• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Obama proposes new executive actions 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. "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...

then i don't understand how this would work. ongoing and former treatment is medical record thus protected by HIPAA. to share the knowledge without the consent of the patent would be a HIPAA violation, no? anyone more versed in this than i am who can explain better?
 
cool...so now the tens of thousands of gun owners who have mild to moderat anxiety and depression disorders but who are no threat to anyone won't seek help. Great idea.
 
So they're going to allow Dr's to use their discretion. Cuz that's going to work.
 
Why does this not surprise me. Pretty soon, ADHD, Insomnia, depression after a spouses death, or any other number of things will prevent people from being able to purchase a firearm. Crap like this is the needed groundwork needed in order to start banning everyone from owning a firearm.
 
Its a failure out of the gate because the EO does not provide funding to support this activity. States only do what the Feds or their citizens give them the money to do.

This is just more of politicians making promises and saying stupid things they know to be ineffective in the hopes that they can satisfy the masses. Obama is not as stupid as we would all like to think. He knows this is meaningless.

Anyone ever heard of the TSA? Same thing, just costs a lot more.
 
Pilgrim said:
EO's only pertain to Federal Agencies. He cannot issue any LEGAL EO to anyone else.
Click to expand...

This exactly,

People please understand that the U.S Federal Government is nothing more than a Corporation, so corporate rules apply to it and all it's departments. Again one must understand that this Corporation is our actual Government.

I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE Title 28 3002, 15 (A, B, C) also pay close attention to (10) and it will make sense. That's why when you hear the term "Persons" it's actually referring to a corporate office that belongs to the corporate. Basically a ''Person" is Corporate Property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
 
Last edited:
71montess said:
It will because the Obamacrats , just like the TSA won't go after the bad guys and will cast a big net.
Click to expand...
Indeed - this is why Due Process sets such a high bar for the abridgment of rights and requires INDIVIDUAL court review.

"Mental health" is a squishy blanket that can and will be thrown over anything and anyone that opposes state doctrine eventually. This exact mechanism was used in many communist/socialists states and the logic of the "threat to national security" from dissent continues to be used in China and other current regimes.

Anyone who is proud of this association needs to have their head examined (irony intentional) and be asked why they have not learned that genocide is wrong?
 
atilla said:
then i don't understand how this would work. ongoing and former treatment is medical record thus protected by HIPAA. to share the knowledge without the consent of the patent would be a HIPAA violation, no? anyone more versed in this than i am who can explain better?
Click to expand...

In my opinion it is just a talking point. If it goes through he knows someone will challenge it and it would be poorly written as to make it a slam dunk overturn in the supreme court. What this would allow him to do is grandstand again and say "I tried to do something but the damned gun owners are to busy being selfish and killing babies to allow it to stand". With all the garbage they spew on a daily basis I am pretty much done trying to keep up with it all.
 
1903Collector said:
All this "mental health" stuff is gonna bite us all in the ass!
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Throughout history, mental health has been used to revoke the civil rights of those who don't see eye to eye with the emperor. At some points it may have been called being possessed by a demon, but it's always been the same thing. Those with the power are saying "You don't agree with me, then there's something wrong with you so your opinion will no longer be regarded." The next step will be to make it so mental health professionals can be held liable if one of their patients does harm someone, leading to the de-facto ruling that everyone is a danger.

The big problem with mental health is how subjective it is. For most physical ailments, there are certain metrics that can be established to determine if you are ill or not (cancer cells were detected, your vital signs are outside the normal range, the bone is broken, etc). With mental health, however, there are currently no metrics to say "yes, you have this illness". Instead it's all based entirely on the opinion and discretion of the doctor that is doing the evaluation. If the doctor has a political or personal agenda (such as wanting to continue to recieve their Medicare/Medicaid payments) the diagnosis you receive can be tailored to suit that agenda.
 
atilla said:
then i don't understand how this would work. ongoing and former treatment is medical record thus protected by HIPAA. to share the knowledge without the consent of the patent would be a HIPAA violation, no? anyone more versed in this than i am who can explain better?
Click to expand...

