Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:

[Varmint]

As someone who has visited a bunch of free state gun shows, a shitload of them don't even allow non FFLs to set up gun tables to begin with. Some of them that do, it's pretty obvious who the non-FFLs are because they have like a handful of guns on their table at the most.

Here's an idea, why not go after the street corner gun sales going on daily in Baltimore and Chicago. Oh right, wrong voter group, sorry.

 

[endus]

Never tell a doctor anything you don't want the government to know.

That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it and not a solution at all.

- - - Updated - - -

because merely taking one doesn't mean someone is a danger. they'd be looking at massive lawsuits and challenges. not to mention how many cops would be affected.

I'm not as confident as you are that it won't be an issue, but I certainly agree that there would be massive lawsuits and challenges. It would definitely be a huge poison pill for what he wants to do here.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Never tell ANYONE anything you don't want the government to know.

FIFY

Are they gonna be immune from the guy who gets unhinged because he finds out his doctor just turned him into a prohibited person without due process? honest question.

-Mike

NO

 

[not new guy]

That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it and not a solution at all.

He's right though, just like you shouldn't put anything into an email that you don't want the government to know.

 

[Glockster30]

For those of you that commented about Obama tearing up, he took that from Bill Clinton. Many times when Clinton spoke about presumed emotional issues, he would bite his lip and shed crocodile tears.

 

[AngelKing]

That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it and not a solution at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not as confident as you are that it won't be an issue, but I certainly agree that there would be massive lawsuits and challenges. It would definitely be a huge poison pill for what he wants to do here.

I always saw the possibility of outlawing private sales wo a ffl doing a nics, so that part doesn't surprise me at all. I just don't see them going so far as to kill a civil right over script meds. I would hope it would take a lot more than that.

Either way, I expect this will be fought heavily in the months to come.

 

[PaulR]

Holy crap his crying is getting 10x the press and no one (news outlet) is even talking about the executive order.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I just don't see them going so far as to kill a civil right over script meds. I would hope it would take a lot more than that.

Already happening in NY after unSAFE act

- - - Updated - - -

Holy crap his crying is getting 10x the press and no one (news outlet) is even talking about the executive order.

Because his EO was just as limp and impotent as his crying.

 

[Bodhisattva]

 

[GJH86]

Man, you ever feel like all this huge attack on gun rights by King "O" and his adminstration is really just a smoke screen? A HUGE diversion that creates buzz, clicks and media hype because they all know that it will create a stir and that our focus will be drawn to their attack while something shady is going on right in front of us that we are missing? What is his real agenda (besides disarmament and burning the Constitution) and are we all being duped? I got no love (none), nor have had any love (double none) for .gov and this types o sh!t. It pushes some over the edge which only adds fuel to his fire...he keeps pushing it will be a few small revolts and possible civil war. I cannot fathom despising any POTUS any more than this one....

 

[Glockster30]

Why not? After all, he earned the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[SteelShooter]

Man, you ever feel like all this huge attack on gun rights by King "O" and his adminstration is really just a smoke screen? A HUGE diversion that creates buzz, clicks and media hype because they all know that it will create a stir and that our focus will be drawn to their attack while something shady is going on right in front of us that we are missing? What is his real agenda (besides disarmament and burning the Constitution) and are we all being duped? I got no love (none), nor have had any love (double none) for .gov and this types o sh!t. It pushes some over the edge which only adds fuel to his fire...he keeps pushing it will be a few small revolts and possible civil war. I cannot fathom despising any POTUS any more than this one....

ooop, you were just added to the secret list, no guns for you....

 

[Artifact]

The only thing that can have an effect is to strictly enforce the existing gun laws, and there are plenty of those on the books already.


No amount of background checks, foreground checks, backhand checks or foreskin checks are going to stop terrorists and gangbangers from selling guns illegally in a back alley somewhere in the inner city. Actual police work, however, would be a good start.

Marty Walsh was foaming from his mouth being invited to zeroes house. He also think that Bostonians go to NH and other states and buy guns there without BGCs and bring them to MA/Boston.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

No amount of foreskin checks in a back alley are going to stop terrorists and gangbangers from selling guns illegally start.

I tried to tell the guy that on my last FTF sale, but he insisted.

 

[economist]

The only thing that can have an effect is to strictly enforce the existing gun laws, and there are plenty of those on the books already.

Existing gun laws are a disgrace. Why would anyone want disgraceful law to be enforced?

 

[TayNinh_66]

Any War Vets that are receiving PTSD benefits and medication from the VA will probably have a difficult time getting a gun in Mass.

This is not accurate. MA has always had a law banning firearms purchases by people "...who have been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, or appointed a guardian or conservator on the grounds that he or she lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her affairs." Until recently, they did not have to report this info to NICS nor did any other state although some did. Now all states must report to NICS and so do all federal agencies such as SSA.

