View Full Version : News Today More EO from the WH
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/
IMHO, they are going after veterans with the whole "outpatient" definition creep. I hope I'm wrong.
Outpatient means a person isn't deemed a significant enough threat to themselves others. So how does a person get involuntarily committed on an outpatient basis? Don't know but I do know the folks getting help for PTSD are getting closer to that expanding definition.
Oh, and anyone who saw action has PTSD.
Shame because it will be another barrier between vets and getting help.
KestrelBike
01-03-2014, 14:57
So it seems like the two changes are just one more step towards whimsical denial of possession?
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
- Are they clearing the information hurdle here? So basically when they *DO* make any mental health treatment cause for making possession illegal, that they know exactly who's door to break down? Basically like a gun registry - confiscation comes later with a handy map?
The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.
- Coming soon with your next traffic stop: being committed for the day to a mental institution. Oops that was involuntary, better take those weapons from you.
If we follow the past progression of legislation, the logical conclusion leads us to the point where humans will eventually be limited to blended liquid foods as sharp objects will be deemed unsafe.
KestrelBike
01-03-2014, 14:59
IMHO, they are going after veterans with the whole "outpatient" definition creep. I hope I'm wrong.
Outpatient means a person isn't deemed a significant enough threat to themselves others. So how does a person get involuntarily committed on an outpatient basis? Don't know but I do know the folks getting help for PTSD are getting closer to that expanding definition.
Oh, and anyone who saw action has PTSD.
Shame because it will be another barrier between vets and getting help.
Veterans groups should be outraged by this, because this is one more discouragement to active/vets seeking help, if there's the possibility they're going to sign away their rights.
If we follow the past progression of legislation, the logical conclusion leads us to the point where humans will eventually be limited to blended liquid foods as sharp objects will be deemed unsafe.
How are you going to blend anything without sharp objects? OH SNAP!
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
That silly little law known as HIPAA is always gettin' in the way. Get past that and all those red card (MMJ) holders are going to be getting knocks on their door.
If we follow the past progression of legislation, the logical conclusion leads us to the point where humans will eventually be limited to blended liquid foods as sharp objects will be deemed unsafe.
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
Shame because it will be another barrier between vets and getting help.
Veterans groups should be outraged by this, because this is one more discouragement to active/vets seeking help, if there's the possibility they're going to sign away their rights.
Yep! Both of these... as if there isn't enough issues with veterans seeking help, one more reason myself and others fear for our brothers and sisters who came home with really bad problems, but still are what I would consider safe to own guns- especially compared to the welfare state citizens who belong to the less than legitimate "social clubs."
How are you going to blend anything without sharp objects? OH SNAP!
I make 2 gallons of juice every week from fruit/vegetables with a juicer that has no sharp parts...
Fear not, sharp objects will be banned.....for the children.
hollohas
01-03-2014, 15:27
Anyone else find it weird that Biden's office announced this while the Absent in Cheif is on vacation? Bama is a joke...and thats the scary thing. These communist like policies keep coming with or without him.
How exactly can the president just decide to change HIPAA by executive order? That is so completely unconstitutional that even an idiot like Sotomayor should be able to understand.
And red cards aren't protected by HIPAA, since marijuana is illegal at the federal level anyway. However, under the State Constitution, they are supposed to be in a proprietary database that LE cannot access.
How are you going to blend anything without sharp objects? OH SNAP!
It will be okay we will get issued our government-prepared blended food. Then they can ensure we are all eating what is good for us and keep the costs of nationalized health care down.
How exactly can the president just decide to change HIPAA by executive order? That is so completely unconstitutional that even an idiot like Sotomayor should be able to understand.
And red cards aren't protected by HIPAA, since marijuana is illegal at the federal level anyway. However, under the State Constitution, they are supposed to be in a proprietary database that LE cannot access.
And yet the anti's continue to push for gun registration into a database that LE/GOV can and will access.
I don't recall MJ being granted a right (specifically) in the Bill of Rights.
It will be okay we will get issued our government-prepared blended food.