New question on a 4473 "By checking this box you give permission to acsess your mental health records" Don't check the box.... no gun for you! That's just me thinking out loud however.
 
A few decades after they almost completely defunding govt run mental health facilities, doctors have been handing out anti depressants like candy to anybody and everybody, they have a nice list of folks with prescriptions that they can disarm for general safety
 
mbullism said:
Can a person actually be involuntarily committed on an outpatient basis?
Click to expand...

EO2 "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."

Yeah - that's the twist. Many states made it easy to order Involuntary Outpatient treatment, which made it extraordinarily difficult to order Involuntary Inpatient treatment, which leaves aggressive mentally ill people on the street (or in their Mom's house) until they actually commit a violent assault or worse.

Clayton Kramer - the guy who exposed the Emory professor lying about there being few working guns in the Revolutionary War era - has written about this HERE and HERE: "If we are serious about reducing these relatively rare (less than 1 percent of U.S. murders are incidents of mass murder) but terrifying tragedies, we need to be looking at the root cause: untreated or inadequately treated mental illness. Focusing on the weapons may be good politics, but the experimental evidence suggests that it is bad public policy."

EO1 "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."

Yet another EO attempting to nullify a law. Always the Slippery Slope - once Unthinkable, then Radical, then Acceptable, then it becomes Sensible, Popular and, finally Policy [The Overton Window]. Obama jumped right to Policy while THE LAW deems this intrusion NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Making gun ownership an exemption from HIPAA is just the first step in making gun ownership an exemption from the US Constitution.

So we find ourselves fighting this in league with the Mental Health professionals who argue that since only 3-5% on mentally ill are violent, there should be no focus on them in gun control issues. The focus then turns on the 0.00008% of CCW-holders (FL) who have had their permit revoked. Burden the law-abiding, honest citizens - they are the good people [some call them fools] who lined up in CT to register their firearms and magazines.

Diabolically clever to unite Obama's gun control agenda, the Left-Liberal Media and Bloomberg's money...the NRA will have a run for it's (our) money this year.

Give until it hurts (COMM2A, NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, GOAL, GO-NH, NHFC, SAS, etc.) - pick your favorites...




Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
 
Pilgrim said:
EO's only pertain to Federal Agencies. He cannot issue any LEGAL EO to anyone else.
Click to expand...
Actually, "two new executive actions" -- Executive orders have the full force of law, while an "executive action" is anything the President feels like giving out as direction to federal agencies, when the direction does not modify law. Obama routinely uses executive actions in lieu of executive orders or executive memoranda, unlike his predecessors.

EOs get an EO number, while "actions" do not.

glockstones said:
In my opinion it is just a talking point. If it goes through he knows someone will challenge it and it would be poorly written as to make it a slam dunk overturn in the supreme court. What this would allow him to do is grandstand again and say "I tried to do something but the damned gun owners are to busy being selfish and killing babies to allow it to stand". With all the garbage they spew on a daily basis I am pretty much done trying to keep up with it all.
Click to expand...
That's the other advantage of using "executive actions", they're just directions to agencies to act on existing laws, avoid congressional review, and don't directly make law, so more difficult for somebody to challenge.
 
Didn't he promise to have all issued discussed with the American people before he took action?

And why did he wait to late Friday night on New Years week to issue two executive orders?

It was planned to hide his actions.... if he can't be trusted to keep his word on the simple things, what does that say about his word on the serious issues?

,,,,,,Trust the lord and buy more ammunition!,,,,,,[iwojima]
 

Similar threads

Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
183
AJK129
AJK129
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
212
sbhaven
S
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
13
Views
295
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Biden EO: Background Checks for Private Sales
Replies
1
Views
282
Toast
Toast
If Biden were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
Replies
13
Views
309
s&w3913
S
Back
Top Bottom