If you are incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage your own finances, or you are involuntarily committed because you are a danger to yourself or others, then you probably shouldn't be running around with guns. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???

Claiming everyone who has ever taken an SSRI is going to banned for life either believes the sky is falling or has an MP3 player full of Wayne LaPierre's rants under their pillow.

 

[bullseye]

He closed the gun show loophole

No, seriously, what did he do and accomplish!! I can still sell FTF in state, I can go to a gun show and show my permit and make a purchase in state or if a bordering state, take home that firearm. Yes, dealers will have to call it in, BFD, that's what they've been doing. It didn't change a damn thing. I'll go over to my LGS and walk out with my purchase. Armslist is still up and running and in fact, I'll be meeting with a buyer tomorrow.
Sure, I have a huge issue with a tie in with ATF and my doctor, but my doctor is not one who will cough up info since she is not just an avid shooter, but what a collector of fine military weaps, her trust is loaded with FA!!
What I have an issue with is the government giving immunity to squealers. In fact, immunity needs to be stripped from, LE, JUDGES, DA's, and all those arsswipes that prey on people because of it.
The president blew smoke!!!

 

[Garden12]

This is not accurate. MA has always had a law banning firearms purchases by people "...who have been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, or appointed a guardian or conservator on the grounds that he or she lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her affairs." Until recently, they did not have to report this info to NICS nor did any other state although some did. Now all states must report to NICS and so do all federal agencies such as SSA.

If you are incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage your own finances, or you are involuntarily committed because you are a danger to yourself or others, then you probably shouldn't be running around with guns. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???

Claiming everyone who has ever taken an SSRI is going to banned for life either believes the sky is falling or has an MP3 player full of Wayne LaPierre's rants under their pillow.

I'm not going to go into details, but I know someone who has been denied an LTC because they were on a SSRI for anxiety. He had two doctors letter stating he was mentally fit to own a firearm, but it meant nothing.

 

[M125X]

So is any of this actually going through? He says everything needs a background check, where is the senate and House's say on this matter?

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

This is not accurate. MA has always had a law banning firearms purchases by people "...who have been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, or appointed a guardian or conservator on the grounds that he or she lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her affairs." Until recently, they did not have to report this info to NICS nor did any other state although some did. Now all states must report to NICS and so do all federal agencies such as SSA.

If you are incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage your own finances, or you are involuntarily committed because you are a danger to yourself or others, then you probably shouldn't be running around with guns. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???

Claiming everyone who has ever taken an SSRI is going to banned for life either believes the sky is falling or has an MP3 player full of Wayne LaPierre's rants under their pillow.

So you are saying that a person who has a loved one die, goes through a divorce, comes home from a combat zone and perhaps has had both of those things happen to them; expresses out loud that they "want to die" or feel like 'killing themselves."

In a well intentioned effort, their friends/family have them involuntarily committed to a mental institution while they sort some sh1t out.

Years later, when the birds are chiping and the sky is blue again, you think they should not be allowed to own firearms any more?

 

[economist]

Here is what Obama accomplished: The guy you sell to could well be an ATF agent or plant. Is the gun in the original box unfired? How long ago was it purchased? Is the price marked up considerably? Etc., etc. If the ATF doesn't like any of the answers they might charge you with selling for business purposes without having an FFL. That might be a bullshit charge and you might well win. But in doing so you will spend all you have and live through a nightmare up against a legal opponent with unlimited resources and the power of government. Now, do you really want to sell that gun without going through an FFL?

 

[Glockster30]

I'm not going to go into details, but I know someone who has been denied an LTC because they were on a SSRI for anxiety. He had two doctors letter stating he was mentally fit to own a firearm, but it meant nothing.

I know a vet with a 50% PSTD disability on medications that received a non-restricted LTC-A while living in Lowell, no less.

 

[not new guy]

If you are incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage your own finances, or you are involuntarily committed because you are a danger to yourself or others, then you probably shouldn't be running around with guns. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???

What does one's ability to manage their own finances have to do with their right to protect themselves? And who decides who is actually a danger to themselves or others if no crime has been committed? Let's see what MA has to say about the latter:

http://www.mhlac.org/Docs/admission_and_discharge.pdf

Pursuant to Section 12(a), a physician, qualified psychiatric nurse, qualified psychologist, licensed independent clinical social worker, or police officer may apply to admit anyone to a facility if he or she believes that, without hospitalization, the person meets the standard for admission.

What is the standard for an application for admission under Section 12(a)?
The standard is whether the individual would "create a likelihood of serious harm by
reason of mental illness."