-tax stamp for food, just like NFA items...solve the budget and be safe at the same time....sweet jesus, I should work for the gubermint!
How exactly can the president just decide to change HIPAA by executive order? That is so completely unconstitutional that even an idiot like Sotomayor should be able to understand.
And red cards aren't protected by HIPAA, since marijuana is illegal at the federal level anyway. However, under the State Constitution, they are supposed to be in a proprietary database that LE cannot access.
"Post-Constitutional America"
Get used that phrase.
If you don't like it, you can take to the Judicial branch where a visibly shaken John Roberts will declare the Executive can do as it pleases because it says it can do as it pleases.
buffalobo
01-03-2014, 16:04
Another step on the path....
Incrementalism at it's finest.
Incrementalism
it's slow-so as not to upset...
buffalobo
01-03-2014, 16:10
it's slow-so as not to upset...
You bet. Just a little nibble every day and soon we will be unarmed indentured servants of the fed.gov. :banghead:
TEAMRICO
01-03-2014, 16:43
Just another Friday afternoon special from the boys in DC. Go about your weekend and have fun. This was not supposed to be big news.
Nothing to see here.......until next Friday afternoon.
Isn't HIPAA is what kept the "medical" MJ records from being cross-referenced to from 4473?
blacklabel
01-03-2014, 16:56
I find it curious that this administration is so eager to disarm vets.
Jesus-With-A-.45
01-03-2014, 17:04
I find it curious that this administration is so eager to disarm vets.
Sarcasm.........this man knows it.
Just curious as this was the first example that came to mind. Get a DUI, end up with court ordered therapy, does that count as "committed to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment?" It is absolutely involuntary outpatient treatment but does it count as committed?
DavieD55
01-03-2014, 18:00
What is wrong with this? Don't we need more mental health involment with the 2A and the RTABA?
What is wrong with this? Don't we need more mental health involment with the 2A and the RTABA?
Very carefully... the Dems will try to take this too far and then if you get a scrip for anti-depressants they'll want your 2A rights taken away. If done right, yes, we do want to fix the mental health system in our country, but if done wrong we're all screwed.
Kraven251
01-03-2014, 18:11
What is wrong with this? Don't we need more mental health involment with the 2A and the RTABA?
Like with all things with this administration the idea is sound, but the implementation and implications being made based on these "common sense" ideas are horrible and do little to solve the problem, and further alienate people and divide the nation on an issue. This creates a true Catch 22 scenario and is a stepping stone toward some serious infringement.
Very carefully... the Dems will try to take this too far and then if you get a scrip for anti-depressants they'll want your 2A rights taken away. If done right, yes, we do want to fix the mental health system in our country, but if done right we're all screwed.
This is what really scares me.
Awesome. Get your rights removed without due process. That's what this nation was founded on.
Oh? What's that? This is completely in opposition to our nation of laws under the Constitution? What's a Constitution?
[dig]
Awesome. Get your rights removed without due process. That's what this nation was founded on.
Oh? What's that? This is completely in opposition to our nation of laws under the Constitution? What's a Constitution?
[dig]
A morning constitution is something I remember my grandpa talking about. Hope that helps!
wctriumph
01-03-2014, 18:33
Well, "they" have to do something or all those mad moms (all 120 of 'em) will get mad and picket something. It just makes sense, I guess. You know, someone that has been prescribed an anti-depressant or a anti-anxiety med can't have a gun. Especially veterans 'cause those guys "know stuff", like how to maneuver in a tactical way and they might be tempted to try and fight for their rights. "They" should make it retroactive too, if you have ever been prescribed ANY medication that might affect your mental capability, take away their guns! I mean, that would be "common sense", right?
Election time can't get here fast enough for me.
TEA
III
I'm a man, and I can change, I guess.
A morning constitution is something I remember my grandpa talking about. Hope that helps!
I think you mean "morning constitutional". I've heard of one of those. Even our government has probably used one of those occasionally.
DavieD55
01-03-2014, 18:56
There are absolutely no limits for that diabolical narcissist and his out of control admim.
