Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:

Glad you guys have the stomach to watch this guy
For me it's like watching a turd in the bowl (No Point- Just Flush)
 
The details are still out on what the definition of a federally licensed seller is, although I thought that ATF already covered that issue. In any event, it appears obvious that Obama's people told him that he was constitutionally on very thin ice over any other kinds of gun control that he wanted, which is why today turned out to be such a lousy dog and pony show for him.
 
Is there anyone who seriously believes that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity should be allowed to buy a gun???
.

If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, should you be allowed to walk free among your potential victims?

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
The way physicians are qualified to make this determination is, if they don't report they are responsible. Like the mandatory reports of child abuse must report even something stupid or they loose their job. In this case 0bamaCare will no longer list them as an approved provider.

It is all about control - of you.
 
Based on the relative silence, I think even the libs/progressives were shocked by the weakness and the forced tears. I haven't heard any of the usual gloating that follows these types of announcements.
 
Just gonna leave this here:





More lies.

Nice. Transcribed it more or less. Too good not to post on the interweb..


In his own spoken words…

Obama Town Hall 2008

“You know, I taught Constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution VERY seriously. The biggest problem that we’re facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive branch and not go through Congress AT ALL. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

https://youtu.be/a3IWq3CXHyc

Obama 2007-2008

“There’s been a tendency on the part of this Administration to try to HIDE behind Executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky taking place. And , you know I think the Administration would be best served by coming clean on this.”
“It’s not actually true that the Patriot Act was the worst. Most of the problems we have had in civil liberties were not done through the Patriot Act, they were done through Executive Order by George W. Bush.
“And I think one of the biggest problems over the last 8 years has been the degree to which President Bush has taken almost the opposite tact – that uh secrecy and concentrations of power in the Oval Office. “
“I taught the Constitution for 10 years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will OBEY the Constitution of the United States. We’ve not going to use signage statements to do an end run around Congress. “

https://youtu.be/NsRfrcit05M
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today was mostly security theater. Liberals are creaming in their pants over it and it won't really change much at all. Even the NFA regarding change is stupid given that there have been what, 2 crimes committed with NFA registered items in the 80 years of its existence?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A
 
Today was mostly security theater. Liberals are creaming in their pants over it and it won't really change much at all. Even the NFA regarding change is stupid given that there have been what, 2 crimes committed with NFA registered items in the 80 years of its existence?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A

The NFA change also has almost little or nothing to do with Obama. Rule 41P is actually a "bizarre collaboration interpretive dance" of sorts between BATFE and the public over the last year or so. Basically someone at BATFE was pissy that Trusts and Corps didn't get the same level of BG checking that other NFA transfers got. So I think in the end someone got the bright idea to throw away the CLEO signoff and they got to add BG checks to corps/trusts on their end of the scale. One might ask "well why did BATFE give us anything?" it's probably because they knew that if the issue was pressed, a CLEO signoff requirement would not withstand an RKBA test in federal
court. The NFA probably is but aspects like the signoff, which are 110% discretionary not based on law, not so much. Basically they tossed the signoff as a carrot to gun owners to make any possible lawsuits unlikely and untenable.

-Mike
 
Should just abolish the BATFE/GCA/NFA crap...but you know...Senator so and so's retarded nephew needs a job, so...
The NFA stuff was an improvement, I think, with removing CLEO certification and replacing it with notification. And photos/fingerprints for people in the trust...ok so you were already doing that as an individual and the photo/prints only applies to responsible persons who have a say in the trust. Ideally, as stated prior, eliminate BATFE/GCA/NFA...the FBI can handle it.
While not a supporter, It could've been worse honestly.
Zero Hour Arms
 
One thing that we all did miss is he made owning FA legal without a stamp and eliminated the post 86 ban.
Sniff

I've seen that mentioned a few times in this thread - what did he say exactly that would accomplish that? I didn't watch his speech - I was trying to eat lunch and not barf.
 
original.jpg
 
Maura would fix/prevent that faster than you could say, Glock loaded chamber indicator. [laugh]

That's funny but she can't change MGL just by braying and bitching about it. They would have to create an entire framework of garbage in MGL to block that. Not happening absent some other gun issue coming up in the legislature.

