White House List of Obama’s 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control

 

The White House provided the following list of “executive actions” [NB: No longer called by their official name "Executive Orders"] signed by President Obama “to address gun violence.”

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Talk about your “executive actions” loophole. Although cleverly worded, there’s enough scope and scale within these Executive Orders to drive a civilian disarmament train through.

Chief amongst them: EO number four gives the Attorney General the power  to decide what constitutes a “dangerous person.” What’s the bet that people on the federal “no-fly list”—a list with a huge number of errors without a set appeals process—will find themselves SOL at their LGS?

Also remember that 11 percent of Americans take anti-depressants. By integrating local health care records with a federal database, a stroke of the Prez’s pen could prohibit firearms for over 30 million people.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

181 Responses to White House List of Obama’s 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control

  1. avatarSeth says:

    what do you know, they followed the NRA’s advise with #18.

  2. I’m going to try to be fair here. MOST of these aren’t so horrible (though I question the intend of a few). It’s the legislative crap he’s pushing that scares me.

    • avatarAlex H says:

      Yea, I agree. The title of them sound mostly reasonable. I’d like to read the full EO text though.

      • avatarTommy Knocker says:

        +1000

        I will bet dollars to doughnuts that there is some crap hidden in the actual text of these actions.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          Please tell me how ANY of this would have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

        • avatarJoe says:

          Good Question, What would have prevented Sandy Hook,London or even 9-11. Check out this video and ask that question again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358366882

        • avatarSharon Hall says:

          Is this a serious question? Or is this someone that is so intrentched in idiology that they can’t think logically???? Alrighty then! I will expain it very simply for you. If a trained (armed) individual were on the scene at the moment the shooter gained access to the building. The shooter could have been stopped very quickly. It took 20 minutes for the police to arrive. Being trained to carry a firearm does not make for a vigilante. It is soley for defence NOT offence. The shooting stopped ONLY when the shooter heared ARMED police approaching. The principle of that school was trained to approach the shooter. How well did that work out for her? Tell the family how you cant understand the importance of having an ARMED responder in her building.

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      Yeah, nothing to see here. The man couldn’t even muster up an import ban, for crying out loud.

      Heck, some of this stuff sounds genuinely helpful. If he’d stop calling for a stupid AWB and a mag cap limit, I doubt he’d have half the opposition he currently has.

      • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

        The import ban will be the AWB.
        A movement is afoot.
        This is NOT over.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          You bet.

        • avataramagi says:

          Just keep calling your Reps and Senators!

          I live in Philadelphia, so calling my representative will do just about as much as praying to Zeus, but that doesn’t mean I can’t bother his secretary for 5 minutes before she hangs up on me!

        • avatarDavid-p says:

          This in after the presidents speech from senator Dan Coats in indiana:

          Today, President Obama released a series of executive actions and legislative ideas as part of his recently announced gun control initiative.

          As we learn more details about the President’s proposals, I believe we must protect Second Amendment rights and ensure the federal government does not punish responsible gun owners. I will not support legislation or executive actions that would affect gun ownership rights for law-abiding citizens, including any assault weapons ban.

          The Newtown shooting was a horrific tragedy that had an impact on all Americans but especially every parent, teacher and student, and it is right for our country to reflect on how we can prevent such events in the future. Laws alone cannot eliminate all acts of violence. As Americans we need to examine a culture that increasingly glamorizes violence and determine how we can better identify and address mental illness in our society.

    • avatarWyndage says:

      Agreed. States not reporting mental health issues that should come up in a NICS check is a real problem. Some of these executive orders seem like they just might accomplish something positive. The legislative agenda is a non-starter, however, and must not be allowed to pass.

      • avatarGregory Newman says:

        Thing is most of the ones doing these killings are using stolen guns, so how is a check going to work when they are not there guns to begin with?

    • avatarOddux says:

      I wouldn’t be opposed to some of these… if they were legislated by elected representatives and not dictated by executive fiat.

    • avatarCulpeper Kid says:

      Well, he’s just announced things that will inconvenience law abiding Americans and infringe on their constitutional rights, but sadly, will have no effect on violence. Check back in a year with the children of Chicago and New York, it will be the same sad story. The President is apparently a very highly educated but not too bright individual. His basic philosophy is that trillions spent on poverty programs over the last forty years without positive effect was caused by the successful among us, through some kind of unfair advantage. He has made it his mission to correct this by redistributing the wealth of the successful to the failed. What a bizarre idea. What a bizarre individual.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        By “successful”, do I understand you are excluding banksters? Because THEIR money is not going ANYWHERE, and OUR money is going to THEM.

        You really need a reality check about this “communism” crap. Because Drone Killa’s bankster puppeteers are NOT communists!!

    • avatarEdgehill says:

      No. 16 is the one we need to watch. What I think he’s saying is that doctors are about to be co-opted into the front lines of taking our guns. Even though ObamaCare denies HHS permission to track guns, Obama is saying he’s going to ignore it to get doctors to find out which one of us has guns.

      If we cause a fuss about the question, they’ll mark us as unstable personalities and drop us on the no-gun list.

      A little conspiracy theorist there, but why spend as much time laying the ground work for mental health in his list of 23 orders.

      • You don’t have to watch anything. Don’t worry. This bunch of mealy-mouthed bullshit is a major victory for your side. This is definitely the Obama we have come to be totally disillusioned with, the same guy who promised to close Guantanamo and end the lobbying in DC.

        These weak-assed suggestions will take months to implement while the country returns to its lethargy and you guys work hard to block everything you can. The real changes could be blocked cold in Congress.

        My only consolations are two. The maniacs like James Yeager won’t find anything in there to go to war over and we have some governors like Cuomo with real balls.