DavieD55
01-03-2014, 19:00
Very carefully... the Dems will try to take this too far and then if you get a scrip for anti-depressants they'll want your 2A rights taken away. If done right, yes, we do want to fix the mental health system in our country, but if done right we're all screwed.
Becareful what you wish for because it may turn to bite you, your loved ones, and your friends in the a$$.
Isn't HIPAA is what kept the "medical" MJ records from being cross-referenced to from 4473?
It's actually the Colorado State Constitution that keeps the database separate. Since MJ is illegal federally, HIPAA (a federal law) does not apply.
Rooskibar03
01-03-2014, 21:46
When do we start shooting?
SideShow Bob
01-03-2014, 21:55
How are you going to blend anything without sharp objects? OH SNAP!
Use a large wooden mallet and pound it to a pulp perhaps ?
Use a large wooden mallet and pound it to a pulp perhaps ?
With OSHA approved PPE
How are you going to blend anything without sharp objects? OH SNAP!
Use a large wooden mallet and pound it to a pulp perhaps ?
Whip up some Jell-O pudding with a mallet. Please remember to provide us with pictures.
[mop]
sellersm
01-03-2014, 23:18
This is indeed a serious issue, and here's part of the reason why. The entity in the WH (barry soetoro) is making good on his promises of last year... And here's the big kicker: there is a growing spotlight being focused on making the connection between those who practice religious freedoms and mental illness, especially forms of Christianity. This is only one article, but there are others that you can find (and a few links in this article itself), that attempt to paint those who practice their God-given rights to freedom of religion as 'mentally ill'!
Why does this matter? Well, look at the demographics of our society/nation! Who makes up the majority? Yup, people who practice their right to freely express & participate in freedom of religion. Who also makes up the biggest demographic of gun owners? Yup, pretty much the same group...
Any coincidence that Duck Dynasty's Phil was 'targeted'? I think not.
I added the bold to the sentence, in the following snipped from the article, to highlight what I said above.
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/10_signs_that_religious_fundamentalism_is_going_do wn_partner/
4. Recovering believers are reclaiming their lives. Most atheists and agnostics are former believers, which means that many carry old psychological baggage from childhood beliefs or some post-childhood cycle of conversion and deconversion. While many former believers slip out of religion unscathed, some do not, and believers in recovery now have a name: reclaimers (http://journeyfree.org/reclaimers/). A small but growing number of cognitive scientists are exploring the relationship between religion and mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders and panic. Marlene Winell, a California consultant who works full time with recovering fundamentalists, has brought attention to a pattern she calls Religious Trauma Syndrome (http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/religious-trauma-syndrome-is-it-real/). Darrel Ray has created a matching service (http://www.seculartherapy.org/) for secular clients and therapists, while Kathleen Taylor at Oxford has raised the question (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html) of whether religious fundamentalism itself may one day be treatable.
Want to know more about the author of this article? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/
Rucker61
01-04-2014, 00:32
Whip up some Jell-O pudding with a mallet. Please remember to provide us with pictures.
[mop]
How about a whisk?
Kraven251
01-04-2014, 10:52
I've read and re-read much of the thread and the original piece, and I'm going to take a bit of an unpopular stance. So to preface, I am still fairly certain that these EO's if they are even legal will be misused and abused.
...and now the unpopular part. Any changes that enforce mental health rules or requirements for gun ownership will result in some people losing rights for public safety. Though many states have temporary suspension of 2A rights for things like domestic violence (though the continued expansion of what is considered DV borders on the absurd in some states). I am not defending the irrational stripping of rights or the vast overstepping of boundaries, but there will need to be understanding that some folks honestly should not be wandering around with firearms because they are unstable and a danger to themselves and others. The slippery slope however is who gets to make that decision and what criteria are being used to establish that determination.
Also, based on most state's laws regarding involuntary commitment, it usually takes 3 mental health professionals to make that designation, even when paired with statements or requests from family. While the mental health folks aren't always on the 2A side, they do have standards and regulations they stick pretty stringently in most cases.
