Shooters Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Obama Administration’s Two Quiet New Executive Actions on Who Can Buy a Gun | TheBlaze.com

White House announces two new 'executive actions' on guns - First Read

There are new executive orders from President Obama on who can buy a gun.
"The new restrictions would take the form of regulations from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. One of the regulations would seek to gain information previously withheld because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPPA, which protects medical privacy." “Limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands” to the federal background check system."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,980 Posts
Wow, who would have thought this was coming? :rolleyes: And now with Obamacare, they can merger your medical records and if they deem you 'unfit', there goes your Second Amendment rights with no court hearing or recourse. And from all that he has done in the last few months, he seems he can change his mind and the law to suit his whims without public (news media) scrutiny.

I agree that more needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and on the surface, from what I read, it does not sound too bad. But remember, if you like your health insurance policy you can keep it.
I don't trust the Obama administration for beans and even if they passed a good law I would still not trust them to enforce as written. Obama has proven almost daily that he cares not for the rule of law, so long as he is the one making, breaking, or changing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Before there is a debate on the merits of the president's new proposed rules I think they need to establish whether the administration has the authority to do what they are proposing. In my opinion, the statute would have to be changed and the president does not have the authority to change the law. I know what you are thinking - the president has demonstrated plenty of times he doesn't care what the law says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyMagg

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
I agree. It sounds like the proposed executive orders are intended to intentionally change and sidestep provisions of a law passed by congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Before there is a debate on the merits of the president's new proposed rules I think they need to establish whether the administration has the authority to do what they are proposing.
The executive branch has wide authority to implement, interpret and change US law; That authority comes from the US congress.

Somewhere down the pike there will be a public comment period on the proposed changes.

The states are not reporting adjudicated mental cases who are a threat to themselves and/or others to NICS. From the white house fact sheet.


Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

•Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.

•Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
I agree the executive branch has broad authority to implement and interpret but they do not have authority to change statute. If the statute is preventing it then there needs to be hearings and the law changed. And while they get away with it quite often, the president does not have the constitutional authority to break the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Easternhunter

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Let me get this straight, this is the same prez &b doj that sent guns to drug cartels in Mexico????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What could go wrong here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Let me get this straight, this is the same prez &b doj that sent guns to drug cartels in Mexico????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What could go wrong here?
Yup. What concerns me is what they consider "mentally unstable". That my friends is really spooky stuff. Not to mention that since political leaders change ever so often, if a conservative came to power, that leader could deny the 2nd amendment to liberals. I'm not a liberal by any means, and I think many liberal ideas are crazy, but the 2nd applies to every law-abiding American. Sadly, something tells me, liberals only like the 2nd amendment when it applies to themselves and not others (I'm looking at you Bloomberg). Same could be said for conservatives to I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
NOTE: Veterans Administration Doctors are 'encouraged' to query each Veteran treated for any reason if:
1. IF the Veteran owns firearms.
2. If the Veteran has or does feel 'Despondent'.

If both answers are yes, the Doctor is again 'Encouraged' to report the Veteran as mentally unstable to Federal Authorities, who may then confiscate the Firearms "in the interests of Public Safety".

So this is an Expansion of that activity from the Veteran population to the population as a whole.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
NOTE: Veterans Administration Doctors are 'encouraged' to query each Veteran treated for any reason if:
1. IF the Veteran owns firearms.

This is popular internet myth. i'm a military retiree and disabled vet rated at 80 percent. My healthcare comes from the VA. i have never been asked that question by a VA employee. Neither have any of the dozens of disabled veterans i personally know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
NOTE: Veterans Administration Doctors are 'encouraged' to query each Veteran treated for any reason if:
1. IF the Veteran owns firearms.

This is popular internet myth. i'm a military retiree and disabled vet rated at 80 percent. My healthcare comes from the VA. i have never been asked that question by a VA employee. Neither have any of the dozens of disabled veterans i personally know.
Ditto for me. I've never been asked the question by any doctor, or any employee for that matter, at the VA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
NOTE: Veterans Administration Doctors are 'encouraged' to query each Veteran treated for any reason if:
1. IF the Veteran owns firearms.

This is popular internet myth. i'm a military retiree and disabled vet rated at 80 percent. My healthcare comes from the VA. i have never been asked that question by a VA employee. Neither have any of the dozens of disabled veterans i personally know.
I am 100% disabled VET and use the VA system exclusively now and have never been asked by any of my VA providers anything that resembles fire arms questions.. I have been asked about my wood working and yes , I did stay at a Holiday Inn one time .... (even though I have no financial interest in a HI ) ...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
NOTE: Veterans Administration Doctors are 'encouraged' to query each Veteran treated for any reason if:
1. IF the Veteran owns firearms.

This is popular internet myth. i'm a military retiree and disabled vet rated at 80 percent. My healthcare comes from the VA. i have never been asked that question by a VA employee. Neither have any of the dozens of disabled veterans i personally know.

I have been asked both questions several different times by different Health Care Providers at the Veterans Administration outpatient facility in Los Angeles CA, the Outpatient Facility in Sepulveda CA, and the Veterans Administration Hospital in Westwood CA.

I am rated 40 percent Disabled, Service Connected, and have been receiving VA Medical Treatment since 1984, and use them as my Primary Health Care Provider since about 2002.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
There are two different VA providers who I have had gun related conversations with. One, a former handgun instructer in the infantry before he became an RN told me he took a Highpoint 45 out to the range and outshot guys with more exoensive pistols. My doctor has a DPMS AR. He also contributes his hearing impairment to shooting. They have both delt with my antidepressant prescription.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,929 Posts
Well Gents, I am being taken to court tomorrow for STALKING!:eek: We several other items that are attached to the document.

Yes, you read this correctly, I have some people around me that don't like the idea of my open carry on my property and dislike the fact I have a CCW and carry my pistols 24/7. I have a woman on the road, who has cussed me out over 6 times in language most construction workers don't use. Then she calls 911 and says I am doing the cussing. Well I don't drink, use foul language, nor smoke or chew tobacco products.

They are trying to in act several new restrictions in my area (don't ask me how that came about and is this lawful) on dogs (my dogs) and fences (my fences) just to get back at me for sounding off at those, who are wishy washy types and don't believe in the CCW permit law.

I have one women, who told the Animal Control that my dog actually bit her and her dog while she was walking it on a leash. This county department will NOT tell me who the person is or what dog of mine is supposed to have done the act. I received 4 tickets in the mail over this issue! This goes to court next month. The women never walks these dogs, just lets them run on my property. Her and her husband, want me to cut my field, so it looks like their "golf green" of a lawn. I do cut my lawn but that field is for my dogs and young pups to be trained. It is cut like a checker board, grass 2 ft. tall, to hide birds.

I am going to court and will have my people there to say their peace about me, most of whom have known me for over 50 years. I do have an ACE up my sleeve, my wife doesn't even know about it. Anyway please say a pray or two for this old gun lover and our country.....Amen!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
Good luck 2Bits. If they are attempting to use the law on you, turn it around and fire it back at them. Keep a cool head and don't give them any ammunition to use against you.

Allen
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top