President's Gun Control Proposals

Here, again, is the text of the White House press release, all 21 pages of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-gun-proposals-documents.html?smid=tw-nytimes

The EOs are summarized, but there's little if anything in them that affects actual "gun control" in a substantive way, as far as I can see. It's all "direct the AG to review," "send a letter to FFLs," etc. A couple of them involve presidential memoranda requiring various federal agencies to do things that, as far as I can see, they already have the power to do.

An executive order calling for a "national dialog... on mental health" doesn't carry quite the same oomph as one authorizing the extrajudicial murder of American citizens, for example.

The rest is basically a wish list of laws he'd like Congress to pass. I suppose some are more likely to pass than others, but this is a president whose basic negotiating tactic is the "preemptive concession." If it were LBJ, I'd be worried -- Obama, not so much.

Metal god said:
Does anybody know how the NICS works in detail and how they come to have said info that would disqualify you from owning a gun .
Click to expand...

"In detail," is it? Alrighty then.

You'll find all the details here, in a document published by the ATF -- it's a mere 243 pages long. :D
 
I was thinking of it more like the no fly list
Click to expand...
Not to be snarky, but consider how well that has worked out.

As it stands, anyone here could be on the list. We won't know until they stop us at the airport. There's no due process, no prior notice, and the appeal process puts the burden of proof on you. No thanks.
 
they are Executive Orders and go into force at the time stated in the order with the full effect of law.
Click to expand...

No quite. They are not codified into Law as passed by Congress, and then subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

They are directives to the Executive Branch of government, and as already said, the States are lining up suggesting they are under no obligation to enforce them.

Somebody is setting up some major legal contests for future review when the Executive Branch oversteps itself. It's happened before, and POTUS has lost in court. Precedence exists.

Moving to the EO concerning the revoking of provisions in the HIPPA: if the law says "you cannot communicate the patient's information and status," but the President is ORDERING those who are subject to his will to do so, where exactly is the line? If your doctor isn't on the government payroll, his voluntary compliance is all there is - and your continued patronage also on the line.

Nobody wants to be the one who knew before hand, but the real difficulty is exactly that - how does this all work out in a legal environment that prohibits prior restraint? Let's be clear about that - can YOU be arrested because someone thinks you might do something?

One unintended consequence is that anyone who does have issues with PTSD, trauma, or whatever, now has a legitimate fear of treatment if the health authorities want to restrict their firearms access - even if their only justification is politics. It's already a major issue in the Army and goes straight to the other article in my local paper - the suicide rate is still rising and no end in sight.

I appreciate everyone who chimed in on the number and level of clearances they hold. That goes to another point completely left out of the entire conversation - prior service. I, like millions of men and women since I turned 18, have all been trained to handle fully automatic weapons, and plenty of them. Whether a three year tour or 35, you don't get thru basic training for ANY job in the Armed Forces if you can't handle a M16 and high capacity magazines. None of the EO's, the posturing Senators, and the media make any effort to recognize that a substantial part of the public are quite capable of handling fully automatic weapons - fully trained and educated by the very people who are trying to limit their rights. And who are surrounded by them almost every working minute of their day.

We are all in this together, and the opposition understands all to clearly that as long as we own firearms and hold our forefathers caution against tyranny, they can never rule us.

Let's not ignore the other players on the field - there are three branches of Government. The courts are forcing a showdown on carry in Illinois and Chicago, Congress is already uncooperative with the President, and the Executive Branch itself knows the clock is ticking - only 47 months left. They are facing a sea change of new administrative heads, all of who, like the BATF director, need confirmation. There is also the income tax, Obamacare, and no doubt, future world political events that will be challenging. One President doesn't get unlimited power - and in his second term, the gloves are off. It's not going to be a cakewalk like the first term. That is very much part of American politics.
 
As it stands, anyone here could be on the list. We won't know until they stop us at the airport. There's no due process, no prior notice, and the appeal process puts the burden of proof on you. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Or you could just be someone with the same or similar name as someone. No more guns for you.
 
Well the process will not be voluntary, it IS mandatory as of the date the signed executive order goes into effect.
Click to expand...

Apparently you are confused about which were executive orders and which were recommendations for Congress. The president can recommend ideas, and even write full bills. This means nothing. Congress passes laws, not the president. If anything gets passed (don't be too sure anything at all will get passed), it wont look anything like what Obama or Feinstein have proposed. That's the way bills work.
 
POC (Point of Contact) means a
State or local law enforcement agency
serving as an intermediary between an
FFL and the federal databases checked
by the NICS. A POC will receive NICS
background check requests from FFLs,
check state or local record systems,
perform NICS inquiries, determine
whether matching records provide information
demonstrating that an individual
is disqualified from possessing a
firearm under Federal or State law, and
respond to FFLs with the results of a
NICS background check. A POC will be
an agency with express or implied authority
to perform POC duties pursuant
to State statute, regulation, or executive
order.
Click to expand...

Does this mean the POC can be changed or manipulated by executive order .

Somebody a lot smarter then me needs to reed that stuff . It seems quite complex and does appear to store some if not all of your private info . Im still reading it and have not seen anything stating if the info on the computers is a complete personal history or if it's just the negative things that would proclude you from owning a firearm

EDIT:
(c) The following records in the FBIoperated
terminals of the NICS will be
subject to the Brady Act's requirements
for destruction:
(1) All inquiry and response messages
(regardless of media) relating
to a background check that results in
an allowed transfer; and
(2) All information (regardless of
media) contained in the NICS Audit
Log relating to a background check
that results in an allowed transfer.
(d) The following records of State
and local law enforcement units serving
as POCs will be subject to the Brady
Act's requirements for destruction:
(1) All inquiry and response messages
(regardless of media) relating
to the initiation and result of a check
of the NICS that allows a transfer
that are not part of a record system
created and maintained pursuant to
independent State law regarding
firearms transactions; and
(2) All other records relating to the
person or the transfer created as a
result of a NICS check that are not
part of a record system created and
maintained pursuant to independent
State law regarding firearms transactions
Click to expand...

