TexasCHLforum.com

At least they realized the American people would not stand for EO's that banned weapons and mags.

I took a breath. This is a flag waving speech. My problems is not trusting the federal goverment.

The medical stuff, I have no experience with. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

Currently, if someone is treated for mental illness, this rarely makes it to the NICS database, partly because of HIPAA restrictions (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which protects medical data from unnecessary sharing). I think he'd like some of those medical restrictions torn down where it is easier to stop people with a history of mental illness from getting past a NICS-like process (case in point: the recent Colorado shooter had seen several mental health professionals recently, but got through NICS just fine).

v-rog wrote:I'm interested in seeing the "list" regarding EO #4

I had the same thought.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Who gets to decide what "dangerous" means? Are you dangerous if you call AR15s and AK47s "Militia Rifles" as I have been doing?

I'd like to know how #5 would affect a CHL holder whose gun has been seized pending the outcome of a self-defense shooting........or even a non-CHL but lawful gun owner. He had the background check when he bought the gun. He broke no laws between then and when he uses it in self-defense, and his self-defense was lawful, but he has to have another background check which can take weeks before he has his gun returned to him? And what if he owns more than one gun? Do they seize all his other guns pending a background check?

Sieg Heil, Mr. President.

Ark03 wrote:

The medical stuff, I have no experience with. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

Currently, if someone is treated for mental illness, this rarely makes it to the NICS database, partly because of HIPAA restrictions (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which protects medical data from unnecessary sharing). I think he'd like some of those medical restrictions torn down where it is easier to stop people with a history of mental illness from getting past a NICS-like process (case in point: the recent Colorado shooter had seen several mental health professionals recently, but got through NICS just fine).

See, I have a problem with this. A doctor can have an opinion regarding a persons mental status but in no way, shape, or form should their word be the determining factor of whether a person can or cannot legally buy a firearm. Our 5th Amendment protects us (or is supposed to) against losing our liberties (among other things) with due process. There needs to be a way (and perhaps there already is and I don't know about it) for a doctor to register his concerns, authorities to investigate, and, if necessary, a competency hearing to take place. If the jury at the competency hearing then determines that the person is too unstable to possess or purchase firearms, then so be it. Due process has been served.

Yes, I know that it will be an expense on the taxpayer. But this is one expense that SHOULD be born by We The People. It should not be easy to strip someone of their fundamental rights.

I don't think any of us would have a problem with a provision that keeps weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. But there needs to be some clear definitions and specific practices involved if we're going to deny someone their rights. Unfortunately all of that would require another level of beauracracy. And we know how that'll "work". But I can't see a way around requiring some sort of hearing if there's a flag in the medical records, as well as a detailed process to remove the designation if/when the condition is cured. Great! Now I'm thinking like a big governmenter....

powerboatr wrote:The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. ????

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

These are part of the further Sovietization of America. #2 means any ant-gun doctor can make any accusation he wants and destroy your ability to pass a background check.Apparently they've decided to follow the old Soviet approach and classify anyone who opposes them "insane." After all, since they are smarter than us, and they know what's best for us, to disagree with them is crazy. We'll see this spill out from gun related assessments to any political opposition of any kind.

TexasCajun wrote:Great! Now I'm thinking like a big governmenter....

No. You are thinking like a Constitutionalist. I don't have a problem with some necessary (<-- KEY WORD) bureaucracy.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

v-rog wrote:I'm interested in seeing the "list" regarding EO #4

I had the same thought.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Who gets to decide what "dangerous" means? Are you dangerous if you call AR15s and AK47s "Militia Rifles" as I have been doing?

I'd like to know how #5 would affect a CHL holder whose gun has been seized pending the outcome of a self-defense shooting........or even a non-CHL but lawful gun owner. He had the background check when he bought the gun. He broke no laws between then and when he uses it in self-defense, and his self-defense was lawful, but he has to have another background check which can take weeks before he has his gun returned to him? And what if he owns more than one gun? Do they seize all his other guns pending a background check?

Sieg Heil, Mr. President.

Well, obviously, if you shoot someone, you must be crazy --a good liberal would never take the life of the poor and downtrodden, and would sacrifice himself and his loved ones in order not to further victimize such poor souls. So I'd say you can not only forget about getting the seized gun back, but about owning any guns, period.

Yep, I hope that the various Federal/ state departments that suddenly begin working together, which are deemed to compile data, don't get words such as "terrorist" and "prohibited people" mixed-up. We know how efficient our government is!

mamabearCali wrote:A good bit of that is in the category of --enforce the laws on the books--. For all his huffing and puffing he share did not have much wind. Now some of this I am unfamiliar with, so I don't know what is happening on those levels. The medical stuff, I have no experience with. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

And NONE if this would have done a blessed thing to stop any of the mass murders in the recent past. It is more show little substance, but perhaps that is by the grace of God.

It's the doctor and "health" related stuff that is truly insidious that is the problem.

The medical executive order! This is the one I worried about most. Obama is trying to make gun ownership a mental health issue. You can see where this could go from here! Categorising gun owners, reporting to insurence companies, reporting to employer. This is not good!

TexasCajun wrote:So nothing on actual proposed legislation??? I suspect that there's more to come. Most of this is just a lot of fluff that's probably designed to lull us into a false sense of security. Sort of a "See, the president is being reasonable" charade. My uncle always told me that if I don't trust someone, I need to watch BOTH of their hands.

You're just not cynical enough. The doctor/mental health stuff here is the Trojan Horse.

CC Italian wrote:The medical executive order! This is the one I worried about most. Obama is trying to make gun ownership a mental health issue. You can see where this could go from here! Categorising gun owners, reporting to insurence companies, reporting to employer. This is not good!

Yep, you got it.....remember what Holder said: they need to stigmatize gun ownership. Just owning a gun means you're crazy.

RottenApple wrote:FYI re #16 "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" from the Affordable Care Act itself:

"(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—[As added by section 10101(e)(2)]
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

So while it doesn't prohibit doctors from asking, 1) they cannot be required to and 2) (the way I read it) patients cannot be required to answer and/or answer truthfully.

If you refuse to answer you obviously have something to hide. And who hides information about gun ownership? Why, someone who is paranoid, since we all know the government is ultra pure goodness and would never do anything to you because you own guns. Calling someone paranoid is just another way of saying they're crazy, and if you're crazy, you can't own a gun.