I don't agree with the direction this going to go, but the concept behind it is what we were all saying was the problem. Now they are starting to move in the direction of addressing mental health and we are finding fault with it and seeing nefarious reasons for their actions. ...and maybe there are, but the mental health component is as it always has been very nebulous and hard to nail down.
DavieD55
01-04-2014, 12:21
I've read and re-read much of the thread and the original piece, and I'm going to take a bit of an unpopular stance. So to preface, I am still fairly certain that these EO's if they are even legal will be misused and abused.
...and now the unpopular part. Any changes that enforce mental health rules or requirements for gun ownership will result in some people losing rights for public safety. Though many states have temporary suspension of 2A rights for things like domestic violence (though the continued expansion of what is considered DV borders on the absurd in some states). I am not defending the irrational stripping of rights or the vast overstepping of boundaries, but there will need to be understanding that some folks honestly should not be wandering around with firearms because they are unstable and a danger to themselves and others. The slippery slope however is who gets to make that decision and what criteria are being used to establish that determination.
Also, based on most state's laws regarding involuntary commitment, it usually takes 3 mental health professionals to make that designation, even when paired with statements or requests from family. While the mental health folks aren't always on the 2A side, they do have standards and regulations they stick pretty stringently in most cases.
I don't agree with the direction this going to go, but the concept behind it is what we were all saying was the problem. Now they are starting to move in the direction of addressing mental health and we are finding fault with it and seeing nefarious reasons for their actions. ...and maybe there are, but the mental health component is as it always has been very nebulous and hard to nail down.
Do you think this administration is operating with the best of intentions in mind? Just look at the long list of abuses that have occurred under this administration, which keeps growing by the day. Do you really believe they could get this right of all things considering how bad they want to disarm America? Why would you be willing to embrace and open the door to more abuses of authority and corruption... Maybe you just have more faith in those people tahn I do.
I've read and re-read much of the thread and the original piece, and I'm going to take a bit of an unpopular stance. So to preface, I am still fairly certain that these EO's if they are even legal will be misused and abused.
...and now the unpopular part. Any changes that enforce mental health rules or requirements for gun ownership will result in some people losing rights for public safety. Though many states have temporary suspension of 2A rights for things like domestic violence (though the continued expansion of what is considered DV borders on the absurd in some states). I am not defending the irrational stripping of rights or the vast overstepping of boundaries, but there will need to be understanding that some folks honestly should not be wandering around with firearms because they are unstable and a danger to themselves and others. The slippery slope however is who gets to make that decision and what criteria are being used to establish that determination.
What I highlighted in red is very common sense and hard to argue with, but here's what I struggle with... If a person is this big of a risk, why are they wandering around at all?
A gun is a thing. A piece of metal. There are many things in our world that can be used to harm others. If the media begins to sensationalize mass poisonings, or mass stabbings (like in China), or bombings, you can bet that unstable people will gravitate towards those "dangerous" things. Of course, the thing isn't the problem--the person is. So why are we focused on just one thing (guns)?
And by infringing on the rights of the people who aren't the problem (e.g. vets with PTSD) we fail to solve the original harm that was a supposed justification. So there is no value here, only harm.
To make matters worse... The more we restrict gun ownership with subjective tests the less we can balance the force/violence of those unstable and dangerous individuals. Not to mention the morality of the whole thing... Can you imagine such a test with free speech? Crazy people have gotten a lot of people killed with their crazy ideas, so let's not pretend that speech isn't dangerous too.
[snip]
Also, based on most state's laws regarding involuntary commitment, it usually takes 3 mental health professionals to make that designation, even when paired with statements or requests from family. While the mental health folks aren't always on the 2A side, they do have standards and regulations they stick pretty stringently in most cases.
I don't agree with the direction this going to go, but the concept behind it is what we were all saying was the problem. Now they are starting to move in the direction of addressing mental health and we are finding fault with it and seeing nefarious reasons for their actions. ...and maybe there are, but the mental health component is as it always has been very nebulous and hard to nail down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
These professionals are anything but. For many years, psychology was considered a pseudo-science only tolerated because there was no other way to deal with the crazy.