-Mike
 
The adjudication and commitment process that triggers the prohibition requires a judge, hearing and legal counsel on both sides for both the plaintiff(petitioner), the respondent and multiple MD's signatures to petition the court for the commitment process. One cannot simply become a prohibited person just for non commital counseling, voluntary inpatient treatment or being prescribed antidepressants at some point. Also, most doctors and their attorneys are so paranoid of lawsuits because of HIPAA, they wont report anything to the police unless it is subpoenaed by a judge or required to be reported by law and even then the information they provided is very conservative and specific. I have worked in the mental health field for quite some time and and its not as easy to commit or adjudicate someone mentally defective, as people think. I do think if a ultra lib like hillary or bernie gets elected, they will try to pass a law making gun purchasers sign releases for medical records to NICS, this is why its important to fight these anti-gun efforts tooth, fang and claw. Moreover, the EA requesting those that have SSA benefits because of mental health reasons, and have a payee, be prohibited persons, is completely ludicrous and a slippery slope. As far as I know, the only way someone gets denied a LTC for takings meds is if the person runs their mouth during the interview (suitability) or the PD has an illegal requirement to sign a release for medical records. If a MD sent info to NICS that one was on meds without a release signed, one would have a ripe lawsuit on their hands because one being a prohibited person is what triggers the reporting, not what meds the person is taking. The only time HIPAA is ignored is in an emergency situation where someone is a danger to themselves or others and the person is going to be placed on a section 12. If we think think the person is going to run and is dangerous, we fax the section to the local police.
 
Last edited:
The NFA change also has almost little or nothing to do with Obama. Rule 41P is actually a "bizarre collaboration interpretive dance" of sorts between BATFE and the public over the last year or so. Basically someone at BATFE was pissy that Trusts and Corps didn't get the same level of BG checking that other NFA transfers got. So I think in the end someone got the bright idea to throw away the CLEO signoff and they got to add BG checks to corps/trusts on their end of the scale. One might ask "well why did BATFE give us anything?" it's probably because they knew that if the issue was pressed, a CLEO signoff requirement would not withstand an RKBA test in federal
court. The NFA probably is but aspects like the signoff, which are 110% discretionary not based on law, not so much. Basically they tossed the signoff as a carrot to gun owners to make any possible lawsuits unlikely and untenable.

-Mike

I get you, he presented it is why I commented on it. The best part is that the Sheeple think that this is a HUGE DEAL. It is possible that a PP may be a trustee on a trust and therefore would get access to machine guns or silencers!! Any actual proof that this ever happened. The part that is comical is how freaking safe the population of NFA owners are as a rule. It is a lot of responsibility and a big hassle to piss it away being stupid and let's face it, if you can afford a machine gun, you probably have your crap together and aren't a PP and aren't likely to become one.
 
So can someone explain to me by what legal basis Xerxes Obama can unilaterally rewrite HIPPA to allow disclosure of this information?
 
He cant, the EA is just a suggestion and/or half assed wishlist, it would have to be a formal rule change with public comment period, at least I believe so. The Office of E-Health Standards and Services within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) enforces HIPAA.
 
Last edited:
alright, so those douche bags at CNN have lost me as a viewer forever. they have a countdown clock on their screen, time to "Guns in America President Obama's town Hall"
 
Since I grew up in the Ozarks, I was curious about the source of his comments on Missouri's homicide rate increasing. So I did a quick search and found this article

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...matter_with_the_missouri_murder_rate_841.html

The article reports on a study that showed a correlation between Missouri's repeal of private party sales background checks and an increased firearms homicide rate beginning in 2008.... The first full year after the law was repealed.

I think this is likely the study that provided the analysis behind his comments.
 
Since I grew up in the Ozarks, I was curious about the source of his comments on Missouri's homicide rate increasing. So I did a quick search and found this article

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...matter_with_the_missouri_murder_rate_841.html

The article reports on a study that showed a correlation between Missouri's repeal of private party sales background checks and an increased firearms homicide rate beginning in 2008.... The first full year after the law was repealed.

I think this is likely the study that provided the analysis behind his comments.

From powerline blog

Obama loves to cite bogus statistics, and when it comes to gun control, “studies” that produce convenient numbers are a cottage industry. Obama cited a couple of them today:

In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent — 40 percent. (Applause.) Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average.

Connecticut passed the law in question in 1994. Since then, the national gun homicide rate is down 50%. Missouri repealed the law Obama referred to in 2007. In 2007, Missouri’s homicide rate was .000065. By 2014, Missouri’s homicide rate had soared to .000066.

So yeah, complete BS. And they wonder why they cannot change opinion, people don't buy the lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom