Executive Action: Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BarryLee

New member
The President has released information on proposed Executive Actions to make it easier to indentify and report individuals who have mental health issues which should prevent them from owning a gun. The release states, “Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.”

Admittedly I am not an expert in the mental health field, but one point did give me pause. It states that, “DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments.” So, I understand the inpatient commitment, but is the outpatient commitment a new issue or just a clarification? Could this include anger management classes or something else that might be required as part of a divorce for example?

The rest of the proposal seems to deal with clarification related to reporting and HIPAA issues.

So, does anyone have more specific insight to these proposals pro or con?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/03/fact-sheet-strengthening-federal-background-check-system-keep-guns-out-p
 
Last edited:
The major change seems to be including outpatient treatment. So if a court orders someone to undergo counseling, that may now strip their firearms rights. Potentially even court-ordered marriage counseling would do it.
 
Last edited:
It appears that both the DOJ and DHHS are proposing regulations to effectively amend existing regulation relating to (1) the definition of terms under the GCA of 1968 (DOJ); and (2) the confidentiality of medical information (HIPAA) and disclosure rules (DHHS). These regulations must go through the formal rule making process to be adopted. So they will be published and the public will be invited to comment.

Of course we really need to see the proposed regulations. Given the subject matter I'd expect various professional medical/psychiatric organizations to weigh in. Those groups were very involved formulation of the HIPAA rules and are usually quite protective of the interests of persons with mental or emotional issues. They are also quite influential.
 
The major change seems to be including outpatient treatment. So if a court orders someone to undergo counseling, that may now strip their firearms rights. Potentially even court-ordered marriage counseling would do it.
Click to expand...



If true, that's just wrong.



Cnon
 
That "involuntary outpatient" crappola worries me- if my RVFD Chief tells me to attend a CISM session after working a bad accident, then that could be loosely construed as "involuntary" psychiatric counseling, no?
 
Enough uninformed speculating. We need to read the proposed rules and then we can discuss what they actually say and what the actual problems with them might be.

But there's nothing really to discuss without actually reading the proposed rules.
 
I fully support taking away the rights of those who are mentally ill or have violent behavior. We all have met individuals who are far too aggressive to own any type of weaponry. My earliest encounter was with a roommate in my early 20s who was ordered by the court to see a psychologist. This was a roommate I did not live too long with. Another encounter at an early period in my life I witnessed someone at a place I worked at who was obviously on drugs and had behavior swings. I do have many more stories and fully believe that none of these bad apples deserve to own firearms.

Its a complex issue with much debate, but in any event there are guys out there whose mental health and violent behavior disqualifies them in my mind. I dont want these individuals representing gun owners at all.
 
That "involuntary outpatient" crappola worries me- if my RVFD Chief tells me to attend a CISM session after working a bad accident, then that could be loosely construed as "involuntary" psychiatric counseling, no?
Click to expand...
Might very well be one of the intended consequences. Time, and court process might tell the tale sometime down the road.

PTSD? A Vet home from war? You know, one who is a trained killing machine and probably not too liberal in their political leanings (stereotyping here, which is bad, I know)?

It's the unintended consequences that are always a worry as well, somewhere down the road.

Who will be making the decisions as to placing he/she on the list, this one is or that one is not? Who will handle Funding for the decision makers, list keepers and watchdogs with guns? EO or Congress?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Common Sense Executive Orders.

Time will tell. I feel safer already. Don't you? :rolleyes:
 
As Frank pointed out, we don't have enough information for a cogent discussion. We don't need another general thread about mental illness, so I'm going to close this.

If more information becomes available, we can open another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top