If you want some background, study the history of the DSM and it's subjectivity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers
Until 1974, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder. Can you imagine the politics of denying every gay/lesbian the RKBA based on that? And it wasn't overturned by academic study but the subjectivity of political correctness of the day.
Here is the "professionals," statement on homosexuality in 1992...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Classification
In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association, recognizing the power of the stigma against homosexuality, issued the following statement, reaffirmed by the Board of Trustees, July 2011: "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) calls on all international health organizations, psychiatric organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Further, APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur."
So in 18 years these "professionals" go from "gay is crazy" to "gay is normal and we should eliminate any bias against it."
You trust these people to objectively decide your rights?
P.S. I was a psychology major. An English major would have been more useful ;)
Kraven251
01-04-2014, 13:41
I guess that I am reading what it actually says and not between the lines too much. I also realize the DSM is subjective based on research and climate, but for the moment it is the reference for record (been married to two people who worked mental health)
I realize what it can be used for, but hell there are already so many laws on the books already that could be used over this to fuck us all. I just don't see this quite as the sky is falling scenario yet until the implementation is tested.
I guess that I am reading what it actually says and not between the lines too much. I also realize the DSM is subjective based on research and climate, but for the moment it is the reference for record (been married to two people who worked mental health)
I realize what it can be used for, but hell there are already so many laws on the books already that could be used over this to fuck us all. I just don't see this quite as the sky is falling scenario yet until the implementation is tested.
This is very true too :(
The strategy of Obama's soft tyranny, which demonstrates Liberals are more calculated than foolish, is they are taking this time to lay the foundation. They know if they squeeze too hard, they lose--this has already been wargamed. But they can lay a foundation in "common sense" that is used later on, by fiat of course, to accomplish the same goal.
The Left cries "put the smack down already!" The Right accepts "common sense." Liberal leadership looks moderate and rational; "no one is trying to take your guns." Yeah. They've just been laying a framework for taking those guns so when the rewards outweigh the risks it can be done. And it will be "legal," Chief Justice Roberts will say the government has the power to infringe because it says it can.
When the Left is called out for breaking those promises, we'll be told that's not what he meant (e.g. "You can keep your doctor" really meant "If you want to pay more, you can keep your doctor").
Disarmament is necessary for their endgame--they can't win without a government monopoly on violence. And we should consider everything they do advances their agenda.
brianakell
01-04-2014, 21:28
I've read and re-read much of the thread and the original piece, and I'm going to take a bit of an unpopular stance. So to preface, I am still fairly certain that these EO's if they are even legal will be misused and abused.
...and now the unpopular part. Any changes that enforce mental health rules or requirements for gun ownership will result in some people losing rights for public safety. Though many states have temporary suspension of 2A rights for things like domestic violence (though the continued expansion of what is considered DV borders on the absurd in some states). I am not defending the irrational stripping of rights or the vast overstepping of boundaries, but there will need to be understanding that some folks honestly should not be wandering around with firearms because they are unstable and a danger to themselves and others. The slippery slope however is who gets to make that decision and what criteria are being used to establish that determination.
Also, based on most state's laws regarding involuntary commitment, it usually takes 3 mental health professionals to make that designation, even when paired with statements or requests from family. While the mental health folks aren't always on the 2A side, they do have standards and regulations they stick pretty stringently in most cases.
I don't agree with the direction this going to go, but the concept behind it is what we were all saying was the problem. Now they are starting to move in the direction of addressing mental health and we are finding fault with it and seeing nefarious reasons for their actions. ...and maybe there are, but the mental health component is as it always has been very nebulous and hard to nail down.
Major problems, Firearms to felons is already illegal, yet according the FBI, 70% of felons firearms come from family members. Ironically the people who are likely the most informed about said person being a convicted felon. So if someone in the household is a felon, is it for the safety of the people, to have no firearms in the residence? Where does the line get drawn? Obviously there is a pretty decent mental health issue in the country, but we dont take 1st and 4th away from these people, so why the 2nd? I dont have a good solution, but the most recent shooting process the BGC or even a waiting period does not solve the issue. And taking away all firearms doesnt do it either, just look at Mexico.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.