        • avatarSD3 says:

          “…we have some governors like Cuomo with real balls”

          Yeah, nothing like a good dictator making unilateral decisions for people too stupid to think for themselves.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “…we have some governors like Cuomo with real balls.”

          Sure, nothing like ramming through legislation in the dark of night that is overwhelmingly undesired before even the legislators themselves have time to fully read it. All in the name of “we know what you need/want better than you do.”

          Let’s not forget that this is not an unfamiliar tactic for these astonishingly arrogant pinheads. Hughes Amendment, anyone?

        • avatarpat says:

          Seven rounds to defend your loved ones in NY? If the pigs can have 15 round G22′s, then they cant make me have 7 (with a huge empty space in the handle where 8 additional rounds used to be) in my own home.
          Commie libtard assclowns.

        • avatarNew York Stagehand says:

          Balls? Right… A megalomaniac with a Tammany Hall complex. Keep arms out of the hands of Poor and/or brown people for their own good! Do you think this is good, MikeB? Think about this: IF he is willing to act this way on this issue, why do you think he wouldn’t do the same thing for some other issue? Well at least he’s consistent. He DOES. Do a little research and see how many times he has used the system to take what he wants. How are you going to feel if it’s something you hold dear that he takes? New York politics have been corrupt for centuries (really!) So this really isn’t a surprise.
          Your problem is that you are willing to point the Governments guns at other people to enforce your will. I’m willing to let people associate, ingest, control their bodies and own property how ever they choose. I allow them the freedom to swing their fist all they want, until they get to my nose.

          Fortunately, I think the grabbers know that they are going to loose in the long run and history will treat them like segregationists (i.e. Southern Dems.) They are trying to set the ball back as far as they can but they are going to loose. Yeah, we got a bloody nose, we didn’t loose the fight. It isn’t over, it’s just beginning.

      • avatarGregory Newman says:

        You just answer NO when doctor ask, none of there business anyways.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        New York:

        Cut Mikey some slack. He is just sticking up for a fellow paisano.

    • avatardaveR says:

      +1. Agree. These are pretty meaningless as far as my shooting lifestyle is concerned.

      If it stoops here, we should feel very lucky

  3. avatarimrambi says:

    I wonder who will be in charge of #7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    What will it be? “Just say no?”

    #16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    They can ask, but once they make a record of it, they are breaking the law.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      And if a doctor asks a question of any importance, he records the answer. This one seems like a non-starter.

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        My doctor usually asks me if I got any new guns when I see him…

        He delivers babies everyday and keeps a snubbie in his scrubs.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        my dentist carries in the office and even took down his no gun sign when I asked why he bothered to put it up.

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      My answer to my kids’ pediartician: “Not ours, she (point to toddler) has been stockpiling ARs.”

    • avatarTommy Knocker says:

      #7 will be handled by the Brady Campaign…it will be for the children…

    • avatarJAS says:

      That means they can ask your kids…..

    • avatarRalph says:

      I had one doctor who asked me about guns in my home in a way that made his prejudices clear. I asked him if he was f^cking any of the nurses.

      • avatarJames Nasium says:

        Dude, I’m so using that the next time my pediatrician asks me that! (the first time, I simply told him to pound sand) Thanks for great material.

      • avatarPaul W says:

        that’d be a time to get a new doctor.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Some doctors work for healthcare systems that require them to ask this question as part of the regular screening process. You might have to switch healthcare providers altogether to avoid it, and even then there’s no guarantee that your new doctor won’t ask at some point.

      • avatarAharon says:

        Did you really? Good for you! If my doctor asks me if I own guns I’m going to ask her (she’s hot!) what her favorite position is in bed.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        That’s priceless.

        When we switched to a new healthcare provider, one of the doctors I talked to asked me that. Since she was female, that answer wouldn’t have really worked… so instead I gave her a few seconds of silence and asked: “Why, exactly, do you need to know that? Isn’t that a little intrusive?” Then I just sat patiently and waited for her to recognize that I wasn’t giving her anything else.

        She got flustered, because I don’t think anyone had ever called her on this BS face-to-face before. She mumbled something about “decline to answer” and we moved on down the questionnaire.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’m trying to decide, if I’m asked, if the better response is this one, or simply saying, “No, hate the things.” I don’t necessarily like lying about it, so I’ll probably go your route, although I think in this situation, a “no comment” is basically equal to a “yes.”

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          If you decline to answer, even if they want to infer something from it, you haven’t answered.

          If your doctor records an answer you haven’t explicitly given them (and I didn’t see any option for “decline to answer but I just KNOW they haz guns” on the form) then they are making a false statement.

          I find that avoiding the outright lie serves me better 99.9% of the time, as long as it’s in a context where “taking the 5th” isn’t legally equivalent to an admission of guilt. YMMV.

      • avatarJohn says:

        I think I will ask if they have any televisions in their house.

        Seems just as relevant.

      • avatarDr. Mike says:

        There is a woman at my hospital who is colloquially known as the “Head Nurse” but she isn’t in charge of anything, just gives head often.

    • avatarKat says:

      I think it was Holder that spoke a few years back and said we need to start BRAIN WASHING our children into thinking firearms are bad. Not my child or grandchildren. What is in my home is not my doctors business. The law they have that says if I am threatening that they must report it is enough.

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      Is it a crime to tell your doctor to FOAD if he asks the question? All kidding aside answering “no” when the truth is actually “yes” is not going to cause either of you any harm. If the question is not actually related to the medical/health issue at hand, it is none of the doctor’s business. In my book busybodies of all types deserve to be lied to. Especially when the subject is legally aquired private property in my home.

