“Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence. The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights..” White House Press Release: FACT SHEET: Strengthening the Federal Background Check System to Keep Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands [full release after the jump]
FACT SHEET: Strengthening the Federal Background Check System to Keep Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands
Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system.
Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence. While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.
The Administration takes a comprehensive approach to mental health issues by expanding coverage of mental health services so care is affordable, launching a national conversation on mental health to reduce stigma associated with having a mental illness and getting help, directing funds we have now to improve mental health facilities, and proposing more funds be used for efforts such as training additional mental health professionals.
At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun. The federal background check system is the most effective way to assure that such individuals are not able to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. To date, background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands.
The Administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.
Progress to Strengthen the Federal Background Check System
Over the past year, the Administration has taken several steps to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used to run background checks on those who buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers to make sure they are not prohibited by law from owning a firearm. For example:
- The President directed federal agencies to make all relevant records, including criminal history records and information related to persons prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons, available to the federal background check system. This effort is beginning to bear fruit. In the first nine months after the President’s directive, federal agencies have made available to the NICS over 1.2 million additional records identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms, nearly a 23% increase from the number of records federal agencies had made available by the end of January.
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a letter to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
- States are one of the key sources of data on persons prohibited from having guns, including felons and those prohibited for mental health reasons. That’s why the President took action to invest an additional $20 million this year to improve incentives for states to share this information with the federal background check system. In September 2013, DOJ awarded $27.5 million to 42 states and one territory to strengthen the firearms background check system by improving their abilities to share information with the NICS. In addition, the Administration is proposing $50 million for this purpose in FY2014, and Congress should act to provide these critical resources.
Two New Actions to Further Strengthen the Federal Background Check System
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 care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.
Calling on Congress to Act
- While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence. The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
In addition, the President’s FY 2014 Budget proposes a new $130 million initiative to address several barriers that may prevent people – especially youth and young adults – from getting help for mental health problems. The President and the Vice President continue to call on Congress to appropriate funds for these important purposes.
Gun trafficking is a federal crime? Someone must have forgotten to tell Eric Holder.
I thought gun trafficking was already a federal crime. You mean I could have been making millions running guns for all these years.
when they say “gun trafficking” what they’re actually talking about is making private sales a federal crime – after they push for and pass UBCs again.
Silly bastid can’t sign anything without propping the event with one or several children, because “It’s all for the children,” you know.
this is the same photo going back to his original EOs after Sandy Hook, you can’t miss the dopey looking girl on the left.
It’s interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Kim Dynasty all use children as props also…
Kids are great for breeding sympathy for your cause. “You wouldn’t want to hurt poor little Jenny, would you? You’ll pass these laws for her sake, won’t you? You don’t want her to die because an evil gun, right?”
Only the lowest coward hides behind a child.
Why does the girl in the red dress look like the Prez just cut a big rusty?
” the Prez just cut a big rusty?”
The Prez IS a big rusty.
Long-winded way to say “we’re going to tag and release anyone with declared to have a mental health issue because we don’t trust them.”
Funny to watch the compassionate dems revert back to the days of witch trials. And they say the bible-thumpers are backwards anachronists.
This.
I love this blanket mental health garbage. I’m sure there won’t be any kind of quantitative/qualitative check list to quality control who actually should have been committed in the first place and who was just the unlucky victim of a vindictive quack. They’ll all just be thrown into the prohibited person trash can together without a shred of due process. The more banned, the better, every denial is a democrat victory. Back door gun control at its finest.
You want to fix our mental healthcare system? How about we start by eliminating shrinks’ ability to lock people up without due process. Nothing outside of a warrant or probable cause should be grounds to deprive someone of their freedom; period.
And we can’t forget that the overwhelming majority of people with mental health related issues never harm anyone. Now that we’ve prevented guns from being the scapegoat (for the time being) they’re looking for something else to place the blame for mass shootings on. It looks like people with mental illness is going to be it.
“Witch hunt” is right – no one should have his or her right to due process stripped away just so a bunch of kool-aid drinkers can have something to feel warm and fuzzy about.
