Obama to Announce New Executive Action concerning guns:

What irks me is that 0bama lied on national tv - and no one called him on it.

"No one wants to take away your guns" - there is an HR in congress right now that would do just that. There are multiple state and local ordinances that are being considered to do just that.

Never mind the internet gun buying story.

And also never mind that Gov. Jerry Brown-Stain in CA has created a group of JBTs whose sole purpose it is to comb the state databases, find people who're disqualified from gun ownership and go kick down their doors to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate!"
 
Guy is a tool and a fool. He clearly put something in his eyes to make himself cry. What a pathetic person.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I was going to post basically this same exact thing. Either they are in jail, or "cuckoo house", or they are free men. THIS makes the whole "gun laws" side of it REAL EASY. If they are "out", they are GTG. If they are dangerous, they are "in". Changing the "in" and "out" status is independent of firearms.








This will tell you all you need to know:
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?




Heck, look at Lexington, MA, and also the MA AWB, plus the AG regs stopping MA shipments of just about anything (which isn't discussed on here).
I wish the sheriff or one of the pro gun people said " I'm an honest gun owner, I own four ar-15's, the most populate long gun bought today, you want to take it away. You want to take my guns from me ."
 
Why is "involuntary committal" even on the table in a free society? I can't see locking someone up who has not committed a crime against life or property, and only then after due process, the presumption of innocence, and conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Because it's a way of dealing with people with fruitloop problems without subjecting mentally ill people to the interior of a prison. Thankfully the bar is currently pretty high for that legal status for someone. (and it should stay that way)

-Mike
 
Because it's a way of dealing with people with fruitloop problems without subjecting mentally ill people to the interior of a prison. Thankfully the bar is currently pretty high for that legal status for someone. (and it should stay that way)

-Mike

I still don't like it. It's just a pragmatic approach to pre-crime, at best.
 
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.

So much for that.
 
Why is "involuntary committal" even on the table in a free society? I can't see locking someone up who has not committed a crime against life or property, and only then after due process, the presumption of innocence, and conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Tricky ****ing question. In the 19th and early 20th century you had people (esp. women) locked up for hysteria, nymphomania, laziness...all kinds of bullshit reasons.

Then we swung the complete opposite way in the 70's and 80's and kicked everyone out, even severely mentally disabled people who have no hope whatsoever for caring for themselves.

I have no idea where you draw that line. If someone is severely mentally ill and can't care for themselves, is it better to let them live on the street and starve/freeze, or lock them up and take away their freedom? Being a, 'danger to oneself or others' is certainly a pretty slippery slope.

Some cases can probably hit a middle ground where people without any family or other support can get into treatment where they can control the illness and have their freedom, but at what point are we within our rights to mandate that, and what about the cases where the person isn't ever going to be able to care for themselves? It's a medical question that has a huge crossover with civil rights.
 
Because it's a way of dealing with people with fruitloop problems without subjecting mentally ill people to the interior of a prison. Thankfully the bar is currently pretty high for that legal status for someone. (and it should stay that way)

If they are "fruitloop crazy" dangerous, they should be locked up in a mental institution. If they are criminally dangerous, they should be locked up in a correctional institution (jail). Like someone said, it worked up until whenever, and yeah, there are issues with that, too.
 
Just wonder, what if she just smiles at them , flips the bird and says GFY ?
Holder go away with pretty much the same thing and what happened? Oh ya , nothing.

The weakness of the design: Congress can try to police the executive branch but it doesn't have police power. The Congress is particularly weak on their power of the purse as it has shown lately.
 
Tricky ****ing question. In the 19th and early 20th century you had people (esp. women) locked up for hysteria, nymphomania, laziness...all kinds of bullshit reasons.

Then we swung the complete opposite way in the 70's and 80's and kicked everyone out, even severely mentally disabled people who have no hope whatsoever for caring for themselves.

I have no idea where you draw that line. If someone is severely mentally ill and can't care for themselves, is it better to let them live on the street and starve/freeze, or lock them up and take away their freedom? Being a, 'danger to oneself or others' is certainly a pretty slippery slope.

Some cases can probably hit a middle ground where people without any family or other support can get into treatment where they can control the illness and have their freedom, but at what point are we within our rights to mandate that, and what about the cases where the person isn't ever going to be able to care for themselves? It's a medical question that has a huge crossover with civil rights.

I would err on the side of freedom. Every human on the planet is a potential danger to them or others -- it's all just a matter of degree. And I don't want or trust government to handle the philosophical nuances of that problem. So, if they want to come in for treatment or housing, fine. If they would prefer to freeze to death, it's their life. As a non-crazy person, I would rather live in a world with a few more crazy/dangerous people out there than a world where innocent people get locked up for appearing to be a risk. Now as soon as a crime is committed then we go down the criminal justice path, and there I don't think being crazy should ever be a defense.
 
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.

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.



