List of executive actions Obama plans to take

[Iunnrais]

I'd personally be more concerned that the rules to be made under #5 would define seizure as 'any time a LEO comes into possession' rather than the more formal seizure that occurred as part of a shooting incident.

In the second, you'd be more likely to have to get a court order (at least here in H-town) to get your weapon returned anyway after a no-bill. A background check would likely be folded into that lengthy process without much notice (had to watch a co-worker jump through those hoops several years back).

In the first, I could easily see a directive to depts that they update their policy to always disarm whenever encountered (for the officer's safety), check serial number and verify NICS (by either the officer or someone back at the dept) before returning being added to the process of a stop.

But that just my normal pessimism speaking. (I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, just not going to get my hopes up)

[Pawpaw]

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).

I thought he stole the weapons from his mother... or did I miss something?

[CC Italian]

That was the Newton shooter pawpaw.

[CC Italian]

The aurora guy had reportedly been seeing a mental health professional but made it through nics anyways.

[mamabearCali]

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.

Don't be squeamish. They are your doctor not a judge. It is called deception and if they have become agents of a corrupt gov't willing to step all over my constitutional rights then I have no problem with deception. Last I remembered one did not swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but he truth so help me God when one steps into a MD office.

[stroo]

Other than 12,18 and 19, none of these would have prevented Newtown nor will prevent any future mass murder.

The EOs were not as bad as I was expecting.

[Wes]

They weren't what I was expecting either but that doesn't mean his right hand man isn't still plowing forward

[OldCannon]

Other than 12,18 and 19, none of these would have prevented Newtown nor will prevent any future mass murder.

The EOs were not as bad as I was expecting.

This is just the first step.

[steve817]

DId he mention anything in his speech about an assault weapons ban or a magazine ban? I haven't read the article just yet.

He proposes that congress ban "assault weapons"

Harry Reid says he doesn't think there is enough support in the Senate and even if there was was it wouldn't make it through the House, therefore the Senate wouldn't even waste their time knowing it wouldn't pass the House

[VMI77]

Other than 12,18 and 19, none of these would have prevented Newtown nor will prevent any future mass murder.

The EOs were not as bad as I was expecting.

This is just the first step.

Really? They're worse than I expected, particularly since they are far more insidious than they appear at first glance.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

Necessary is the wrong word too.

The only duties/responsibilities of the government are specifically identified in the Constitution. All those not specifically noted as applying the the fed belong either to the sates or the people.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

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.

Don't be squeamish. They are your doctor not a judge. It is called deception and if they have become agents of a corrupt gov't willing to step all over my constitutional rights then I have no problem with deception. Last I remembered one did not swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but he truth so help me God when one steps into a MD office.

I agree, however, you have children, right? Are you present 100% of the time when they are with the doctor? Do they go to a public school --cause you can bet teachers will be asking these kinds of questions too. They will work through the children. Grown kids? Then how about grandchildren......I guarantee they'll be asking if grandpa has guns in the home. Nieces, newphews? What about Auntie Mamabear, does she have guns? And in this kind of a rat fink society being created here, your anti-gun neighbor will be asking their pediatrician what can be done about those nutty gun owners next door who let their children use guns....you know, they're afraid of what those evil little right-wingers might do, or that one of those guns next door might get loose. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Pelosibama, tell me the name and address of those obviously dangerous neighbors and I'll make sure it gets in their records.

[ctsmith9962]

I currently have a CHL and can pass a background check at any gun store. When I was 15 I did a very bad thing but it did stay in juvenile court. Would the new laws he is trying to pass make it change so that I can not own a gun anymore because of what I did when I was 15? When I did my CHL i had to send in all the paper work and make sure it was 10 years since the crime.

[RPB]

oops ,,, I meant to start a new thread on this Statement ...Edited to say:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS to 'Expand and Formalize Coordination' on Gun Control Efforts

Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement Wednesday saying she is "proud to support" the Obama administration's efforts to "combat gun violence in our country." Here's more from Napolitano's statement:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dhs ... 96127.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish they'd stop saying they are going to "combat gun violence" (eliminate gun-free zones) and start being honest that they are implementing "gun control" measures

[mamabearCali]

I agree, however, you have children, right? Are you present 100% of the time when they are with the doctor? Do they go to a public school --cause you can bet teachers will be asking these kinds of questions too. They will work through the children. Grown kids? Then how about grandchildren......I guarantee they'll be asking if grandpa has guns in the home. Nieces, newphews? What about Auntie Mamabear, does she have guns? And in this kind of a rat fink society being created here, your anti-gun neighbor will be asking their pediatrician what can be done about those nutty gun owners next door who let their children use guns....you know, they're afraid of what those evil little right-wingers might do, or that one of those guns next door might get loose. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Pelosibama, tell me the name and address of those obviously dangerous neighbors and I'll make sure it gets in their records.

As long as I am paying for the medical bills and they are under 18 either I or my husband will be in the room.

My kids do not go to public indoctrination centers. I am responsible for their education.

As for grand kids.....well...my eldest is 7 we will cross that bridge when we get there.

Yes this is turning into a rat fink society, but we are not there yet.