Administration is proposing new executive actions on gun background checks

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, Jan 3, 2014.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup

    7,200
    0
    0
    I look at the White House and nothing listed, the only information is coming out on Fox News.

    Folks need to keep an eye on this little pickle, they will do some dirty dealing regarding mental health.

    Who will determine your mental health status in the long run?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...w-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/

    The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.

    Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

    One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

    "The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."

    The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.
     
  2. CardiacColt68

    CardiacColt68 New Member

    1,989
    0
    0
    It sounds innocent on the surface, but that group, and their allies have shown a propensity to lie and change or add new items into bills at a later date. I don't believe a thing spoken by the President or any members in Gov't. Particularly those with a Capital 'D' before or after their name.
     

  3. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    I am all for keeping firearms away from dangerous people. That said, little caveats to our freedoms such as this give too much power to bureaucrats at the state and federal levels.

    Does alcoholism make you mentally ill? What if you were severely depressed at one point, but things turned around for you? Or, what about someone who has dealt with anger management issues? Just curious if folks like this get treated the same as the guy that says he constantly fantasizes about shooting everyone in Congress, if he could only find a way to do it.......
     
  4. alsaqr

    alsaqr New Member

    6,072
    0
    0
    Fox conveniently forgot the rest of the story.

    The states are not reporting adjudicated mental cases that are a threat to themselves and/or others to NICS.

    Underline=mine.


    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...deral-background-check-system-keep-guns-out-p
     
  5. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup

    7,200
    0
    0
    We know how this administration plays Chicago style political tactics. The main agenda is government does not want the civilian masses to be armed. A disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Look at what Delawareans are being hit with.

    http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/delawareans-another-push-gun-control-your-state-102011/

    This is pushing the threshold! If you have a so-called qualified mental health providers (Psychiatrists to school counselors) that are anti-gun, period. They will call the police because of their anti-gun views and this will spiral out of control.
     
  6. ctshooter

    ctshooter New Member

    1,159
    0
    0
    It is actually against some states laws to report to nics. I know Rhode Island is one of them. It is in their state constitution not to report to the Feds certain things, and mental health falls into that

    That's what drives me nuts about the background check, and the Feds wanting to "expand" it. What good is it if 13 states don't report to it?
     
  7. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    0
    0
    i am very leary of anything the government wants reported to keep guns out of the citizens hands.

    and just what information is going to be used?
    who is going to provide it?

    will it be a release of private information between a paitent and their doctor that is reported?

    i have personally seen my family doctor in the past for depression. i wasn't thinking about suicide or going on any killing spree, but i just felt like something was missing and was not content, when i should have been. i had a chemical imbalance that needed to be adjusted. and given how the gun grabbers and liber gun haters want to try and use all they can to deny a citizen his right to own a gun, i fear such things as even my case could be used to deny myself and others like myself.

    if someone is truly bat$hit crazy and mentally unstable and is judged by several doctors and a judge, and committed for treatment or for their safety as well as the public, then that is one thing. but family doctors and paitent records need to be kept private and out of the hands of the government.
     
  8. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    0
    0
    Once privacy laws are pushed aside for gun control who is to stop people from using your medical history to deny employment? Once information is loose in the system people will find a way to get it for the wrong reasons. That is why HIPPA laws are so strict right now.

    Right now you have to be involuntarily committed to lose your RKBA. If you walk into a mental hospital of your own free will you do not lose your RKBA. If you walk in on your own you recognized that something wasn't right and got help, there is no reason to strip you of your RKBA.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr New Member

    6,072
    0
    0
    Everyone needs to read about the NICS Improvement Act Of 2007. This act was passed by the US congress in response to the mass murder of VA college students at VA Tech by a raging nutcase.

    States still refuse to report adjudicated nutcases to NICS. The key word is adjudicated, as in a court or board.

    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49
     
  10. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    0
    0
    i totally understand and know that. there is a huge difference in voluntary admittance to a hospital for a problem and being committed by a judge and a doctor because that person is deemed a danger either to themself or others.

    voluntary admittance for a mental or emotional issue is no different than admitting yourself to the hospital for gall bladder surgery. it is not reported and it shouldn't be. people who seek help because they have a problem are looking to correct their problems and lead productive lives. it should be kept private.

    no different than having your private doctors records made available for scrutiny for basing a decision on who can or can't buy a gun.
     