“Now that we’ve prevented guns from being the scapegoat (for the time being) they’re looking for something else to place the blame for mass shootings on.”
Um, how about Progressives?
The saddest part of this…they think we are stupid enough to believe in their motivations…and that we would think that someone who is really crazy… couldn’t figure out how to get weapons anyway…?
Someone needs to begin impeachment proceedings against this war-criminal bastard…and his Big-Bank /Big-Government sponsors..and when we find them guilty of treason…start hanging them…we could start with GHW Bush/GW Bush (their wives) Dick Cheney…Donald Rumsfeld…the list is endless…Karl Rove….and to see a convicted Barack and Michelle hanging from a rope..that would send a message to the world…that we have regained control of our government…
RJO’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
I almost forgot…..let us not neglect the entire Clinton Family from the treason charges…conviction and hangings…I’m sure they deserve it more than most…
RJ
“.and when we find them guilty of treason…start hanging them…;”
I’d say, proceed with caution along that path. I don’t think we want to go the way of all the revolutionaries in the past (except the USA, of course) where the victors simply become the new tyrants.
….I get your point…but I think when we get control of our government once again…with access to whatever ‘records’ are left…we’ll find more than enough evidence to keep our new National Monument …The National Gallows for American Values…to be built at Ground Zero 911…constructed of thermite tainted steel from the imploded WTC….I think we’ll have more than enough “evidence”..to be legitimately hanging the Karl Rove and Dick Cheney’s of our corrupt system…we could hang people for twenty years and still not hit the bottom of corruption….
Impeach…charge…convict and hang…and start ASAP…
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
And here it is – now that they have the blessings of SCOTUS (Heller decision) that it is okay to “regulate” because “regulate” does not mean “infringe”:
Obama –
“[…]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…
“[…]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…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…”
In other words, fvck Congress and the courts, too much trouble. Now the DOJ or HHS can arbitrarily decide the criteria that puts YOU on the “no buy” list and write federal regulations to support it that have the force of law. Isn’t that sweet.
It’s “for the children”. Barf.
Please, god, please, let the first victim of this be a democrat.
I think you and I pray to different gods sir. Typical.
This could come back to bite the Democrats on the posterior. I would suspect that most who will be judged mentally incompetent are liberals.
They write the laws to disarms themselves.
Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
The forced look of those kids in the picture never fails to make me laugh. They all look kind of let down now that they met the President.
Their parents look thrilled, and I’m guessing made this out to be better than meeting Santa Claus, Superman and the Easter Bunny, all in one tailored suit.
When the kids learned the truth – just a guy in a suit, even if he is the president – well, disappointment happens.
It’s when they realize that it’s an empty suit that they start to look concerned.
Of course the parents are thrilled, their kids weren’t shot in a school “Gun free zone” AND they got a ride on Air Force One!
That girl is clearly thinking “So where the @!$# is that ice cream we were promised?”
Does he really write with a claw like that? Those kids could teach him about penmanship.
I don’t think “privacy” means what they think it means either.
This will effect a whole bunch of combat veterans that are dealing with PTSD. The worse thing about it is that is will keep other veterans from seeking the treatment that they may need to deal with the realities of the wars we’ve been in. I’ve already seen this first hand with two of my former soldiers that refuse to seek treatment for PTSD from Iraq. They would rather suffer in silence than be lumped into a group of firearm prohibited persons that contains murders and rapists. They did not sacrifice mind and body for their country to have their rights taken away. This will end badly for many.
^This!
Amen.
So what you just said!!!
I know a few of them as we’ll.
Exactly. This pushes those who are most likely to need help away from seeking it.
It also makes the ones who fell for the nothing bad will happen if you need help and seek it. It will not affect you security clearance or anything else. Oh FU we lied you lose. This is BS. I will never recommend anyone seek help again I feel I was lied to and in turn lied to my subordinates.
Yup. The really ghastly thing about this was the VA and media hand-wringing and public angst about how many vets committed suicide BEFORE this POS paper-phuk floated to the top of the bowl. It’s going to get much worse now.
