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.

[notorious]

Holy shit.

He really took a chance bringing a dangerous weapon into a room full of people. I am surprised it didn't jump out of his hand and kill everyone in the room.







But seriously....

It's too bad one person in there didn't stand up and say,"Why didn't you kill anyone with that rifle in your hands?"

.......Sit and watch him scramble for an answer that isn't complete bullshit.......

[notorious]

Stupid **** has his thumb on the trigger, closed bolt, and a mag in.


He doesn't have a single clue about rifles.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by notorious

Stupid **** has his thumb on the trigger, closed bolt, and a mag in.


He doesn't have a single clue about rifles.

Too bad it wasn't loaded. That would have been a hoot.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by frazod

Too bad it wasn't loaded. That would have been a hoot.

Check out the lady in the teal shirt and the guy sitting near her. "Oh shit. Get that ****ing thing away from me, you moron."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Did Hitler invade any countries that allowed private gun ownership? You mean they weren't able to defeat Hitler despite the people having guns? Did it not take half the world and its largest militaries several years to defeat Hitler? So, that being the case, perhaps the argument that the Jews, if only they had guns, could have defeated Hitler, is pretty ****ing stupid.

Well, I didn't say just the Jews would have been able take him out. Read the post, all dissent was crushed.

Have you heard of the American Revolution? Wonder why the Red Coats had orders to capture and destroy military supplies by the militia at Lexington and Concord.

That's why we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan huh? Or were as long as we were. Wonder how long the current govt will last in Afghanistan once we do leave?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by frazod

Too bad it wasn't loaded. That would have been a hoot.

How do you know it isn’t loaded?
Yea, neither does anyone else in that room and considering that dipshit doesn’t even know what he’s got in his hands I doubt he knows how to properly clear it so he’s most likely taking someone else’s word for it and this is what can happen when one assumes a gun is unloaded.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by notorious

Stupid **** has his thumb on the trigger, closed bolt, and a mag in.


He doesn't have a single clue about rifles.

Security should’ve rushed in, tackled his ass then cuffed him and separated him from that rifle. He’s obviously a danger to everyone around him with it in his possession.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

How do you know it isn’t loaded?
Yea, neither does anyone else in that room and considering that dipshit doesn’t even know what he’s got in his hands I doubt he knows how to properly clear it so he’s most likely taking someone else’s word for it and this is what can happen when one assumes a gun is unloaded.

What a ****ing idiot, one can only hope that clown is looking for a job~

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frazod

Were it not for that last provision, the one that I quoted which you completely ignored, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You don't have to be crazy to get pissed off at somebody.

I only addressed the portion you put here and that's what I was taking about. Your premise and stance is that this law can be abused by a few individuals, therefore it shouldn't be allowed or is somehow an infringement on rights, no?

Well that is exactly the premise anti gun people point to in wanting increased control to which you respond with a bunch of stats showing how rare each case is despite the media blitz. I don't necessarily care about increased gun control (except with certain diagnosed mental disorders) I just want to point out that you are using the same logic against this idea that you so aggressively seek to tear apart.

So it sounds like you are against people having action taken against them for verbal threats of harm?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I only addressed the portion you put here and that's what I was taking about. Your premise and stance is that this law can be abused by a few individuals, therefore it shouldn't be allowed or is somehow an infringement on rights, no?

Well that is exactly the premise anti gun people point to in wanting increased control to which you respond with a bunch of stats showing how rare each case is despite the media blitz. I don't necessarily care about increased gun control (except with certain diagnosed mental disorders) I just want to point out that you are using the same logic against this idea that you so aggressively seek to tear apart.

So it sounds like you are against people having action taken against them for verbal threats of harm?

My point it is can be horribly abused by anybody carrying a badge. Do you think the State of Missouri has hired trained psychologists to ride shotgun in every police crusider just in case this type of situation pops up?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frazod

My point it is can be horribly abused by anybody carrying a badge. Do you think the State of Missouri has hired trained psychologists to ride shotgun in every police crusider just in case this type of situation pops up?

It doesn't look like to me it has to do specifically with mental disorders so I don't think a mental health professional is really necessary. It reads like it just means people can't go around making verbal threats of bodily harm with the expectation that they can say whatever they want with no consequences. Whether someone is just upset in the heat of the moment or whatever, if they threaten to kill someone and that person genuinely feels threatened they can at least know they have a place to turn.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

It doesn't look like to me it has to do specifically with mental disorders so I don't think a mental health professional is really necessary. It reads like it just means people can't go around making verbal threats of bodily harm with the expectation that they can say whatever they want with no consequences. Whether someone is just upset in the heat of the moment or whatever, if they threaten to kill someone and that person genuinely feels threatened they can at least know they have a place to turn.

That already happens though.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That already happens though.

Isn’t that called a terroristic threat?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What would you prefer?

I assume you agree that the violently mentally ill should not be permitted to own guns.

Out of all the executive actions I think this one has the most merit.

I'm just throwing out caveats as to what could go wrong that should be thought out.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

It doesn't look like to me it has to do specifically with mental disorders so I don't think a mental health professional is really necessary. It reads like it just means people can't go around making verbal threats of bodily harm with the expectation that they can say whatever they want with no consequences. Whether someone is just upset in the heat of the moment or whatever, if they threaten to kill someone and that person genuinely feels threatened they can at least know they have a place to turn.

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.