      • avatarJordan says:

        Lie. Why not? In light of the current atmosphere it’s probably not a bad idea to not talk about your lifestyle choices when it’s not anyone’s business but your own. Advocate for 2A? Sure! Write to your legislators? Absolutely. Mislead folks asking stupid and invasive questions simply for mischief? Why yes, please.

  4. avatarokto says:

    So…a bunch of posturing and hot air?

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      There’s potentially dangerous stuff in here, but at least for now, it potentially dangerous stuff in the manner we’re accustomed to where “executive orders” are concerned. The fact he left the heavy lifting to Congress is very telling, though- he expects it to fail, so he’s geared up to blame them when it does.

  5. avatarRichie says:

    NOT ONE MORE INCH!

    ● Remember when “Uncle Saddam” used to surround himself with school children and hug them and pat them on the head?

    ● These proposals do Nothing except to ‘Control’ lawful firearms owners

    ● The media is pushing this propaganda, disinformation, fake polls, to the ‘low information voters’

    ● It has been established that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen (e.g. Warren vs.District of Columbia).

    ● “This country is clearly under attack, a enemy has circumvented the constitution of the United States and is attempting to control our Gun rights, retirement, medical doctors acting as informants, free speech in business, school and church. Drugging our children in schools with made up mental disorders and treating our Soldiers as criminals or deranged psychopaths, this is all lies they use to control the weak minds of ignorant people.
    they believe we are weak and lazy, that we will lay down and give up without a fight and take what they give us. ”

    ● We have a Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic- we’re not a rogue nation and neither are we a dictatorship. Much blood was spilled in order to preserve our God-given liberties. Some people say that civilians don’t need “assault rifles,” and that by banning them, our Second Amendment is not violated. They are wrong.

    ● Mark Twain was right… “There are lies, damn lies, and then you have statistics”.

    ● “When a long train of abuses and usurpation’s, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
    Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

    ● “All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that GOOD men do nothing” Edmund Burke…

    Semper Tyrannis

    Μολὼν λαβέ

  6. avatarSammy says:

    Why am I missing the capacity limit or AR/ semi auto ban?

    • avatarRichard W. says:

      They found out that is even out of the realm of possibilities with Executive Orders. The most he can do is put more restrictions on imported firearms under the stupid “sporting purpose” excuse that has been happening for years.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Because you can’t do that by EO, tinfoil hattery notwithstanding. That requires legislation.

      Low risk of AWB 2.0.

      High risk of mag cap limits if House GOP cuts a deal to get something else they want.

      • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

        The House GOP feels like they got raped on the fiscal cliff deal, and smacked around Boehner to show their displeasure. Couple that with Democrats in rural states wanting this issue to quietly die… well, I don’t even think a mag cap has much likelihood of passing.

        What is much more likely is that you’ll see a bill floated that has the stuff no one seriously objects to. They’ll pass it, everyone will cheer, and your kids will be no more or less safe.

        Then, we fight out the bloody battle in local state legislatures.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          anything else that happens will happen locally as in NY, not on a federal level.

        • avatarWyndage says:

          My gut agrees with you, but we still need to put pressure on Congress. Everyone should be contacting their legislators in D.C. again today, as well as Speaker Boehner.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          I guess it’s time to make it clear to the squishies that passing a mag cap or AWB means a primary challenge involving highly motivated 2nd-A voters.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Low risk of AWB 2.0.

        Alpha, at this point I have to disagree. If POTUS didn’t think he could get it through, he wouldn’t push it. The guy hates to lose. He stuck his neck out on Obamacare, cost his party control of the House and six or seven Senate seats but he got it done.

        POTUS and his henchmen can count heads as well as anyone. I think we’re f^cked.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Doesn’t mean I’m getting complacent – ANY risk means its time to fight this with everything we’ve got.

        • avatarJim Barrett says:

          Negative on that. I think that POTUS knows he can’t get this passed, that was the reason for the kids up on the stage. He knows that Republicans will be the biggest opposition and he wants to position the Republicans to take the fall in the eyes of the voters when this thing fails. Then, combining that with the failure to “cooperate” on the budget issue should nicely position the Republicans to lose big in the 2014 election, handing Emperor O his congressional majority in both house for the last 2 years of his term.

          That is when the fun really begins.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          TTAG and the AI has proven inept at political forecasting. I’m not dissin’ anyone, just sayin’…

          And definitely not directed at you, Ralph.

  7. avatarAlex P Worrell says:

    On the face of it, these don’t look bad.

    Actually, for “7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign,” perhaps they could contract with a certain organization with a record of successful safety programs (Eddie Eagle) to help with this…

    Or do only non-profits that contribute to getting the president get reelected get federal funding?

  8. avatarCaleb says:

    Just a political show. Any real changes will come through Congress. People if you havent contacted your representation in Washington, get off your A$$ and get it done.

    C

    • avatark4R-15 says:

      And then contact your elected officials again! And leave them voice messages!

      A small amount of effort now will be much easier than the battle to overturn any legislation that passes. Want proof that it works? Why did Speaker Boehner open this session by stating that the House will NOT entertain any gun control legislation for 3 months???

  9. avatarSteven says:

    Sounds like tax dollars being wasted to me.

  10. avatarChris from Iowa says:

    This could have been a lot worse… which leaves me waiting for the other shoe to drop. #16 is the one that bothers me the most. This could be the start of an end run around the prohibitions placed in Obamacare.

    Overall this is a good sign. They will have a hard time getting anything through the house with this much action already having been taken.

  11. avatarDavid W. says:

    7, 11, 14, and 15 seem the most scary to me IMO, just because of either utter stupidity (15) or ability to punish people with no due process.