  11. ctshooter

    ctshooter New Member

    1,159
    0
    0
    Ever consider that with obamacare the need to report sort of goes away when it comes to seeing a counselor or a shrink???
     
  12. unclebear

    unclebear New Member

    1,154
    0
    0
    You keep swinging a hammer at a bolder you get little chunks of rock you do it long enough and the bolder will be turned to gravel.

    I dont trust the government to a clear and reasonable decision here. Why? Our government is not reasonable matter facts there a bunch of ritch idots that think there god gift to the world.
     
  13. SB777

    SB777 New Member

    943
    0
    0
  14. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,899
    0
    0
    It is not one single issue that is all so bad but the pile of gravel as an end result. If they can pass enough little chips here and there for what ever reason, soon we don't have a second Amendment at all just a lot of little laws making us all criminals
     
  15. SB777

    SB777 New Member

    943
    0
    0
    Absolutely true. The recently passed anti-gun laws (little chips) will be cited as the basis for more restrictive legislation in Blue and Red states.
     
  16. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,495
    0
    0
    How will user of Marijuana in Colorado pass a BG check? Federal Law prohibits users of controlled substances to purchase firearms. Will gun purchasers now have to have a drug test? All of these issues will be inclusive in mental health surveys of gun buyers. :confused:
     
  17. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    0
    0
    another point, what about companies that do drug tests as part of pre-employment and that do random drug tests as part of continued employment?
     
  18. wittmeba

    wittmeba New Member

    1,097
    0
    0
    It might become the new "catch-all" for LAC. If you rebut any issues they surface you must be mentally ill and they then have reason to put you on the exempt list of owning firearms.
     
  19. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup

    7,200
    0
    0
    Folks here is the latest from the examiner with embedded video. It has a little more information.

    More at the link.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/eric-holder-to-revise-firearms-purchase-regulations-2014

    Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Justice Department on Friday quietly proposed a regulation that will clarify what mental health reasons can be employed under federal law to prohibit citizens from receiving, possessing, shipping or transporting firearms.

    According to officials at the Justice Department, this clarification will direct U.S. states and territories in determining what information they should share with the federal background check system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

    The stated goal is to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. However, the regulation’s language, as with many of the regulations and laws coming out of the Obama Administration, leaves room for interpretation.

    “We are taking an important, commonsense step to clarify the federal firearms regulations, which will strengthen our ability to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands,” said the controversial – some say ultra-political -- Attorney General Holder.

    “This step will provide clear guidance on who is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law for reasons related to mental health, enabling America’s brave law enforcement and public safety officials to better protect the American people and ensure the safety of our homes and communities. And it is emblematic of the Justice Department’s broader commitment to use every tool and resource at its disposal to combat gun violence and prevent future tragedies while respecting the Constitutional rights to which all Americans are entitled,” Holder announced on Friday.

    The revised definition clarifies that the statutory terms “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court. The proposed regulation also clarifies that the statutory term includes a person committed to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment.

    While the regulation on the surface may sound reasonable, it does leave former military personnel returning from the battlefield who are diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are psychiatrically treated for PTSD, very likely in the lurch when it comes to purchasing firearms for protection or sport,” said former Marine and police detective Sidney Franes.

    “It may also be used to deny retired law-enforcement, security and intelligence officials access to firearms if at any time they underwent rehabilitation for alcoholism or substance abuse,” Franes added.

    The Justice Department places the NICS background check system in high regard calling it a “critical tool in keeping guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally have one.”
     
  20. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    0
    0
    Holder is an idiot. he said as much as he didn't have any knowledge of the Fast and Furious fiasco until it was called to attention to the American people. hmmmm.........he is suppose to be the leading law enforcement official in our country and he didn't even know what was going on right under his own nose? which means he's either a liar or incompentent. neither which amke him qualified to be making decisions for others or making making policies regarding who can or can't own a gun.