White House Announces Executive Action On Guns
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 11 months ago
NBC:
The Obama administration is proposing two more executive actions that it says will help prevent individuals who are prohibited from having a gun for mental health reasons from obtaining a firearm.
The Department of Justice, arguing that current federal law contains terminology about mental health issues that is too vague, proposed a regulation that would clarify who is ineligible to possess a firearm for specific situations related to mental health, like commitment to a mental institution. “In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness,” the administration said in a fact sheet distributed to reporters.
The second executive action, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, would allow some medical organizations more leeway to report “limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands” to the federal background check system. “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 White House added.
Because, you know, mental health professionals can use their skills so well as a predictor of propensity to violence, oh, er, uh, because mass shootings are a function of mentally unstable people who just suddenly snap, oh, er, well, whatever. Everybody just shut up. At least they’re doing something about something. And that’s what we all want our government to do, right? Something?
On January 3, 2014 at 4:58 pm, Paul B said:
What are the precursor’s? This is so full of fail it is unreal.
Let’s pray this is the year the kick this clown out of office. Course since they are all rent seekers and not a single member of either house has a spine, I really don’t expect much.
On January 3, 2014 at 6:55 pm, Michael said:
Because everyone knows that people with mental health problems NEVER have any reason to need to protect themselves or their families. They clearly are the root of all of our problems; maybe we should just lock them all up, for our safety, of course. And if they get too costly to the state we can just put them out of our misery, for their own good. Yikes.
On January 3, 2014 at 6:59 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Yes. It reeks of awful and icky and dark, doesn’t it Michael? I agree with your (sardonically stated) remarks. The so-called mentally ill have rights just as we do. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that they commit more crimes. None.
On January 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm, Michael said:
I see people with mental health problems every day (and you probably do as well, though you may not recognize them as such). Very few if any of the mentally ill that I see in my office would have any propensity to commit acts of violence, though I have no doubt that they would fall into whatever definition of “prohibited persons” that the feds would cook up. And we would still be no safer (probably less safe) than if there was no restriction… Comrade. A Psikhushka in every town.
On January 3, 2014 at 7:10 pm, Michael said:
Sorry. I guess I should have included this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
On January 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm, Archer said:
I’ll echo David Codrea’s frequent assertion that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.
If a mentally ill person presents a definite and articulable danger to his/her self and/or others, then he/she should not be out and about among society without a handler. Period.
Inversely, if a mentally ill person does NOT present a definite and articulable danger to his/her self and/or others, then his/her rights must be respected. ALL of his/her rights.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental foundation of our justice system, but also included in that are (pardon my non-PC words) “Sane until proven crazy” and “Safe until proven dangerous.” American Constitutional jurisprudence has never – indeed, CAN never – punish a citizen for what he/she COULD or MIGHT do. (We’d all be in jail right now if it could.) It can only punish someone for what he/she HAS ALREADY DONE. That’s how it’s designed. The SECOND that changes is the second the concept of “justice” is lost.
On January 7, 2014 at 1:34 am, hutch1200 said:
If you like you gun you can keep…sorry, just can’t finish that lie w/o ROTFLOL! Which makes me insane, I guess? Voting 2x, or believing in this azzhat is truly the definition of insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg
On January 7, 2014 at 1:35 am, hutch1200 said:
F-WORD IN ABOVE VIDEO! Sorry for NOT screening it properly. All Apologies.