Obama’s 23 Planned Executive Actions On Guns

[Direckshun]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...ctions-on-guns

Obama’s 23 Planned Executive Actions On Guns
David Taintor
11:58 AM EST, Wednesday January 16, 2013

Here is a list provided by the White House of the 23 executive actions President Obama plans to take to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with 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.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Isn’t that called a terroristic threat?

I think every state makes verbal threats of violence illegal, including threats of physical harm or murder. Those threats often make a case for restraining orders.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frazod

And that person gets just gets hauled off. It's not an arrest, it's "psychological observation." Does that come with Miranda rights? Or a phone call, to anybody? If that person owns firearms, and the police confiscate them, are they automatically returned, or does the person have to prove he's not crazy first, at his own expense?

Think about it.

I personally don't know of any times where this has been an issue though. Have people ever cried foul about this? It really just seems reasonable to me. Would it really escalate to confiscating their personal property?

I am sure in the vast majority of cases the police might file a report without actually detaining anyone. Especially if the person in question just acts like an adult and admits they were acting on emotion and frustration when questioned. And if/when further checks on them at the scene reveal they are upstanding citizens then that would be the end of it.

If we want to think worst case scenario in cases where people upholding the law are abusing their power, sure, people could be treated unjustly. But just like with anything the potential for abuse of a law by a few should not prevent a reasonable law from existing to protect the many. It really just seems to be in place for the few that might actually be worthy of detainment due to not cooperating or a history of violent behavior. Most people should never even have to worry about it.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I personally don't know of any times where this has been an issue though. Have people ever cried foul about this? It really just seems reasonable to me. Would it really escalate to confiscating their personal property?

I am sure in the vast majority of cases the police might file a report without actually detaining anyone. Especially if the person in question just acts like an adult and admits they were acting on emotion and frustration when questioned. And if/when further checks on them at the scene reveal they are upstanding citizens then that would be the end of it.

If we want to think worst case scenario in cases where people upholding the law are abusing their power, sure, people could be treated unjustly. But just like with anything the potential for abuse of a law by a few should not prevent a reasonable law from existing to protect the many. It really just seems to be in place for the few that might actually be worthy of detainment due to not cooperating or a history of violent behavior. Most people should never even have to worry about it.

Thank you. This is what I was wondering. If it's such I abusable law, why isn't it complained about? It sounds like a law that is seldom used only when very warranted.

[DaveNull]

Originally Posted by frazod

And that person gets just gets hauled off. It's not an arrest, it's "psychological observation." Does that come with Miranda rights? Or a phone call, to anybody? If that person owns firearms, and the police confiscate them, are they automatically returned, or does the person have to prove he's not crazy first, at his own expense?

Think about it.

I'll do one better for you.

Right there in the top corner, you see that whatever you say if you're under a 5150 hold is covered under the physician patient privilege.

And you know what? If you're taken in under your local equivalent of a hold like this then you bet your ass your house ought to be cleared of guns until an independent party says that your head is right again.

[Comrade Crapski]

Doctors as Federal Agents

Among the more alarming of the 23 executive orders the Moonbat Messiah signed at the crest of his media’s Sandy Hook hype appears to repeal the lone positive aspect of ObamaCare:

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

Since we were not given a chance to discuss this while Democrats were unilaterally ramming ObamaCare down our throats, let’s give thought to it now: Do we really want doctors to be agents of the federal government? Aren’t you supposed to be able to trust your doctor?



http://moonbattery.com/?p=24139

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Doctors as Federal Agents

Among the more alarming of the 23 executive orders the Moonbat Messiah signed at the crest of his media’s Sandy Hook hype appears to repeal the lone positive aspect of ObamaCare:

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

Since we were not given a chance to discuss this while Democrats were unilaterally ramming ObamaCare down our throats, let’s give thought to it now: Do we really want doctors to be agents of the federal government? Aren’t you supposed to be able to trust your doctor?



http://moonbattery.com/?p=24139

I asked my doctor on Friday if he could help me find a gun. He acted like he didn't know what I was talking about when I told him that I thought O'Bama said I had to ask you about guns.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by frazod

And that person gets just gets hauled off. It's not an arrest, it's "psychological observation." Does that come with Miranda rights? Or a phone call, to anybody? If that person owns firearms, and the police confiscate them, are they automatically returned, or does the person have to prove he's not crazy first, at his own expense?

Think about it.

Damn it! Did you not hear the kids reading there letters to the president? He must act on the advice of little kids wishing there were no guns. After he clears this up he shall work on fulfilling there other wishes such as eating ice cream for dinner, playing video games and watch cartoons instead of going to school, and last but not least having Santa Claus come every week. I think it is outstanding that the president is willing to use the wisdom of children to help us make laws~

[frazod]

Due process. Who needs it, right? After all, the state knows best.

[Comrade Crapski]

Jim Baker, NRA-ILA's Director of Federal Affairs, represented NRA at the meeting. As detailed in a recent Daily Caller article, Mr. Baker was given five minutes to present NRA's concerns and the approach NRA saw as being the most effective way to safeguard our children. During those five minutes, Baker mentioned the need to vigorously prosecute existing gun laws. He further noted the low number of prosecutions for falsifying information on Form 4473s, and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes in general.

In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.


http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...nd-checks.aspx

[3rd&48ers]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Jim Baker, NRA-ILA's Director of Federal Affairs, represented NRA at the meeting. As detailed in a recent Daily Caller article, Mr. Baker was given five minutes to present NRA's concerns and the approach NRA saw as being the most effective way to safeguard our children. During those five minutes, Baker mentioned the need to vigorously prosecute existing gun laws. He further noted the low number of prosecutions for falsifying information on Form 4473s, and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes in general.

In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.


http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...nd-checks.aspx

Figures............

[frazod]

It's truly frightening how ****ing stupid Biden is. This is like having Billy Carter a heartbeat away from the presidency.

And the worst part is that might be a good thing.

[Mrs. Loopner]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

I asked my doctor on Friday if he could help me find a gun. He acted like he didn't know what I was talking about when I told him that I thought O'Bama said I had to ask you about guns.

Did he write you a prescription for a Glock?

[Comrade Crapski]

No executive orders or speeches after the Santa Monica slayings?

Because the shooter had an arabic name and doesn’t fit the angry, white, gun worshipper, NRA myth the Communists like to scream about?