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      To be fair, the EO says nothing about adding people to the list, it says to conduct a study to see if other people should be added. That’s well within his abilities as executive.

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        Yeah, but halfway through his first term the FBI declared anyone who could take care of themselves without help is a terrorist suspect.

        They will just add “Anyone who wants a gun is obviously crazy” and then everyone is instantly disabled, or they will have an list of random people on it like the No Fly List where no one can tell if they are on it and its impossible to get off of it, and no one knows how you get put on it.

  12. avatarScott Shaw says:

    I’m sick to my stomach…….

    We, responsible firearms owners are doing a HORRIBLE job controlling/directing the debate.

    1. We need to treat this like a campaign, just like the gun control industry.

    2. The NRA is the 800lb. gorilla(life member here) and they need to get out IN FRONT of this, if this means running over LaPierre, I’m all for it.

  13. avatarSammy says:

    Something doesn’t smell right. A lot of these are ambiguous.

  14. avatarSilver says:

    We all know how politicians love to make thigns vague so they can push their BS later. Take this one for example:

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

    So how long until the CDC declares gun ownership a “public health hazard” and such?

    • avatarFlubnut says:

      For anyone interested in what the CDC discovered the last time (early 90′s): http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

      Key quote, for better or worse: “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

      • avatarjwm says:

        True, Flub. But the CDC is on record as wanting tough gun control. They kept running studies at taxpayers expense and when the results came back that they didn’t like they just start another study. If they ran a 100 studies showing guns were not the culprit and just 1 that did, they would trumpet that 1.

        Congress had to finally step in and pull their funding for these studies. Now barry wants to turn them loose again with your money to “prove” that guns need to be banned for health reasons.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Or:

      7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

      AKA, put programs in schools to brainwash kids to fear and loathe guns.

      • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

        Or that’s [possibly] the provision that allows inspectors in your house to make sure your firearms storage meets code.

        You are thinking like a nice person. Now read the list again, this time thinking that you want to limit gun ownership by direct decree or by making the process of ownership so onerous that many won’t bother or won’t meet the criteria.

        No to all of the above.

      • avatarRandy says:

        I dont know if you have children, but the brainwashing has been going on for years. My child is 15 and he has had the “Guns are Evil” chant pounded in his head since day 1 of pre-school. And we live in the rural South.

      • avatarJames Nasium says:

        Silver, if that’s all they wanted to do – no problem with that. Parents still are the driving issue as to what kids believe/want to believe. Example: my daughter was all for the ‘Pop President’ and was beginning to suspect that my opposition to him might possibly racial in origin. (she turned 18 just before the election) I asked her why she was ‘for’ him. She had no answer. Trying to assert her ‘expertness’ in all matters, like any teen, she turned the argument around. I began with his stated intention on signing a law banning AR-15s if Congress passed one. I started with point number 2, but was interrupted. “You don’t have to go on, Dad. I’m voting for the other guy now.” See – I taught her to shoot at an early age, and she learned how much fun shooting an Evil Black Rifle was. She can’t wait to get her HCP when she turns 21.

        Never over estimate the ability of the schools to override good parenting. Teach your kids the right things, talk to them, be a good parent.

    • avatarStevieY43 says:

      Directing them to research “gun violence” scares me, although it is nice that they’ve come out in our favor before. I’d much prefer if he’d direct them to research “criminal AND law-abiding uses of guns” or some such thing. And maybe improve reporting of DGU (although given how much goes unreported I haven’t a clue how you’d do it)

  15. avatarRydak says:

    No orders to end the fallacy of gun free zones? I see….

    On another note, I think these orders were going to be all that we feared. Then some Dems who wanted to actually, you know, get re-elected in 2014, let their dissatisfaction be known to him. Keep speaking up, don’t stop the pressure. Double everything you have done so far.

  16. avatarFrank Williams says:

    #2 sounds like he’s going to try an end run around HIPAA so law enforcement can have access to private medical records without a court order. That doesn’t sound like a very good precedent (or President).

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      No, it is correctly stating that doctors are allowed to ask their patients if they own firearms. The doctors are simply not allowed to record the answer.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Yes. The point is to provide a moment for the physician to point out the risks of careless gun ownership. Physician to the late Mrs. Lanza….he’s talking to you. (Now, back to calling my Congressional representatives.)

        • avatarSilver says:

          And why is that my doctor’s job? Do I get 10 minutes to tell him about how his ilk’s malpractice kills more people than guns every year?

      • avatarDr. Mike says:

        Agreed. The same as pointing out how booze rots your guts, smoking rots your lungs, and eating deep fried garbage clogs your heart. That said the only time I’ve EVER asked about guns at my place of employment was when I was looking for a sponsor so I could join the more upscale range located near my house. They require someone to vouch that you are a responsible adult to become a member.

  17. avatarAlex says:

    They’re making us wear a scarlet letter

  18. avatarMichael says:

    Okay, this isn’t as bad as I thought. Some are good, some are vague, and #9 is gonna come back to haunt him.

  19. avatarNathan says:

    What’s with number 6? The only reason that FFL’s would need to run background checks for private sellers is in those background checks were required by new law/EO, but I don’t see that on the list here. Am I missing something?

  20. avatarliberty365 says:

    Its #4 that we need to be worried about the most….

    They can define the group not found suitable to have firearms due to mental illiness or otherwise.

    Oh you went to a tea party rally, Mr smith? Sorry but people in that group can no longer pass background checks…..

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      Pay special attention to any phrasing that allows them to ask what websites you frequent…:)

      • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

        Ask? How quaint and 20th century of you. It’s already recorded for posterity, as are all of your comments here.