Shouldn’t affect the veterans even one little bit – years ago the Liberals in Congress already labeled them as mentally defective just for volunteering for the military and DHS Napalatano classified all military veterans as potential terrorists. It was only a matter of time before they found a way to add us to the “no buy” list.
If it was the right to breathe being infringed, I am sure they would understand the meaning just fine.
In one measure in order to snip your 2A rights they ignore the Due Process clause of the 14A. Which will lead to a breach of your house and the 4A.
The Federal government all of a sudden breaks all efficiency standards for constitutional rights violations.
And yet does nothing to solve any problem.
Stop the presses!
That kid- that one in the middle of the conveniently diverse trio.
Is he?
Could it be?
OBAMA’S SON?!
No he is not wearing a hoodie and making drugs out of skittles
So how would this have prevented that criminally insane man in FL from owning guns years after he got off free from shooting a man who did not give him a ride???
How did that insane man buy 36 guns and almost 5k rounds of ammo? These new laws are a joke.
People who want guns will get them.
Here is an idea: keep killers in jail,mental hospitals,or “gasp” execute them for their crime before they murder again(and they will).
These laws are feel good laws and that is all they do….make politicians feel good.
No, don’t add more killing. Give them life in solitary.
We don’t trust government to appropriately regulate who gets firearms, so we also better not trust them to deal out death as punishment. We all know many innocents have been executed (and jailed) for crimes they never committed.
I suspect life in solitary would be considered (rightly so) “Cruel and unusual”.
Better, IMO, to create prisons where all inmates are murderers. Put them all inside a wall, ship them food and other necessary supplies across a no man’s land, and let them deal with each other as they will.
Awesome. And in a couple generations, we can send a trading vessel to the island and all of the inmates will greet us with “G’day, mate!”
It isn’t the politicians fault that they are delusional and in denial with the sick need to control everyone and everything around them.
They are “Representatives” after all; they represent the majority of the people that voted them in to power. The people; mostly liberal/progressive but with many republicans as well: are the ones that are delusional and in denial, with the sick need to control everyone and everything around them.
But that representation also is supposed to include the caveat of limiting their actions to within the constraints of the constitution….a caveat long forgotten apparently.
“…limiting their actions to within the constraints of the constitution”
Oh, that’s SO twentieth-century…
Liar of the Year . . . yeah, we should believe everything he & his fawning state-run media says.
Simply put obama and Democrats like him scare me he probably sees this as a good thing. If they want to reduce gun violence. Adress black on black gang crime and enable the oppressed people of these failed anti gun citys to protect themselves the mentally ill are among the least likely people to comit a crime thats a fact
Such a great example of the exercise of power. They cannot get changes to statutory laws through Congress so via executive fiat they will simply change key definitions in the laws in order to push their agenda onto the unwilling masses.
Yeah, lawmakers said “institution” but what they meant was inpatient or outpatient. Yeah, HIPAA-protected data actually means not protected from us, your benevolent masters, because we can non-legislatively re-write the law to mean what the executive branch wants it to be. Those, and the four times Dear Leader has changed the ACA since it was passed by Congress.
Why isn’t Congress jumping and spitting mad about all this? Where the hell are they? For God’s sake, the Republicans lost their freaking minds because Clinton got a BJ from an intern. Here we have the chief executive editing laws directly and they are completely silent.
They’re too busy hustling under the table for donations and back-biting everyone else in Congress so they can get more $$$ and a cushy con$ulting or teaching gig when they finally retire on $100+k a year and full, free benefits.
Reminds me of some of the descriptions of the Roman Senate towards the end of the empire…
Sadly, I think you are right. It says something that very few people rate congressional performance at a level above abysmal, and recognition that the current system is basically skewed and corrupt as hell is widespread, and yet very few of them actually get voted out of office. Where’s the Vandals or Huns when you need them? Damn barbarians, late to the party as usual…
Yeah, except for that turning the Senators’ wives into whores bit – in our Senate it is the Senators themselves who are the whores. And we pay them for screwing us whether we enjoy it or not.
Sure, sure let’s just throw money at it…$27.5 mil here, $50 mil there, $130 mil for those guys over there…everybody happy now? Excellent. Onto the next one!
“While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent”
What? A sliver of truth?
“While the VAST MAJORITY of Americans who experience a mental illness are NOT VIOLENT”
And then …
“committed to making sure that anyone who MAY pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun”
Not will pose a danger to others. May pose a danger.
And not just others …
“anyone who MAY pose a danger to THEMSELVES or others”
So in summary, the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent. They don’t pose a danger. But in order to claim that we are attempting to stop “gun violence” (not all violence, just “gun violence”) we will prohibit some of them from exercising their right to keep & bear arms, and hinder their ability to defend themselves (ignoring the fact that the mentally ill are often the victims of crime, not the perpetrators). We’ll conveniently ignore the fact that we don’t have an accurate crystal ball that tells us who will and will not actually become violent. We’re guessing. They might be educated guesses, but they’re still guesses. We’re denying people their rights because we think they might do something, similar to Minority Report. We’re encouraging those with mental illness to not seek treatment, since they may lose their right to keep & bear arms.
Oh, and to top it off …
“background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands”
We’ll ignore the fact that background checks do not permanently prevent any criminal from obtaining a firearm. We know that while it may temporarily stop them, they’ll find another way to obtain a firearm (or get another weapon and still commit acts of violence, even though we would have theoretically stopped an act of “gun violence”). We’ll also ignore the plight of those who are denied based on whatever mistakes are a part of the list of “prohibited persons” and are denied their right to effective self-defense.
In short, we have no ^#%$ing clue.
+1
Stopping people who “may commit violence” … how far down the rabbit hole will they go with that? Everyone who has ever taken anti-depressants is now a potential murderer?
What a crock of shit.
Wait…that pic was from the last time he heroically signed orders for the kids, isn’t it? I think the boss man’s still on vacation. The whole executive order probably came down tagged “sent from my android device.”
He uses an iPad. The NSA probably owns it. And him.
It always amazes me when people are smiling as their rights are taken away. Wonder how big the smiles will be when they are dragged away to reeducation camps?
Umm…. isn’t “gun trafficking” already a federal crime??
No, only for you and I and the public, the DOD, and DOS, and DOJ can do whatever the fuck they want.
Change has to start somewhere. I’m all for owning guns. I own a few, I like to shoot them and I have a ccw and carry all the time. I’m sane, I vote, and I pray. I don’t want some idiot who thinks God is telling him to kill people at the park to go buy a gun without any kind of checks. All gun sales should be background checked. I also don’t’ want some idiot ex-con gang banger punk to get his hands on guns. So, check all sales and make it a mandatory minimum 25 year sentence on ALL violators and remove all restrictions on caliber, make, model, type, kind, etc of weapons for sale. Let the sane have what the want and keep the crazies and criminals out of guns. Sadly that probably means many of you here! JK!!! Give and take man… give and take….
So, then by your own admission, you advocate gun registration. Correct?
Furthermore, it appears you believe that “universal background checks” will prevent crazy or deranged people from committing violent crimes. Correct?
I do not see your “give and take” anywhere in our constitution. In a republic, individual rights are paramount, they are not beholden to the tyranny of democracy.
Give and take means we give and they take. Fvck that.
The proper deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Since when does an ex-con go through a commercial sale like you would and fill out a 4473?
Go find the archived videos on a show called VICE from HBO — they are online. There is an episode where the reporter hangs out with a street gang for a week. This happens to be Chicago, or what the reporter terms Chiraq — the criminals have use the freight train system to smuggle gun into Chicago. the are affiliated with other gangs who steal the guns. They recruit 21yr olds with no record to purchase guns, much like the drug gangs in Mexico use kids for drug mules.
Lastly, nobody, not even you, know what environmental, emotional, medical or chemical condition will make you go from sane to insane
The whole idea is full of Swiss cheese and it is all feel good proposals
Do you feel better now?
