Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Executive order on background checks

Discussion in 'Legal' started by wow6599, Jan 3, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
  2. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
    "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.:cuss:
     
  3. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,401
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  4. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ark Paul, this has to do with back ground checks. What ever definition is used to be considered "dangerous", it is sent to NICS.
     
  5. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
  6. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    Sorry about my title. They don't want UBC on everyone...... :rolleyes:
     
  7. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    If they are "executive actions", are they not done by the President?
     
  8. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
  9. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,401
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Yeah the title of the article from FOX NEWS. They're not biased at all. :rolleyes:

    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.
     
  10. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    I respect your opinion Paul, and I understand your point of view on the title.

    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?
     
  11. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia

    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:
     
  12. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
    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?
     
  13. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,401
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  14. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
    +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.
     
  15. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    But that isn't what this thread is about.
     
  16. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    See post #1
     
  17. Mike1234567

    Mike1234567 member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,084
    Location:
    Alamo City
    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.
     
  18. jr45

    jr45 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Virginia
    My point exactly! And those who need help may not seek it due to this type of BS.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,679
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Phooey! So much heat and so little light. The fact is, we have no idea what's actually being done. It amazes me that some folks around here complain bitterly about the mistakes made by the popular press on gun related matters but happily swallow hook, line and sinker whatever vague, imprecise twaddle they publish on political and legal issues.

    1. This does not involve Executive Orders. The term "Executive Order" has a precise meaning. Also, there are important limitation on what can actually be done by Executive Order as discussed here, here, here, and here.

    2. But the article refers to "executive action." That term has no precise meaning and could mean anything done by an executive -- including Obama putting on his shoes in the morning.

    3. The article linked in the OP refers vaguely to "rules." Another article on the issue refers to proposed regulations by the Department of Justice and a proposed rule by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    4. Both those Departments are part of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. Obama as President is the senior manager of the Executive Branch. Each Department has certain authority to promulgate regulations. That authority comes from Congress through laws enacted by Congress.

    5. The adoption of regulations is a formal process. Proposed regulations must first be circulated for public comment. Regulations are subject to challenge in court and must be within the scope of the authority granted by the legislation authorizing their promulgation.

    6. But we have seen nothing concrete yet.

    So at this point this is nothing but idle and uninformed speculation. I really should close this now, but I'll leave it open for the time being to see if anyone can come up with some solid, meaningful information.

    But if any more meaningless speculation shows up, I'll close the thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  20. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,414
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Many states are not reporting their adjudicated mental cases to NICS.

    Found this:

    Underlline=mine.



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

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,679
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Thank you. We now have some actual information.

    So both the DOJ and DHHS are proposing regulations to effectively amend existing regulation relating to (1) the definition of terms under the GCA of 1968 (DOJ); and (2) the confidentiality of medical information (HIPAA) and disclosure rules (DHHS). These regulations must go through the formal rule making process to be adopted. So they will be published and the public will be invited to comment.

    Of course we really need to see the proposed regulations. Given the subject matter I'd expect various professional medical/psychiatric organizations to weigh in. Those groups were very involved formulation of the HIPAA rules and are usually quite protective of the interests of persons with mental or emotional issues. They are also quite influential.

    So it will be interesting to see how the process plays out.
     
  22. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    https://www.federalregister.gov/art...fective-and-committed-to-a-mental-institution

    (page 7, first paragraph. Irresponsible? ouch)

    Auxiliary mental health services to include substance abuse?

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

    bsctov Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    336
    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.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,679
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What are you looking at? The OP didn't post a proposed regulation. He posted a news story.

    If you are going to try to discuss the proposed regulations, you need to be reading the actual proposed regulations -- not some reporter's guess about what they say.

    MErl in post 22 provided a link to a government site at which one can get the full text (in pdf) of the proposed regulatory filing which will be opened for public comment. If you want to discuss what the proposed regulations say, that's what you have to be looking at.

    ETA: MErl posted a link only to the pre-publication DHHS regulations modifying HIPAA. We'll need to find a copy of proosed DOJ regulatory filing as well. But there's nothing really to discuss without actually reading the proposed rules.
     
  25. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    the first link at the top is from the ATF/DOJ, second one at the bottom is from DHHS
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page