  21. avatarJoatmon says:

    Beware of #16. Your doctor asks you, you respond yes, the doctor notifies your insurance company and your rate goes up.
    imrambi, if they pass #2, anything will be legal.

    • avatarJames Prince says:

      when I renewed my renters insurance they asked are there any firearms in the home! My answer was No, because I had heard they were asking so put them in the trunk of the car so I could truthfully answer it that way!

      • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

        Your policy likely mandates that you inform the company of any changes in status. It is not a “moment in time” type of question.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I would be “renewing” with a different company at that point.

        For the record, my car and renters are with State Farm. They did not ask about firearms. I did. I asked what, if any, exclusions there were on coverage. She asked what I meant, and I said “higher value items that go beyond regular contents, such as computer equipment and firearms.” Without batting an eye, she said those items are all covered as normal, unless there was an exceedingly large dollar value, at which point we needed to talk about an additional rider. I didn’t meet that dollar value (sadly), so it was a non-issue for me.

  22. avatarTman says:

    This is pure Obama, leading from behind: When the going gets tough, he lets someone else do the tough going. In this case, Dems in Congress, including Red State Dems who are going to catch hell. He has undoubtedly been told by Reid et al that the odds of the legislation passing through Congress — hell, even getting out of committee in the Senate — are slim, and that they’re going to be DOA in the House. But then they can blame Republicans for “making our country less safe” and “putting our children in danger.”

    • avatarRalph says:

      It will clear committee and the Senate will pass it by around 55-45. Some Dems and Reps will switch sides — they’ll actually be pairing those votes so red state Dems can vote “no” and blue state Reps can vote “yes” — but generally it will be a party-line vote.

    • avatarJoe says:

      … it sounds like you are upset that the president’s executive orders are not more extreme. This elected official is not a dictator, contrary to the proposals of some media radicals and the beliefs of some on this very forum. The orders signed today do not over-reach the powers of the presidential office and are ultimately non-controversial. I do not agree that Obama is leading from behind — his executive orders are rational and logical steps that focus on background checks and education — topics I personally feel are productive and represent level-headed leadership. Though I disagree with the president’s proposal of both a weapons ban and a magazine ban, I have no expectation of agreeing with anyone on every single issue; that is not how a democracy works. A weapons ban will only be ratified by the elected officials in congress if it is observed to be the will of the people, which in this case is unlikely. Our system of checks and balances is working.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Except we’re not a democracy. We’re a Constitutional republic. It is unconstitutional and illegal to pass rights-infringing laws, no matter how many “elected officials” voted yes.

        Our system is not working, people have just been brainwashed into thinking it’s working.

      • avatarDale says:

        Were you born an idiot or do you have to practice at it? What part of …shall not be infringed… do you not get/understand?? There is nothing “rational or logical” in any of the 23 EOs Obumer laid out. Unless his ultimate goal is outright disarmament and confiscation

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Wait, what?

      If he takes substantive action by EO, which isn’t generally possible, it’s “Emperor Obama” and tinfoil hattery time…

      And if he recognizes the limits of executive branch power and calls for legislation to be passed by Congress, he is leading from behind?

      Substitute the name of any President in there. Doesn’t matter who we are talking about, it is an unfair test.

      What you see today is how our system is supposed to work.. There is no overreach, no expansion of executive branch powers, and laws get made in Congress, not the judiciary or executive branch.

      • avatarJake L. says:

        The powers of the executive branch changed to what we call overexpansion back in the 1930′s.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I was referring to the significant expansion of Presidential powers under GWB, the vast majority of which have continued into the Obama adminstration. But you knew that.

  23. avatarJames Prince says:

    Just have to put this out there: with all the talk of “Assault Weapons” and High Capacity Magazine (HCMs) bans I have to snicker, not because I am for violence, but because of the failure to deal with the real issue. First off anything used to assault another person is an Assault Weapon, be it a firearm, knife, fist, shoe, foot, hammer or baseball bat they all become Assault Weapons the moment one human being picks it up and decides to harm another human being with it. So let’s quit assigning the name to only one specific thing.

    Second, banning HCMs is really not an answer either, as all it will mean is that instead of 30 rounds being expended in 20 seconds, it would only increase the amount of time it takes by about 3-5 seconds. Go to YouTube and watch some videos and see how quickly one magazine is ejected and a full one inserted, often times it is within a blink of the eye. Banning HCMs will do little to prevent that which is blamed upon them.

    When are we going to quit thinking emotionally and start thinking logically?? It is neither the firearm nor the magazine that is to blame, it is the person who picks them up and decides to use them to harm another. If no one picked them up they would never harm anyone or anything. Let’s put the blame where it belongs and deal with the real problem, the mental disconnect between right and wrong that leads a person to pick up an object and unleash it in a school, church, theatre, or at a political rally. Quit looking for a scapegoat and deal with what is really the issue!

    As I sat and watched the press conference held by Barack Hussein Obama I did hear one thing I totally agree with. He said” we must prosecute those who put guns into the hands of criminals.” When does Eric Holder’s trial begin, Barack?

    • avatarThe Stig says:

      I actually always get a kick out of the word ‘assault’ in assault weapon, because legally, it means something different from what everyone commonly uses it for.

      If I assault you, it means I swing and I miss. You were afraid that I would connect (that would be battery if I had) and therefore you were by definition assaulted.

      Therefore when I see the term assault weapon, I imagine a weapon that is so scary looking that it by definition makes you think that it will do you imminent bodily harm. Literally, an inanimate object that makes you irrationally fearful.

  24. avatarRydak says:

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    This is the one I am afraid of. Basically, the Brady Bunch of whoever else will have a tax funded platform to tell all of us how evil guns are.