Um:

Obama changes HIPAA rules to report "unstable" patients to NICS
 
I would err on the side of freedom. Every human on the planet is a potential danger to them or others -- it's all just a matter of degree. And I don't want or trust government to handle the philosophical nuances of that problem. So, if they want to come in for treatment or housing, fine. If they would prefer to freeze to death, it's their life. As a non-crazy person, I would rather live in a world with a few more crazy/dangerous people out there than a world where innocent people get locked up for appearing to be a risk. Now as soon as a crime is committed then we go down the criminal justice path, and there I don't think being crazy should ever be a defense.

I would disagree if I could, but I don't have a solid argument to present to the contrary. I think there is a role for medical professionals to make a determination there, but where that line exists is exceedingly difficult to discern. I guess maybe if someone is aware of their surroundings and what is happening they should be allowed to do as they wish...if they can't process reality maybe that's the line? I don't know.

We stayed in a hotel in the tenderloin in San Francisco when we were out there, and if there was one thing that characterized that area for me it's crazy ass mother****ers screaming and doing weird shit. You can tell that there is a shitload of untreated mental illness there. You can't make that sort of thing a crime for obvious reasons, and I'm sure many of them would never (and should never) be involuntarily committed even under the current laws. What's happening is really not good for anyone, though, those people are not happy or living very pleasant lives, and everyone around them feels threatened by demonstrably unpredictable and aggressive behavior.

The free market answer to that is, tough shit. If it's enough of a problem then people won't go there anymore...businesses close and spring up elsewhere...people move. That doesn't really solve the problem, though...whatever new area people start frequenting is going to attract the same people and the process starts over again. It's society running away from the same people over and over again. It seems like there should be a better solution, but I'm not coming up with much that reasonably respects people's rights.
 
I'm coming to believe that high density urban living is just incompatible with freedom given basic human nature. It took a thug like Rudy Giuliani to clean up NYC. I was there for business recently and there is definitely a more noticeable homeless issue than even under Bloomberg. Give it a few years and it will be 1978 all over again. Some irreducible number of people will be crazy, violent, intrusive, etc., and city living exposes one to such a number of people that these minority elements become ever-present. So they pass laws, thug it up, and push people around until things get livable.

Jefferson thought we should all be gentleman farmers. He had a good point there. Nothing makes life more pleasant than the absence of the masses in everyday activity.
 
I still don't like it. It's just a pragmatic approach to pre-crime, at best.

Yeah, but you have people on the other side of that line who have hurt people that don't necessarily belong in prison.

For example my ex used to work at a place that has a day program for schizophrenics. She's been attacked at different times by these people while they have "episodes". These people obviously don't belong roaming around in the public space freely but the corollary is you can't really imprison them because they don't even have a clue of their reality or that they hurt someone yesterday, etc.

I see what you are getting at though, certainly. Imagine if MTBS guy gets sent off to the funny farm strictly because his ex wife invented some stories about the weird shit he talked about, etc. Involuntary committal still should have full due process of law applied to it.

-Mike
 
Yeah, but you have people on the other side of that line who have hurt people that don't necessarily belong in prison.

For example my ex used to work at a place that has a day program for schizophrenics. She's been attacked at different times by these people while they have "episodes". These people obviously don't belong roaming around in the public space freely but the corollary is you can't really imprison them because they don't even have a clue of their reality or that they hurt someone yesterday, etc.

I see what you are getting at though, certainly. Imagine if MTBS guy gets sent off to the funny farm strictly because his ex wife invented some stories about the weird shit he talked about, etc. Involuntary committal still should have full due process of law applied to it.

-Mike

It's an interesting philosophical issue, culpability, and I'll admit to having thought my way to a corner solution: I just don't care. Say some guy is waving a knife around, unthreatened, and hurts some innocent person. I'm coming to the view that this is all I need to know. Knife guy needs to be in prison or dead. Whether he's a cold calculating killer with a purpose or just some mentally challenged fool who can't tell if it's Tuesday or potato, isn't my concern. The threat to innocents is the same either way. Mental state, in my recent thinking, isn't relevant at all.
 
A judge has to adjudicate someone mentally defective, a MD or psychiatrist alone doesn't have that power. The article posted was full of pants shitting hysterics, all the new rule does is make an exception to HIPPA for reporting those already prohibited from owning firearms. Im not for the rule change but its far from the order for confiscation people think it is. A doctor cannot report you to NICS for taking SSRI'S for premature ejaculation or depression, it would be a complete violation of HIPPA because this information does not trigger the DQ and the MD cannot adjudicate people. I just want wanted to make it clear that I am not for this EA, I would prefer ZERO gun laws, I just dont want people being fed misinformation by both sides of the aisle.