If you’re looking for a discussion, you found one. Unfortunately for you, we have facts and you have fairy tales and legends. See above for more detailed destruction of your position, and follow the link for more bad news for you.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/3/newtown-type-mass-shootings-tripled-recent-years-r/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#.UsblyNK1y-2
…and you would trust government to decide who should have their rights restricted…this corrupt, war-crime-treasonous-911- committing/covering up government……those are the people you want setting the standards for the exercise of my inalienable right?
Ha!…you sound like you are insane… and by your own definition should be restricted from that firearm you carry…BTW…what if I were an atheist and I think your belief in some God and the act of “praying” indicates a mental health issue…should we use my definition…?
Dude…you better think your position out a little bit more…the ramifications are horrendous..
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family
So, your uncle Bob doesn’t quite understand the law and makes a mistake on a sale to his buddy. He has never committed a crime in his life and tries to live within the law. He had no criminal intent. Should he be put away for 25 years? Uncle Bob is not a threat to anyone but he will be an easy target for overzealous DAs trying to make a quick slam dunk prosecution to pad his “I kept a violent criminal off the streets” tally.
Uncle Bob’s life is ruined and not a single person’s life was saved. There is no victim except for uncle Bob and his family. The kind of laws you advocate will be used more heavily on the good people of the country than the violent criminals. Why? Because the gov knows where they live and they are low hanging fruit. When I think of a new law some legislator wants to pass, my first thought is, “how will this law be abused? Because it WILL be abused.
Okay, since I’m late to the comments section today I read all the responses to your comment before posting this just in case someone else had drubbed you over the head first.
Now it’s safe for me to comment and I’ll start by saving Matt in FL some time by posting [FLAME DELETED] myself. Now I feel better.
You said:
“[…]I’m sane, I vote, and I pray. I don’t want some idiot who thinks God is telling him to kill people at the park to go buy a gun without any kind of checks. All gun sales should be background checked. I also don’t’ want some idiot ex-con gang banger punk to get his hands on guns…Let the sane have what the want and keep the crazies and criminals out of guns. Sadly that probably means many of you here!”
Your contention that you are sane is belied by your further consideration that ANY law, much less a universal background check law, would prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They are criminals. They do not give a fuck about you or your laws or your background checks. They do not go to gun shops and fill out ATFE forms to buy guns. Congress could pass mandatory universal background check laws with draconian incarceration schemes tomorrow and it would affect criminals not one whit.
Instead of coming here and making such a foolish argument, read a little and pay attention – this is not the first time this issue has been gone over in painful detail.
As for the mentally challenged (a little PC lingo there), they were ALL sane until the minute they weren’t. They all appeared sane to the people around them until the instant they didn’t. You cannot create a federal bureau of Pre-Crime to punish them for crimes they have not committed and may never commit. It is quite obvious from their horrendous track record that mental health professionals from psychiatrists down to the lowest level intern in a psych ward have no clue when or if a person will become insane nor what their actions will be should they become insane, nor what the proper treatment for those people should be. Even the vaunted FBI profilers can’t seem to figure out how to identify a “potential” violent criminal with enough accuracy to even put them under observation, much less apprehend them before they go postal.
And all that on top of the fact that we are discussing a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” (emphasis mine.) There is no provision in that amendment for the federal government to establish, maintain and/or enforce any list of persons who in their opinion may be denied that natural right. The Second Amendment was created specifically and precisely to prevent THAT from happening.
“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 care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.”
And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell you at a very attractive price! Didn’t the USSR use “mental health commitments” to lock up their dissidents? And aren’t Barry’s mentors proud advocates of this Marxist method of rule?
“launching a national conversation on mental health to reduce stigma associated with having a mental illness”
Confusing. Reduce the stigma of mental health but have just enough to take way their rights.
Way to make sure plenty of people who would otherwise seek treatment on their own for depression or other mental health conditions avoid treatment since no one knows what “general mental health” and “routine mental health care” actually includes. Would you trust them with your rights?
Get plenty of exercise and eat real food. Avoiding the health care system as much as possible seems to be your best bet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aJCrMDl-H4
LOL! great clip! Hopefully all gun owners will take this to heart!
What if you should have been involuntarily committed but weren’t. You know, like if you voted for that jackalope twice.
[15A][32.5B] All Obama supports are automatically excluded especially if they are large donors to the campaign. Should the truth that they are found to be diehard Obama supports be found, the media outlets will be directed to cover up the facts even if it mean outright lying and should the lies be discovered, the reporters will be terminated to save face of the administration. Compensation will be made a later date when nobody is looking.
I’ve always loved that pic of our divider in chief. Whites on one side and people of color on the other. Can’t have us no mixin’ for the picture!
OK. Let me get this straight.
I found out yesterday from my new veterinarian (I moved) that HIPAA actually prevents them from calling my old veterinarian and getting my dog’s records sent over.
Yet, because the president thinks “executive order” means “rewrite the laws so that they say what I want” my mental health professional can tag me as unable to own a firearm on a whim.
Remember, the AMA already has health professionals trying to ID gun owners with questionnaires. I know for a fact that our former pediatrician asked my son if we had guns in the house when I was out of the exam room. (Hence, the “former.”) Seems, I left that question blank for some reason…
The various puzzle pieces are coming together. I expect another “executive order” at some point exempting doctors from HIPAA when reporting which of their patients already own guns.
I mean..really…some of those newly outed mentally ill guys might *already* own guns…or maybe their relatives do! Think of the children!
That’s because pets can’t own guns.
“…..The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights..”
The last poll I saw on this guys approval rating was like 80%+ against so there’s no weight to his ‘vast majority’ claim….
-rh
Step 2: enact legislation that requires mental-health screening before a gun purchase. Anything you say (or anything you have said in a gun forum or on social media) can and will be used against you. (You understand that the Second Amendment is for hunters and sportsmen, right? You know that a gun in the home makes you less safe, right? Did you use the word “tyranny”?) You’re tagged as a “gun nut.” No more gun rights for you or anyone in your household. For safety’s sake.
And the devil is always in the details.
A letter of guidance from the ATF? I still can’t get past that part without laughing
The kids definitely look uneasy. One looks queasy. The Gun-Grabbin’ Bitchez? Like they just Saved the Planet.
I expect every single person who made a comment above mine has written their congress reps on this issue, right? Otherwise you are no better than the hand wringing Progressive libtards who hammered draconian gun control measures in after Newtown. Yes, I’ve written, and via email convinced three others to write – For The Children.
I could write my Congressman, but he has his nose so far up Obama’s ass that he can’t read anything. And both Washington Senators are card-carrying Progressives who probably keep a tally of opposing opinion letters and e-mails as a measure of how well they are doing.
Unfortunately, I’m kinda stuck in the People’s Democratic Republic of Taxifornia. My senators are Feinstein and Boxer, and my representative is Linda Sanchez. I’ve emailed them before, and got the automatic response: “Thank you for contacting me on this important blah blah blah…”. I fear that trying to get any of them to listen to reason has about as much chance of success as trying to teach a brick to sing. )-;
Done and done. I expect the form replies early next week. [SIGH]
Hiding behind women and children? The nobility of hard core liberals, (men and women), does not inspire me. Seems sort of sleazy to me.
From the article, “At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun.”
Sounds like the administration is committed to overstepping their bounds. The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed based on someone’s aversion to a potentiality (i.e. that they “may” pose a danger to themselves or others). In fact, part of the reason people arm themselves is because they want to preserve/ensure their ability to pose a danger to others – specifically, to those “others” who mean to do them harm.
From the article, “At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun.”
It sounds like the administration is committed to overstepping their bounds. The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed based on someone’s aversion to a potentiality (i.e. that they “may” pose a danger to themselves or others).
In fact, part of the reason people arm themselves is because they want to preserve/ensure their ability to pose a danger to others – specifically, to those “others” who mean to do them harm.