    • avatarJames Prince says:

      What they fail to see is the fact that Guns are not evil until picked up by an evil person.

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      Here’s our chance to propose a new GLARE program! Gun Law Abuse Resistance Eductation! Teach our kids it’s not okay to trample on peoples’ rights!

  25. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    From the NYTimes.com front page….

    “President Obama on Wednesday unveiled plans to introduce legislation by next week that includes a ban on assault weapons, limits on high-capacity magazines and other steps. ”

    So we have to wait another week for the full extent of the damage here.

  26. avatarDentalPrepper says:

    If the CDC is going to conduct studies on armed interpersonal violence and its effect on public health, why only research violence when guns are used? It’s so that the studies can be used to justify further firearms restrictions. If hammers, baseball bats, and knives were studied as well, it would be harder to justify putting additional restrictions on firearms.

    • avatarRalph says:

      If hammers, baseball bats, and knives were studied as well, it would be harder to justify putting additional restrictions on firearms.

      Exactly why I’m not anticipating any federally-funded hammer studies.

  27. avatarSCOTUSPOS says:

    Actually #4 is the most concerning item in this list.

    This EO basically gives the AG the latitude to declare anyone with a prior criminal record a “Dangerous Person”.

    That may not sounds that bad until they start changes the definition or what dangerous really means. What about a DUI that you got 5 years ago? That shows that some people are not responsible to drive a car so why should they be able to own a gun? Lose your drivers license for to many tickets? No gun for you!

    #4 is a slippery slope. This one scares me a bit.

    • avatarJSIII says:

      I agree #4 is a very slippery slope, how long before 2 speeding tickets in a year or not paying your taxes is grounds to make you a prohibited person?

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      That is not what that EO says. It says that they should do a study to see if there are more groups of people to add to the list. I don’t think he has the authority to add any group to that list on his own.

    • avatarWiregrass says:

      It will be used in conjunction with #14 to define gun ownership as a disease, then justify disarmament to stop the epidemic.

  28. avatarFug says:

    There are two ways to look at this. These orders are either what they had in mind all along or Obama backed off. I am leaning toward the former, they were just trying to scare us by associating AWB and mag restrictions with the EOs. These EOs ain’t so bad, but they definitely lay the groundwork for a cultural shift toward vilifying gun ownwers. Thats clearly where they’re going with this. They still want an AWB and mag retrictions and will fight for them hard, but with these EOs in place they are digging in for a long fight over the next four years and beyond.

  29. avatarJoshinGA says:

    All I see is $$$$$$$$$$$. Something this county doesnt have a ton of to just throw around.

    • avatarTR says:

      Yeah, that’s kind of typical of America’s big gov mentality- look at Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, every other “problem”- just throw money at the problem and hope those who get the money are too busy to spend it to cause more problems. At least until your term is up.

  30. avatarDave says:

    When is the Attorney General going to be held accountable for the botched Fast and Furious operation?

  31. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    This isn’t a list of Executive orders – these are the suggestions by Biden’s commission on what executive initiative to take. The language of the REAL EOs will define what this stuff actually does…that’s what you need to fear. Don’t start sighing relief just yet.

  32. avatarJAS says:

    In the end theses things boil down to legislation. The only way they can get it is to negotiate, and they have some power there. Gun Control legislation for Government budget cuts, for example. That’s the dangerous part.

  33. avatarscottlac says:

    #7 ???? We already have that. It’s called the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. Those programs exist. Does that mean Obama is going to welcome the NRA to increase their programs? Somehow, I don’t think so.

  34. avatartdiinva says:

    Robert:

    Talk about your “executive actions” loophole. Although cleverly worded, there’s enough scope and scale within these Executive Orders to drive a civilian disarmament train through.”

    I call you on this BS.

    Channeling my evil gun grabber twin I would think that Obama sold me down the river to the NRA and all his rhetoric was just blowing smoke. Why he must be on the NRA’s payroll. I expected at least a magazine cap but all I got was a list of phoney feel good actions.

    The stuff we were all worried about, retroactive semiautomatic and magazaines bans, didn’t happen and it’s not going to happen unless all you Romney haters, so-called Libertarians and gun owning Democrats stay home in 2014 instead of voting (R) and keeping a pro-Second Amendment majority in the House..

  35. avatarDavid says:

    Doctors reporting on people with “mental issues” to be defined later… Oh you were on antidepressants for a little while? We’ll be kicking in your door at 2am to collect your guns to make sure you don’t hurt anyone.

    Having the CDC “study” the sources of gun violence? Didn’t we just defund any .gov studies about guns by a “health” agency? We don’t need more bullshit propaganda from Dear Leader or his anointed brown-nosers.

    Oh yeah, and HIPPA definitely is a barrier to the government keeping an eye on you, so he’ll need that changed. Privacy isn’t private any more.

  36. avatarGSD says:

    I am going to take Rahm Emanuel’s advice about never letting a crisis go to waste. I will use these executive orders to convince the wife we need to stock up on more guns and ammo while we can. (If only there were any guns and ammo to be had – crap!) Anyone else using this strategy?

    • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

      You should be ordering ammo now. That way you might get it delivered by fall. I’ve seen more than a few SKUs backordered until October, November and even December 2013.

  37. avatarFug says:

    There are two ways to look at this. These orders are either what they had in mind all along or Obama backed off. I am leaning toward the former, they were just trying to scare us by associating AWB and mag restrictions with the EOs. These EOs ain’t so bad, but they definitely lay the groundwork for a cultural shift toward vilifying gun ownwers. Thats clearly where they’re going with this. They still want an AWB and mag retrictions and will fight for them hard, but with these EOs in place they are digging in for a long fight over the next four years and beyond.

