Executive order on background checks

"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," the statement said.

Ya right! Anything this admin does will be an attempt to chip away at the 2nd amendment. I foresee individuals forgoing the needed treatment due to the fear of being labeled a "potentially dangerous" person. There already is a stigma with mental health and all this does is add more to it.

This is more than a little misleading.
The proposals are not to make executive orders regarding background checks. It is to allow certain mental health issues to be disclosed.

Your title suggests that they are thinking of making executive orders instituting UBC. Don't play the game of twisting things around like the other side does. If we do the same, our argument is no more valid than theirs.

Ark Paul, this has to do with back ground checks. What ever definition is used to be considered "dangerous", it is sent to NICS.

Here is the title of the article:

"Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...w-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/

Yes, they are done by him. Here is the list of 23 from last year that relate to gun control.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/meaningful-progress-23-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence

Here is the title of the article:

"Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ground-checks/

Click to expand...

Yeah the title of the article from FOX NEWS. They're not biased at all.

Sorry about my title. They don't want UBC on everyone......

Click to expand...

Sure, I'm aware that they do, and I'm 100% against it. That doesn't change the fact that that is not what this is about.

The last several mass shooters have had mental illness issues. So all of us screamed, "Focus on the real problem, which is mental illness" and rightfully so. So now they want to allow mental illness information to be a part of the criteria and we have a problem with that.

It simply doesn't matter what this guy does, everyone is going to have a problem with it. I'm surprised when Michelle Obama said that everyone should eat healthy, some of you guys didn't go sit in your garage, crank the car and eat bacon grease out of a coffee can.

The last several mass shooters have had mental illness issues. So all of us screamed, "Focus on the real problem, which is mental illness" and rightfully so. So now they want to allow mental illness information to be a part of the criteria and we have a problem with that.

It simply doesn't matter what this guy does, everyone is going to have a problem with it. I'm surprised when Michelle Obama said that everyone should eat healthy, some of you guys didn't go sit in your garage, crank the car and eat bacon grease out of a coffee can.

Click to expand...

You have to be kidding? When has this admin, EVER, performed any action that does not hurt the law abiding citizen? Every one knows that certain individuals should not own a firearm however; you are entrusting this admin with implementing something that is fair or right?:banghead:

But this is for your safety, this is common sense approach, this will stop the gun violence, this will not adversely affect law abiding citizens, etc...

Does this sound familiar?

But, IMHO, this is slowly chipping away our rights. If this type of "action" continues for years to come, will we not - by default - have UBC on everyone?

Click to expand...

While I think this action makes more sense than magazine restrictions, AWB and things like that, I do agree that anything is too much.
And sadly, I fear for the future if the 2A. They will do exactly what you said and eventually UBC will be on everyone. It won't happen overnight, it will be gradual. The next generation will be a little more open to restriction and the next a little more and so on. I'm glad I'll be dead by the time it happens.

But, IMHO, this is slowly chipping away our rights. If this type of "action" continues for years to come, will we not - by default - have UBC on everyone?

Click to expand...

+1. No one who supports the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment trust this admin or this congress. This is just another step to UBC and bans. And those who don't trust "them" (rightfully so) may not seek the treatment they need in fear of being labeled "dangerous". This is like asking a wolf to babysit your sheep.

Better be careful what you say and to whom. Don't tell them you think you should cut back on your drinking. Don't tell them you have a degenerative brain disease even if dementia and memory loss is still very minor. Will your doctor report that you may someday be slightly impaired? Don't tell anyone that you've been feeling anxious and depressed lately.

Better be careful what you say and to whom. Don't tell them you think you should cut back on your drinking. Don't tell them you have a degenerative brain disease even if dementia and memory loss is still very minor. Will your doctor report that you may someday be slightly impaired? Don't tell anyone that you've been feeling anxious and depressed lately.

Click to expand...

My point exactly! And those who need help may not seek it due to this type of BS.

Many states are not reporting their adjudicated mental cases to NICS.

Found this:

Underlline=mine.

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.

Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...deral-background-check-system-keep-guns-out-p

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...fective-and-committed-to-a-mental-institution

The legislative history of the Gun Control Act indicates that Congress intended that the prohibition against the receipt and possession of firearms would apply broadly to ‘‘mentally unstable’’ or ‘‘irresponsible’’ persons. See, e.g., 114 Cong. Rec. 21780 (1968) (statement of Rep. Sikes); id.at 21832 (statement of Rep. Corman); id.at 22270 (statement of Rep. Fino); see also, e.g., id.at 21791 (statement of Rep. Thompson).

Click to expand...

(page 7, first paragraph. Irresponsible? ouch)

In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of “committed to a mental institution” to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment. ATF has received inquiries as to whether the definition applies to involuntary outpatient treatment. Although the term “committed to a mental institution” is not defined in 18 U.S.C. 922, the plain language of the statute incorporates both inpatient and outpatientcommitments as the statute requires commitment toa mental institution, not commitment ina mental institution. See United States v. B.H., 466 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Mental institutions include mental health facilities and the auxiliary mental health services provided through those facilities.

Click to expand...

Auxiliary mental health services to include substance abuse?

and the HHS link
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...rivacy-rule-and-the-national-instant-criminal

The problem with the proposed changes is the ambiguity of the proposed regulation, also, they are expanding the law in such a way that traditionally required an act of congress to do.


I'll give you an example of how this can go terribly wrong, terribly fast.


The proposed regulation that was posted by the OP expands the prohibiting class of "Committed to a mental institution" to also include "Commitments" to outpatient mental health treatment. What does this mean exactly? Your guess is as good as mine..

Let's say John and Shirley are happily married and decide that they have grown too far apart in recent years, and that the resulting circumstances have led them to agree to a divorce, and that this would be the most amicable resolution for each side. They file a petition for divorce according to their state law and the judge feels as if they would benefit from marriage counseling before he agrees to finalize their divorce.

Would either of these people be prohibited under the proposed reading of the law?

Or how about this one..

A construction worker is at lunch at his favorite diner, when he notices a group of unruly kids sitting in the corner. He continues on to eat his meal when all of a sudden he starts getting spit balls shot at him, and packets of salt thrown etc.. He kindly asks them to stop, but they continue anyways....He finally loses his temper, and, against his better judgement.. starts yelling and screaming at the kids, causing them to become scared...The mother calls the police, and the man is cited for Disorderly Conduct in the 4th degree, he appears in court and is given no jail time, or probation, however, the judge makes anger management a condition of his probation.

This man is now prohibited from owning a firearm for life, because, under the proposed regulation, he was "Committed to a mental institution" because the law defines a "Mental institution" as follows :

27 CFR 178.11 Mental institution
Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and
other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or
mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.





Does this sound reasonable to you? I know it's a scary thing when a government starts to abuse it's power, but if you cave and accept the president's explanation and justification for these changes, you are playing a role in the undoing of all the hard fought victories the RTKBA has enjoyed.

the first link at the top is from the ATF/DOJ, second one at the bottom is from DHHS