This was taken from the PDF document with the proposed changes.
" The rule specifically prohibits the disclosure of diagnostic or clinical
information, from medical records or other sources, and any mental health information
beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor"

"The Privacy Rule seeks to balance individuals’ privacy interests with important
public policy goals including public health and safety. In doing so, the Privacy Rule
allows, subject to certain conditions and limitations, uses and disclosures of PHI without
individuals’ authorization for certain law enforcement purposes, to avert a serious threat
to health or safety, and where required by State or other law, among other purposes.15
As stated above, individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor are ineligible to purchase a firearm because they have been “committed to a
mental institution” or “adjudicated as a mental defective.”
16 DOJ regulations define these
categories to include persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental
institution for reasons such as mental illness or drug use; have been found incompetent to
stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a
court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others
or unable to manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or
mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. In many cases, these records are not
subject to HIPAA. Records of individuals adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial, or
not guilty by reason of insanity, originate with entities in the criminal justice system, and
these entities are not HIPAA covered entities. Likewise, involuntary civil commitments
usually are made by court order, and thus, records of such formal commitments typically
originate with entities in the justice system. In addition, many adjudications determining
that individuals are a danger to themselves or others, or are incapable of managing their
own affairs, occur through a legal process in the court system. "


" The prohibitor
does not apply to individuals in a psychiatric facility for observation or who have been
admitted voluntarily; thus, the proposed rule would not have permitted disclosures with
respect to those individuals."


"Under this final rule, covered entities that order involuntary commitments or
make other adjudications that subject individuals to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of the relevant data, are permitted to use or disclose the information needed for NICS reporting of such individuals either directly to the NICS or
to a State repository of NICS data. Thus, if a covered health care entity also has a role in
the relevant mental health adjudications or serves as a State data repository, it now may
disclose the relevant information for NICS reporting purposes under this new permission
even if it is not designated as a HIPAA hybrid entity or required by State law to report.
This final rule does not create an express permission for covered entities to disclose for
NICS reporting purposes the PHI of individuals who are subject to State-only mental
health prohibitors"

"First, we
limit the permission to only those covered entities that order the involuntary
commitments or make the other adjudications that cause individuals to be subject to the
Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of such information for
NICS reporting purposes. Thus, the rule does not affect most treating providers or create
a permission for them to disclose PHI about their own patients for these purposes.
Second, we permit such entities to disclose NICS data only to designated repositories or
the NICS. Third, we limit the information that may be disclosed to certain demographic
or other information that is necessary for NICS reporting. Finally, we do not expand the
permission to encompass State law prohibitor information. These aspects of the
provision are discussed more fully below. By limiting the permission in these ways, we
protect the patient-provider relationship."

"In response to concerns that the rule unfairly singles out individuals with mental
illness, we emphasize, as we did in the proposed rule, that a mental health diagnosis does
not, in itself, make an individual subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, which
requires an involuntary commitment or adjudication that the individual poses a danger to
self or others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs."

"This final rule addresses HIPAA-related barriers to entities reporting certain
information to the NICS about individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor. The rule does not expand the categories of federally prohibited persons or
modify the criteria for determining that a person is subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor."


http://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-33181.pdf

Sorry for the format of the quotes, I was directly copy and pasting from the linked PDF file.
 
Last edited:
I would err on the side of freedom. Every human on the planet is a potential danger to them or others -- it's all just a matter of degree. And I don't want or trust government to handle the philosophical nuances of that problem. So, if they want to come in for treatment or housing, fine. If they would prefer to freeze to death, it's their life. As a non-crazy person, I would rather live in a world with a few more crazy/dangerous people out there than a world where innocent people get locked up for appearing to be a risk. Now as soon as a crime is committed then we go down the criminal justice path, and there I don't think being crazy should ever be a defense.

Yep, I now work in a facility that is a voluntary crisis unit, helping people who want help is much more fulfilling for me. I have had enough of trying to help people who dont want help. The new DSM seeks to make everyone disordered, to the point where there is no such thing as normal anymore.
 
I'm coming to believe that high density urban living is just incompatible with freedom given basic human nature. It took a thug like Rudy Giuliani to clean up NYC. I was there for business recently and there is definitely a more noticeable homeless issue than even under Bloomberg. Give it a few years and it will be 1978 all over again. Some irreducible number of people will be crazy, violent, intrusive, etc., and city living exposes one to such a number of people that these minority elements become ever-present. So they pass laws, thug it up, and push people around until things get livable.

Jefferson thought we should all be gentleman farmers. He had a good point there. Nothing makes life more pleasant than the absence of the masses in everyday activity.

I totally agree with you. I'm a Libertarian in principle but my willingness to interpret the constitution much more broadly than others is directly due to the issues that arise from urban living. Outside of cities, a lot of these questions are much, much easier to answer. The principles of the constitution are still what we need to apply, but its necessary to try and adapt them to the very different age we are living in. It seems that there are instances where two individuals' rights may not be completely compatible with one another.
 
Interesting concept, ill be watching this one

http://www.indexjournal.com/news/Pitts-files-journalist-registry-bill


Pitts said media continue to slant views on the Second Amendment right to bear arms and demonizes gun owners and people that support the Second Amendment.

The bill creates a responsible journalism registry maintained by the secretary of state's office, authorizes registry fees and establishes fines and criminal penalties for violation of the bill.

Requirements would also be established for journalists and media outlets during the hiring of journalists.

"Basically, it is the (concealed weapons permit) law with journalists and pens instead of guns," Pitts said.
South Carolina Press Association Executive Director Bill Rogers compared the bill to a proposal from state Rep. Mia McLeod, D-Columbia, making it more difficult for men to get medication and drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, such as Viagra and Cialis, to send a message about laws geared toward women, such as restrictions on abortion, which he said gets
 
Back
Top Bottom