  38. avatarOldLawman says:

    At first (and second) read, much ado about nothing. If this counts for bold action, he is doing the same thing he has done with other policies – putting the burden on Congress, and stepping away. There has been a bunch of statements in the press, from gun control advocate Dems, that passing an AWB and/or mag cap law will be difficult.
    First Takeaway: Write/call/email your representatives in Congress. Rinse, repeat.

    Second Takeaway: Stay very focused on action at the State level. See: NY !
    Don’t let up.

  39. avatarinsert name here says:

    Will #9 apply to the guns that the executive branch strawman purchased for the mexican drug cartel they liked best?

    Probably not.

    Will they commit to background checks and mental health tests for all the international nation state clients of the US military industrial complex?

    Probably not.

    Why the hypocrisy?

    Because this is about disarming legal sovereign citizens, one step at a time.

  40. avatarAharon says:

    “4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

    — My favorite one. Holder already doesn’t believe any private citizens have the right to own guns. In his mind, an armed citizen is a dangerous person. Therefore, if you want to own a gun you are dangerous.

    “14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

    — Well duh, it’s going to be guns if that is the focus since politics is dirty. Why not have them research and provide the answers to why there is violence in our society? Why do people with hammers and clubs murder more people than gun users? Should hammers and clubs be banned?

    “19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”

    — ‘Run, hide, fight’. We already know the USG’s advice to their employees. BTW, their idea of fighting for unarmed folks is to throw books at armed attackers.

  41. avatarBrian S says:

    these actually sound reasonable and pings fairly low on my draconia-meter (compared to what I assumed when I read the headline)

    however, I’m betting this round of wind will be worth about as much as my post lunch wind

  42. avatarensitu says:

    On a lighter note the German Central Bank demanded that the Fed. Reserve Bank and the Fench Govt. physicaly return thier 15 plus Tons of gold

  43. avatarSDFreeman says:

    Now when I go to the doctors office I will get a miranda warning, anything I say will be used against me and reported to the authorities. Secound I’m not going to pay 150.00 dollars a visit to see my doctor for 5 minutes so the doctor can discuss my firearms ownership.

  44. avatarSkippy says:

    “4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks….”
    Or crossing the border.

  45. avatarNew Chris says:

    No one thing would have even slowed down the shooter at Sandy Hook. Not eve in a theoretical context.

    This is what tyranny looks like…

  46. avatarLenny says:

    Notice the trend in these EO’s. Seems to me this changes nothing in regard to getting guns away from criminals. And individually they seem relatively inert. But when you put them together the opportunity for misuse is easily apparent. They intend to take the guns of citizens one at a time.

    #1&#3 Who determines what is considered relevant data? It may be more than you think. Gun ownership records. Concealed carry permits. Backdoor gun registry?
    #2 Gain Federal access to HIPAA records to add to background check database. Your medical records and private doctor conversations will be used against you. Prescribed medications could be used as reason to confiscate your guns? RF is right. Depression? Paranoia? Take their guns. Everyone who reads TTAG is paranoid according to lefty’s.
    #4 Attorney General (not Congress) determines who is unfit to own firearms. No opportunity for abuse there. Note that Rahm Emmanual had a speech where he advocated making the No Fly List part of the gun background check.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4
    Virtually no accountability with the NFL that is now listing hundreds of thousands of people, a percentage of which are on the list by bureaucratic mistake.
    #5 Seize gun first and then determine if it should be returned. See #4. Grab them from one person at a time.
    #7 Brainwash your kids in school. Kids says something interpreted as parent not being safe with gun, seize the guns.
    #8 Back door to requiring gun locks and safes, and provides reason to confiscate unsafely stored guns.
    #13 And what, pray tell, will those “efforts” be? Seizing guns from anyone considered questionable by law enforcement would be preventing gun violence, right?
    #14 Does anyone really think the studies commissioned by Obama will be impartial? He’s already stated his goal of various bans quite clearly. Pure propaganda.
    #15 What do you think this report is going to say? I bet safety for the defensive user to be able to quickly and effectively fire weapon and neutralize their attacker won’t be on the list.
    #16 I’d have to find the actual text to back me up, but I’m pretty sure it does. See #2.
    #17 See #2.
    #18 Provides the administration cover to claim they are working with the NRA, and provides the NRA cover to say they are being effective. Behind the scenes horsetrading of some other deal that won’t be publicized?

    I could go on but my fingers are tired.

    • avatarChuckN says:

      Good overview. I think the use of medical data
      should make us all uneasy. Many of the other
      edicts from on high are so ambiguous as to be
      almost impossible for an individual to fight
      in court.

      I also get the feeling that certain groups,
      particularly politically active ones, are going to
      find themselves investigated and officially
      termed as extremists. If these EOs stand expect
      every range and hunting group to be visited.
      The government has already tried to get PTSD
      listed as mental illness that completely
      incapacitated (to the point where one could be
      termed a danger and be restricted from
      ownership. So expect a lot more cases of PTSD
      being diagnosed in Vets, and retired LEOs and
      first responders.

  47. avatarPaul says:

    #4 seems rather problematic for the regime. Can they say Fast & Furious.

  48. avatarPascal says:

    Did anyone see this part of the EO obama signed today?

    The total cost of the president’s proposals was estimated at $500 million.

  49. avatarkritterkiller says:

    To be honest, this is not at all what I expected. I know that no matter what is done, the interoperation will be battled in courtrooms for years. On the surface I don’t see broad “weapon style” bans or “clip size restrictions” usually associated with gun control rants. Is this truly a honest attempt to keep guns from criminals and the mentally disturbed or is it just the tip of the iceberg?

