale background checks, President Obama is turning to actions within his own power to keep people from buying a gun who are prohibited for mental health reasons.

    Federal law bans certain mentally ill people from purchasing firearms, but not all states are providing data to stop the prohibited sales to the FBI's background check system. A federal review last year found 17 states contributed fewer than 10 mental health records to the database, meaning many deemed by a judge to be a danger still could have access to guns.

    The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. The action comes two days after the Senate rejected a measure that would have required buyers of firearms online and at gun shows to pass a background check. That's already required for shoppers at licensed gun dealers.

    Stung by the defeat, Obama vowed to keep up the fight for the background check expansion but also to do what he could through executive action.

    "Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities," Obama said from the Rose Garden shortly after the Senate voted. "We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system."

    Obama also mentioned giving law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns and establishing emergency plans for schools. Those measures were among the 23 executive actions the president signed in January when he announced his broader push for tighter gun laws in response to a mass shooting of first-graders and staff at Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    The Health and Human Services Department on Friday was beginning to ask for public comment on how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and known as HIPAA, is preventing some states from reporting to the background check system and how to address the problem. Under HIPAA, health care providers such as hospitals may release limited information to police, but only in certain circumstances such as when a court is involved.

    Since 1968, federal law has banned the sale of guns to those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others, involuntarily committed or judged not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial. The background check system -- which is also used to prevent convicted felons from buying guns -- was established under the 1993 Brady Bill.

    A few state agencies shared mental health records voluntarily for years, but the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 spurred passage of legislation that required states to submit the records or eventually risk losing up to 5 percent of the federal funding they receive to fight crime.

    Last year's review by the Government Accountability Office found that although the number of mental health records available to the background check system increased 800 percent since 2004, some states said they were not sharing mental health information because of concerns about restrictions under HIPAA privacy law. Obama is interested in a change that would specifically allow disclosure of mental health records for the system, and he wants to increase financial incentives for states to contribute the information.

    In the Virginia Tech rampage, student Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death and committed suicide. He was able to buy two guns even though he had been ruled a danger to himself during a court hearing in 2005 and was ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment.

    Authorities have not described a possible motive or released details of any mental health condition that might explain why Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself. The rifle he used was purchased by his mother, whom he also killed at home before heading to the school.

    The background check system does not give retailers access to mental health records but simply tells them whether a buyer is approved, denied or needs additional investigation before a firearm may be purchased. The system doesn't tell the seller why a potential buyer was denied.


    Read more: Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote | Fox News
     
  2. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,782
    Likes Received:
    4,988
    OK so gun owners have said all along that they should work on mental health if they actually want to do something. Fixing mental health reporting problems is not a form of gun control is it? Well not unless your a crazy that shouldn't have access to a firearm.
     
    Kevatc, JGRuby, SonicBlue03 and 5 others like this.
  3. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    I agree that people with severe mental health problems shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. But, this is the tip of the iceberg. "Common Sense" gun laws have morphed into complete control, bans, taxes and instantly criminalizing law abiding citizens. And there are only more infringements in store.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    513
    If you follow what is happening in NY and kommiefornia, this is the slippery slope. They are using this crap for confiscation. If you happened to have seen a doctor and took some drug on their list, you done lost your 2nd amendment rights. Along with anyone and everyone in the household. They plan to expand the list and disqualify as many people as they can, from owning firearms. With this administration, that could mean anything. Very insidious,,,,

    Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife?s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com
     
    XManSV and (deleted member) like this.
  5. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,306
    Likes Received:
    9,071
    There is no "Common Sense" in their "Common Sense Gun Laws".
    They only want to control the law abiding gun owners of America because "they" don't trust us enough to be responsible!!! Hell they trust criminals more than us!!!
    "They" want to ban "ALL" guns, mags, ammo & make us dependent on Government to protect us and then disarm us by going into the BGC system, find us and then come for our guns!!!
    No tin foil hat needed here, move along...
     
  6. JAFO

    JAFO OR, USA Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    148
    No thanks to anything that costs money until they clean up what they already overspend on.
     
  7. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,782
    Likes Received:
    4,988
    OK so the mental health improvements from gun owners was just some sort of lip service? I'm having a hard time figuring out how to have both everything and all that you think you should have.

    Do you want people with mental problems to have guns shooting up the place and resulting in your rights to own a gun screwed with everytime some nut job on prozac stops taking their meds? Or are you happy to keep trucking along the way we are.

    I have no idea what to do about the so called slippery slope but I got news for you if we stay the course we are on that slippery slope is going to seam like your *** is in a sled and you just got off a ski lift on Mt. Hood.

    I would like everyone to behave I would like everyone to have never learned how to become world famous in a burst of gun fire but that cat is out of the bag.
     
  8. SonicBlue03

    SonicBlue03 Snohomish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    421
    They're going to have to be crisp on what the criteria is from a mental health perspective and make sure there's a process for people to petition to either have their rights reinstated or reaffirmed why they stay removed. Agree w/ Mark that this shouldn't be a bad thing.

    One of the places Manchin-Toomey got it wrong (that I'm surprised didn't get a lot of press) was the idea of letting employers use NICS as an employment pre-screen. HIPAA data is private for a reason, and making the exception for mental health data under public safety for gun purchases makes a bit of sense - but completely circumventing HIPAA for non-firearm-related things is a fair bit beyond discriminatory.
     