"Likelihood of serious harm" means one of three things:
• The person poses a substantial risk of physical harm to him/herself as
manifested by evidence, threats of, or attempts at suicide or serious
bodily injury; or
• The person poses a substantial risk of physical harm to others as
evidenced by homicidal or violent behavior or evidence that others are
in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm from
that person; or
• The person’s judgment is so affected that there is a very substantial
risk that the person cannot protect himself or herself from physical
impairment or injury, and no reasonable provision to protect against
this risk is available in the community.

What if examination is not possible?

If an examination of the individual is not possible because of the emergency nature of the
case and because the person refuses to consent to such examination, then a doctor,
qualified psychologist, licensed independent clinical social worker, or psychiatric nurse can
sign the Application for an Authorization of Temporary Involuntary Hospitalization.
This provision may mean that the person signing the application has not seen the individual
subject to the application. The clinician may rely instead on whatever “facts and
circumstances” have come to his or her attention. If none of those four medical
professionals is available, then a police officer is allowed to make the application. Since
the law does not say what "facts or circumstances" might be considered relevant, a mental
health clinician may have considerable leeway in making the decision. For example, a
clinician might rely on facts learned from a 911 call from another person or from a family
member’s call to a doctor giving his or her version of the events.

 

[Hoover]

Marty Walsh was foaming from his mouth being invited to zeroes house. He also think that Bostonians go to NH and other states and buy guns there without BGCs and bring them to MA/Boston.

He's a lot better then Menino but Walsh is still an ignorant asshat.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Here is what Obama accomplished: The guy you sell to could well be an ATF agent or plant. Is the gun in the original box unfired? How long ago was it purchased? Is the price marked up considerably? Etc., etc. If the ATF doesn't like any of the answers they might charge you with selling for business purposes without having an FFL. That might be a bullshit charge and you might well win. But in doing so you will spend all you have and live through a nightmare up against a legal opponent with unlimited resources and the power of government. Now, do you really want to sell that gun without going through an FFL?

I am going to highly recommend reading the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross to anyone who hasn't.

One of the things he talks about in this book is ATF agents going to gun shows and offering ridiculously high prices for firearms that were just purchased in order to jam people up for dealing without a license. Mostly everything he wrote about up until the last portion of the novel were based on real events.

 

[Hoover]

This is not accurate. MA has always had a law banning firearms purchases by people "...who have been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, or appointed a guardian or conservator on the grounds that he or she lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her affairs." Until recently, they did not have to report this info to NICS nor did any other state although some did. Now all states must report to NICS and so do all federal agencies such as SSA.

If you are incompetent to stand trial, or unable to manage your own finances, or you are involuntarily committed because you are a danger to yourself or others, then you probably shouldn't be running around with guns. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???

Claiming everyone who has ever taken an SSRI is going to banned for life either believes the sky is falling or has an MP3 player full of Wayne LaPierre's rants under their pillow.

Obama is not going to set the bar at incompetent, etc. If you are a vet and depressed, sought treatment, etc. they'll look to bar you.

They want to bar everyone eventually, every little chance, they'll bar who they can.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I'm not going to go into details, but I know someone who has been denied an LTC because they were on a SSRI for anxiety. He had two doctors letter stating he was mentally fit to own a firearm, but it meant nothing.

Obama can't rewrite HIPAA regs and MD's can't give out confidential medical info without a release. MA regs specifically state only courts and DMH must provide info to NICS. If a local PD received medical info then a release was signed and that's like ignoring your right to remain silent.

 

[not new guy]

Obama can't rewrite HIPAA regs and MD's can't give out confidential medical info without a release. MA regs specifically state only courts and DMH must provide info to NICS. If a local PD received medical info then a release was signed and that's like ignoring your right to remain silent.

Who enforces HIPAA regs?

 

[economist]

This BS is federal and will have zero effect on MA gun laws which means MA folks won't get an FFL unless they are running a real business in a business zone (or the narrow exemption that Rob Boudrie mentioned). Just because the Feds say you must get an FFL does not mean that MA will issue a MA Dealer license. AND I've been told on good authority that BATFE in MA goes and checks zoning maps when a MA person files for an FFL . . . not commercially zoned? No FFL issued as it wouldn't comply with MGL (which is also a requirement of the FFL issuance, you have to be in compliance with state and local laws).

Which way do you think this goes? (a) No impact on Mass FTF sellers because of existing annual sales limits, etc., or (b) Disproportionate impact on Mass FTF sellers because they can still be accused of selling as a "business" by the feds, yet can't get an FFL due to state restrictions. For example, take a LEO who FTF sells four unfired, new, in-box glocks per year at a $300 markup over his cost.

 

[robjax]

So Obama has openly admitted that the second amendment guarantees the "people's" right to keep and bear arms. He did not mention militia.....he said PEOPLE. So now we should have a road in that "gun control" is an infringement on "the people". He was quoted in the attache article....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-seeks-curb-gun-violence-executive-actions/story?id=36096478

He later added the proposals are also “entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms.”