  50. avatarST says:

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

    This has me concerned. Its a hallmark of Europe’s gun control statutes that lawful gun owners must submit to police inspection of their homes for the purposes of inspecting their storage apparatus. Involving the CPSC in determining gun lock safety requirements represents a threat to our rights via civil action-if a future law is enacted mandating safe storage of arms, the CPSC will ensure that only the $2000 safes are certified for use in that aspect. Which by default means a new gun owner pays a $2000 tax on top of whatever gun they buy.

    • avatarLenny says:

      Yep, I missed that angle. And how will they be able to do inspections if they don’t keep a list of the lawful gun owners. And the inspections will give them the make, model, and serial number of all of your guns. Insidious indeed.

  51. avatarStacy says:

    While remembering that the Feinstein bill is still out there, this list seems well short of what the knowledgeable folks said could feasibly be done by EO, and the focus is much broader than just guns. It’s hard not to think that a lot of Congresspersons must have heard loudly from their constituents.

    2-1 us, counting from IL to NY to today. Keep letting your reps know what they have to do to earn/keep your vote.

  52. avatarAharon says:

    “Also remember that 11 percent of Americans take anti-depressants.”

    Looking more closely at the breakdown, you can focus on it in several ways. It seems that women suffer from and/or take anti-depressive meds at about 2x the rate of men according to the CDC.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Maybe people will get off of these drugs on their own to save their gun rights. Anti-depressents probably kill more people than they save.

      • avatargen4n9 says:

        That is a crock. I know many people that owe there life to antidepressants. All the nonsense floating around on the internet about SSRI’s is nothing but propaganda, and an attempt to claim that correlation is some how proof of causation.

        • avatarResearchGuy says:

          It is not a crock. The person you’re responding to didn’t say that antidepressants have not saved some lives. Nor did he or she say they haven’t made life better for some people. The problem is that they also ADMITTEDLY cost some people their lives, especially younger people. The FDA was forced after the fact to recognize this, and strongly recommend that doctors stop prescribing SSRIs for depressed teenagers. It might have even withdrawn the approval of the drug for that purpose in that population. Several of the recent mass shooting suspects have been on SSRIs. Even though they were not teenagers, I don’t believe that this kind of thing as a simple black-and-white age cut off. There have been other violent incidents where the perpetrator survived, and reported being in a dreamlike state.

          This whole thing is another massive problem-reaction-solution scenario. “It works the same way in any country…”

  53. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Unfortunately this is just the beginning of the citizen disarmament.

    Watch for more false flag “Active Shooter” events that will be pinned on the Freedom/Liberty Lovers…next thing you know if you say “Constitution” or “2nd Amendment” you’ll be labeled a “Dangerous Person” and say adios to your Right to
    Bear Arms!

  54. avatarHal says:

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    Gonna turn that around at yourself and the ATF, Mr. President?

  55. avatarBen says:

    The NRA and other gun rights organizations need to forcefully insert themselves into being part of the educational components he suggests. Don’t allow the guncontrollers to set the agenda. They may not be welcome, but they need to try.

  56. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    On a different note, if they are not going to ban import of ammo, I wounder when we can look forward to more stocks of Tula/Brown Bear/Wolf ammo at sane prices.

  57. avatarMichael B. says:

    The admin sounds like it’s going to try to force medical information into being part of the NICS background check.

  58. avatarraymond v clark says:

    well folks the people who ever had a bout of depressionor worst will not hold a gun after all is said an the new laws are all instituted.. If you are a fighter or drinker you may not be able to have a gun. But, if you kill for a living you will be hired for the protection of or children.

  59. avatarJohn Hopkins says:

    It’s not a matter of whether these are reasonable or not. It’s a matter of the president exceeding his powers as the executive branch of the government to create legislation, which is the sole job of the Legislative branch. Give him this power now and you set a precedent for him and ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS to do the same thing. For every decent president we’ve had, we’ve also had four or 5 bad, weak, or stupid ones.

  60. avatarGs650g says:

    This is what he comes up with? What a joke.

  61. avatarResearchGuy says:

    I read through about two thirds of these comments and I was surprised to see that nobody here has pointed out the problems in the alleged factual background to this response from government. There is footage from local news media showing law enforcement pulling a shotgun out of Adam Lanza’s trunk and unloading it. Not an AR-15, a _shotgun_. Law enforcement is on record in the first day or two saying that all they found with the shooter were handguns. I’m not sure whether they changed their story, or the media just made up something. Either way, we have all been sold a bill of goods regarding Sandy Hook. Not to mention the undisputed fact that only the tiniest fraction of all murders, and even gun murders, are committed by so-called “assault weapons.”

    And yet somehow “assault weapons” are the only kind of weapons that ever gets talked about — because they are the ones that people can more reasonably, although also incorrectly, argue are not covered by the Second Amendment.

    This is just like 9/11. “Respectable” debate assumes that the official story is correct, and starts discussing reasonable policy responses in response to that official story instead of questioning the very foundations of the BS.

    Please get a clue.

  62. avatarWA_2a says:

    #4 Sounds Unconstitutional…

  63. avatarGuy22 says:

    # 12
    Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
    Often times first responders, CCW permit carriers, and school officials would have to confront an active shooter first.
    So who determines what proper training is? Who get’s it? Who pays for it?
    #4
    Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    Hummmmm!!!
    Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun!
    Oh great. Does this include Mexian Cartel members???
    Guy22

  64. avatarnunya says:

    Why is so difficult to find the FULL TEXT of these executive orders… and they are NOT on the White House web site.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.