  9. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,782
    Likes Received:
    4,988
    If I read the bill correctly the only ones allowed to use NICS for preempolyment BGC were Licensed Dealers. Not your average employer and the idea was to help prevent an honest FFL from employing a person who would be selling to bad guys or bad guys girlfriends etc. I have no Idea how HIPPA would be involved since it would only be a pass no pass type BGC same as it is now. When an FFL contacts NICS they don't get your criminal history they get an approval or NOT.


    Its really hard to argue about something no one has ever read not to mention understood. I agree these types of bills should never be passed they allow to much crap to happen.
     
  10. fallingblock

    fallingblock willamette valley Member

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    36
    My opinion still stands on this... I have said all along, enforce the laws that are there. His executive actions will provide money and staffing to do so; I'm all for it.

    Where metal status becomes an issue is "proper" diagnosis of mental issues. IMO, you cannot have a GP be the person making a decision on someones mental health. For that matter any doctor who is not a specialist in the field of mental disorders cannot, with absolute certainty be in charge of putting you on a NCIS list. Along the same lines, this needs to be a process where the patient is well aware of where his/her status is with their health record and the NCIS system (IOW, if their condition warrents being submitted, they need to know about it so they can work within the system BEFORE he/she is put on it. To wait until afterwards is fighting the battle backwards; guilty until proven innocent so to speak). We do not want to be reading about gun confiscations and then the follow-up horror stories about folks later being deemed fit and paying thousands of dollars to get their guns back.

    HIPPA will be an issue, regardless of obama-care. I firmly believe that you will have folks from both sides (right and left) screaming about privacy violations if they try to circumvent HIPPA through obama-care.

    What will be really interesting about this is what all they will tie into restrictions with mental health if they do work around HIPPA. Should these folks have guns? Should these folks be driving cars? Should these folks be allowed to work in "X" business? Should these folks be allowed to live within 1000 yards of schools?..... Where does it end?

    I believe this is where his attempt to probe into doctor/patient privacy will be shot down in flames. He'll make his proposal, they'll write the legislation and then in order to get enough votes they'll tie in a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with guns and EVERYONE will start screaming and the House will shoot it down.


    Dreaming? Maybe.... But that's how I see this going.. Obama has just started feeling the burn of the Conservative base. He will be reminded of Clintons warning each time he sticks his hands in the 2A fire that HE started.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
  11. NWGlockgal

    NWGlockgal Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Obama is scary. He forgets he is in the Executive, not the Legislative, branch of government. Using Executive orders to push his own personal agenda when the senate has said "no" is
    a frightening thing, and the beginning of a dictatorship.
     
    XManSV, nilknarf, ORHunter79 and 3 others like this.
  12. nick1980

    nick1980 Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    88
    I guess I don't personally see anything wrong with trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others, it seems very logical to me.
     
  13. JackThompson

    JackThompson Valley of the Demons Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    949
    This is the biggest problem.

    Define that? According to you and I, it might be someone with multiple personality disorder, or dementia, or a psychosis of some sort. Someone delusional.

    To the states that have PASSED legislation related to "People with mental problems" it has been used as a tool to systematically disarm masses of people with no trial, no jury, and as mentioned, no way to clear yourself and have your rights reinstated.

    Without checks and balances, and oversight it's just handing our reigns to the master...

    P.S.
    Anybody find it odd that taking psychotropic drugs (Prozac etc) is cause enough to lose your 2A rights. (Assuming it's because they believe that the drug will CAUSE (Or contribute to) you to be compelled to go into a crowded area and open fire?

    Maybe we need to take a hard look at these drugs, their companies and their oversight as well.
     
  14. SonicBlue03

    SonicBlue03 Snohomish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    421
    I'll have to re-read it, as when I read through that section I didn't see a piece specifically limiting it to gun dealers. If so I'm a little more okay with it, but there's still the problem of importing medical records into NICS and how that data can be used. Who sets the criteria of thumbs up/thumbs down with medical conditions recorded in NICS; what constitutes a thumbs down?

    HIPAA gets circumvented under public safety, courts had already ruled on that. It's using public safety as a way to potentially strip rights from others who might not normally under any rational sense be considered a deal breaker.

    I'll dig up the copy I saved down to see if I misinterpreted who could use NICS for background checks. Thanks for pointing that out - always good for me to put eyes on it again.
     
  15. fallingblock

    fallingblock willamette valley Member

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    36
  16. Bacchus

    Bacchus The Republic Active Member

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    229
    Worst president since Carter.
     
  17. SonicBlue03

    SonicBlue03 Snohomish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    421
    He can't force states to create laws to provide information, although it sounds like he's going to see how far he can bend HIPAA.

    Maybe he should worry about his federal agencies failing in their background checks when foreign countries ask the government to investigate U.S. citizens on extremist ties. There's 3 dead and 176 wounded in Boston that deserve an answer to that.
     
  18. NWGlockgal

    NWGlockgal Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    Worst president ever.
     
    deen_ad, captqc, Squidly and 8 others like this.
  19. SheepDog223

    SheepDog223 Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    193
    He's just trying to sell another twenty million guns in the next month and keep the ammo shelves bare.
     
    deen_ad and (deleted member) like this.
  20. Kevatc

    Kevatc Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    671
    If properly adjudicated the persons rights would be preserved and the definition of mental illness would be applied on an individual basis. Not every person deemed mentally ill is necessarily going to be a threat to society. It's important that it is an individual diagnosis and the individual is taken through a legal process where they can have a defense, hearing, and appeal process.

    Would there have been any harm to Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, or Cho or to society had these individuals been adjudicated properly?