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

[Redcap]

Worst president ever.

QFT.

 

[Squidly]

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?

And,

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.

I'm with you 100%, in principle anyway.

When a bill is written, the language used is vague by design. It is meant to be used as guidelines to be further refined by administrative rules after it is passed into law. If the initial bill is written by honest legislators with proper safeguards we get a good law and everybody is happy.

With the current batch of crooks on capitol hill, what is the likelihood of this happening?

Also consider,

Who will be setting policy or making decisions on your mental health? Some doctor with an ax to grind? A non-elected bureaucrat with the power to change "administrative rules"? A judge who can redefine words? Your pi$$ed-off ex-wife's cop boyfriend?

In the current political atmosphere, do you really trust these people to make decisions in your best interests? Based on what I've seen lately, I don't.

 

[Kevatc]

I will be bold and say. NO, the mentally ill being so proven by the court ( NOT A DOCTOR) should not have fire arms.
Doctors as great as they are are not Gods. I use the logic if you commit a crime a " COURT Judge " decides you lose your rights.
And so it should be that a Judge deems a person mentally ill to not have a firearm.

WHOOOAAA! Timeout. A judge should take the advice of experts in the area of mental health. Put a panel in place to assure that there is agreement from mental health professionals and to mitigate one mental health professional from grinding an axe. The judge/court is there to make sure rights are preserved and fairness and the law are applied and then based on the evidence decide if a restriction of rights is best for the person and society. The judge/court should not be deeming someone mentally ill as it's primary function.

Perhaps we are both saying the same thing but in different ways???

 

[SonicBlue03]

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.

You read it correctly, I misread section 125. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Heidland]

"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"

Anyone that has ever had to sit through and test on HIPAA training can tell you that, because of this Federal Law, syncing mental health medical records with firearm background checks will never, ever happen. If the individual state maintains a separate database of criminal records where an individual has been found non-competent for state purchases, yes, but federally...not gonna happen.

 

[NWGlockgal]

"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"

Anyone that has ever had to sit through and test on HIPAA training can tell you that, because of this Federal Law, syncing mental health medical records with firearm background checks will never, ever happen. If the individual state maintains a separate database of criminal records where an individual has been found non-competent for state purchases, yes, but federally...not gonna happen.

As much as I hated having to deal with HIPPA, it may be the saving grace to keep Obama from intruding into our personal lives and 2A rights.

 

[tiggers97]

I'm supprised no one is spinning "Obama finally follows NRA advice and begins to support enforcing the current laws".

 

[PiratePast40]

WHOOOAAA! Timeout. A judge should take the advice of experts in the area of mental health. Put a panel in place to assure that there is agreement from mental health professionals and to mitigate one mental health professional from grinding an axe. The judge/court is there to make sure rights are preserved and fairness and the law are applied and then based on the evidence decide if a restriction of rights is best for the person and society. The judge/court should not be deeming someone mentally ill as it's primary function.

Perhaps we are both saying the same thing but in different ways???

If I may interject, I believe the point is that the decision to deny constitutional rights is a legal process. Not that mental health professionals shouldn't be involved, but I believe he was saying, that it must be a decision based upon valid evidence that would be considered by a judiciary process. The concern that a doctor with a political agenda or other persons with an interest in defaming an individual could influence the process is a valid point.

It's not simple and will require some well thought out wording and action. Of course, the process of enforcement will be another tough issue. It'll be a mine field to negiotiate for sure.

 

[GOG]

I find it interesting that that the discussion has become how to infringe on the Constitution in the least offensive way.

 

[ORHunter79]

...................

 

[Dave Workman]

Maybe he will, but....

Support wanes for stricter gun laws

Four months ago, gun owners believed their world was about to close in around them, but today, polling by both Rasmussen and USA Today suggests that support for stronger gun control laws has waned considerably.

<broken link removed>

 

[SonicBlue03]

Maybe he will, but....

Support wanes for stricter gun laws

Four months ago, gun owners believed their world was about to close in around them, but today, polling by both Rasmussen and USA Today suggests that support for stronger gun control laws has waned considerably.

<broken link removed>

Kinda funny to me that most of the most outspoken objectors are the same people who have been fighting for equal rights under the Constitution, yet want to conveniently ignore it when it suits them.

Tina Podlodowski - fur trader.

 

[RonS]

The problem is that Obama and the feds are involved at all. Everyone wants the feds to do something to help hence giving up more and more local power. States should enforce the laws that are on the books and state police can do background checks the way we do here in oregon and tell the feds to keep there hands off. Obama wants the healthcare system to cooperate with the FBI only as an excuse to have a record of gun purchases. That is the rub, once they get a nation registry we are on the road to confiscation.

 

[speeddemon94]

I was having a conversation with someone yesterday who is quite liberal, but I took him hunting his first and only time, as well as carry when I am at his house, and he has no issue with it.

When I brought up the registration/confiscation topic, he and another of his friends proceeded to tell me that it could and would never happen. When I pressed about it, he and the other guy said that the government would never get away with confiscation because that would be the cause of a shooting war...yup, he said revolution.

That really surprised me. So I guess his outlook is the same as ours. I have a feeling that there are more like him than we know.

 

[mancat]

There is a new problem on the horizon. The Obama admin is trying to transfer firearms importation management from the ATF to the Dept. of State and the AG's office. There is a potential that the administration is attempting to implement parts of the UN arms treaty, without actually signing on to the treaty.

<broken link removed>

 

[GOG]

I hate to be pessimistic, but this will not end well.

 

[unklekippy]

When "shall not be infringed" starts infringing upon those deemed "mentally defective", the slippery slope has begun. It's interesting that we are so vocal about our rights, and that they shall not be infringed upon, but we are so quick to disarm others protected by the same rights. To be clear, someone deemed "defective" has no right to self defense? Whose decision is that, by the way? Your doctor, or one appointed to you by those that would disarm you? We don't get to pick the parts that apply to us. Leaving your "handicapped" countrymen unarmed and defnseless makes you just about as low as any Feinstein or Schumer. No infringement. None. Stop it. Leave my beautiful country alone. Kip.

 

[aslinged]

Almost every post in this thread operates in the confined mental box that was laid out by the mouthpieces, the media and the polls. All of which are corrupt.

Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Period, end of discussion. "Common sense" would dictate the conversation return to 'Shall not be infringed.'

You've let the media and the would-be rulers undermine your own brain once again. If saving life was an actual point of interest then why did Obama sign the Monsanto Protection Act? Why are former executives at Monsanto now highly placed in the FDA and USDA? Probably 250 million people eat GMO poison every day while all the shooting crimes in US history hardly make a dent on the death toll.

Arguing within the narrow framework of choices as dictated to you by the media and politicians is not going to help.

 

[XManSV]

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.

That could also backfire and make things worse if people who need help don't go for help because they don't want to lose their 2A right, then they get really messed up cause they never got help and then go off the deep end and hurt some people.

 

[jefe]

There is a new problem on the horizon. The Obama admin is trying to transfer firearms importation management from the ATF to the Dept. of State and the AG's office. There is a potential that the administration is attempting to implement parts of the UN arms treaty, without actually signing on to the treaty.

<broken link removed>

that's something that congress will not back down from. obama is blatantly attempting to transfer congressional powers to his office. i'm certain that there are plenty of senators and representatives who would be so ticked off at the notion that they'd begin impeachment proceedings if obama doesn't back down.