I alway wanted to know why I needed to do a background check each time I buy a gun . They know I have 20 guns why do you need to check me when I buy my 21st ? clearly if I wanted to do harm I could just use one of the other 20 I already have . That explains it . They do have to destroy the records and that is why the background check needs to be done each and every time .
 
Last edited:
I'm not too afeared of the legislative proposals, and I'm folding up my tin foil hat on the executive orders. But make no mistake, there's very much mischief tied into those proposals, especially as they pertain to mental health records and the behavior of doctors and counselors.

I'm considered a complete, but harmless, loon by my co-workers (by virtue, if nothing else, of merely being a gun owner). Okay, the big Glasden Flag on the wall might add to it. I'd hate to think that if I was really struggling with evil ideation or a complete inability to function, I would fear seeking out help. Given this environment, I would be. Well, until I reached the poo-flinging stage. :)
 
Background Checks are the Best Solution

Personally, I really feel that banning semi-auto military-style rifles, standard and high-capacity magazines will not provide a lasting solution to the problem. Bad guys will simply carry more magazines. This will only serve to destroy the features and capabilities of arms available to lawful people. Background checks, I agree. But I feel that it is the right of law-abiding citizens who pass background checks, psychological tests and maybe even drug tests to own military rifles for home-defense, collecting and recreational purposes. If you are qualified, then there shouldn't be any problem to own a military-style rifle.
 
Last edited:
But I feel that it is the right of law-abiding citizens who pass background checks, psychological tests and maybe even drug tests to own military rifles for home-defense, collecting and recreational purposes. If you are qualified, why not?
Click to expand...

You feel it's a right...that requires not only background checks, but psych evals and drug tests too? Remind me not to ask what your standards are for privileges are if you think all of that is needed for a right...

Drawing up standards for all the additional testing would be extremely complex and rife with possibilities for abuse and failures of the system. Neither a psych eval or drug tests could be completed in a timely manner or reliably on site at LGSs, creating a de facto waiting period and a logistic nightmare. Who's going to pay for all this? How do you define "military rifle"?

For all these reasons and more I reject your notion of "the right of a law-abiding citizen". It amazes me that the idea of submitting to further and further intrusions which are more and more invasive seems to come so naturally to so many as of late.
 
Gun Control

Understood sigcurious, I feel that a lot of your opinions are realistic and just, especially with the problems excessive health testing will cause but let me explain. First off, I do not believe gun control laws like this will fix anything. Smaller magazine capacities and a ban on military-style (all rifles that are modelled after existing military rifles with semi-auto fire i.e. AR-15 and AK47) rifles? Armor piercing bullets? Nope.

The new laws I feel are a problem because they can be warped by gun-control activists into excessive measures i.e. armor piercing bullets being "all pointed bullets" (rifle cartridges) or all bullets that can pass through a level IIa vest (covers almost all +P pistol rounds) and Military-style rifles being "scary" black rifles. God forbid one day someone goes on a shooting spree with a pistol with a 10-round magazine and then all of a sudden 5-round magazines is the new legal standard.

However, as a responsible owner of firearms myself I am simply expressing my concerns about how we can possibly prevent people with psychological issues from causing damage with legally-purchased firearms. I have great respect for responsible gun owners. Why? Because all the lawful gun owners I know will do everything they can to protect others from harm. But when mentally unstable people get their hands on firearms and do damage it ruins the image of responsible gun owners everywhere. Which is unfair but this is how the media spins it. This is the reality I find to be unfair.

And about your point on who is going to pay for all these tests and background checks, I agree. I think it should be the government. I know with the current deficit that may no longer be an option but I cannot see why it cannot be so. The US government can bailout big banks with billions and even trillions of dollars with taxpayer's money but have no money for armed guards in schools to protect children? Seriously? And then the corrupt bankers get ridiculous bonuses with taxpayer's money? I feel like that is just plain unfair to all taxpayers everywhere. Just my 2 cents.
 
I think the medical and mental health angel is a slippery slope that ends in a quagmire of quicksand.

At some point, even if just for a few seconds, everyone could be judged as a threat to themselves and others.

It has been mentioned that privacy concerns could keep people from seeking help, I am sure it would.

But has any thought been given to the people that have not committed violent crimes because they felt safe in asking for help, then went on to be productive citizens?

Asking for help with mental or emotional problems is already stigmatized in this country. If privacy in the medical professions is abdicated to the "greater good" I am confident it will increase violence because many people, that would have been successfully treated, will not feel safe in asking for help.
 
However, as a responsible owner of firearms myself I am simply expressing my concerns about how we can possibly prevent people with psychological issues from causing damage with legally-purchased firearms.
Click to expand...

You can't prevent it at all, not with legally purchased weapons much less with illegally acquired weapons. That's part of the problem, some folks think they can prevent and control with laws. All a law does is regulate law abiding citizens and form a justification to punish the law breaker for his unlawful actions. But they can't stop anything.
 
Last edited:
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

They may ask. My response will be no. It's none of their damn business if I own firearms.

And a small aside to this. The other day at the podiatrist's office they were asking various medical questions. One of which was. "Do I wear a seat belt while riding in an automobile." My response was. "What relevance does this have on my treatment?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top