Executive Order background checks

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

As Ross mentioned though, this mental health thing can go very wrong if done incorrectly. For example, if you were treated for any mental health issue are you excluded from buying a gun? Where does it end?

This is where it gets interesting. For example, IIRC if you were prescribed Wellbutrin as a smoking cessation aid - which was also an anti-depression drug - you could be listed as having mental health issues. So that is one tiny loophole / gotcha whatever you want to call it. Is this another instance where the devil is in the details?

[DZ]

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by DZ

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

It will be interesting to see how this is implemented. This Administration has a history of not being totally upfront .
I would bet all gun sales will now have to go through a licensed dealer which means you won't be able to transfer a gun as an individual . Thats going to cost you money and time but what the hell , we all have plenty of that .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

The way I look at it is if these new rules won't make a difference anyway then no one should have a problem with them. The left were thrown a bone that they think will make a difference - the right say the new orders won't make a difference anyway. No constitutional rights were violated. Everyone wins.

The only people who don't win, are the law-abiding people in places like Chicago, who deserve better than a few regualations that will allow Obama to spike the football, but do nothing to make those people safer.

[Rockport24]

smart gun or no smart gun, a stupid irresponsible person is still going to be unsafe with it!
Every single damn accident with a gun is preventable, triggers don't pull themselves, I know Obama wants you to believe they do, but they just don't!

[PaulS]

I didn't hear anything on this but what if anything might be against the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I didn't hear anything on this but what if anything might be against the constitution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh you mean that piece of paper
I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Oh you mean that piece of paper
I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know anything other than people said what he proposed was unconstitutional. That is why I asked a question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm no expert but didn't he create a new crime ? I don't think the President can set law .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).

So there's no penalty if you ignore this ? Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

So there's no penalty if you ignore this ? Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've asked a few simple question bc I don't know yet it seems like you either don't know or are just giving snarky responses.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I still have not found anything that says he created a new law or a new crime. Can you pls. tell me what I should be looking for?

I thought the action just closed the gun show loop hole (which I would have thought the gun store owners would have wanted since I assumed the gun show sales competed against the owners) and added more agents and prevents the mentally ill and those on the terror watch list from getting guns (are those the laws you're talking about).

The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

The Action is not an order until it goes thru congress
The conflict is that it is not just about gunshow loopholes, there are 5 things added, some of them slippery slopes.

They need to fix what they have for background checks before the potus tries to appease gun control advocates.

38 states report less than 80% of felonies which allowed mass murderers in the past to get thru the checks. I know we can do better

So this should have been entitled "executive action" instead of "executive order" since what he did was an executive action. The article I just read quoted Pres. Obama as He noted that many of the actions he's calling for can only be imposed through legislative action.

"Congress still needs to act," Obama said"

And from another article:

In short ...
A presidential executive order "is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers," according to Robert Longley, writing at usgovinfo.about.com. "In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors."
By contrast, a presidential executive action is kind of a catch-all term, writes NBC, which quoted an unnamed administration official in 2011 as saying: "It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch's toolbox."

Political writer Tom Murse says: "[Most] executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress."
Murse writes:
"The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register.

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

[Rockport24]

yup, all of us will be paying that fee to an FFL to transfer guns for private sale..

[Rockport24]

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Since Obama got all teared up when discussing Newtown, can someone please explain how any of these new "laws" would have prevented that terrible tragedy?

I mean, this POS stole his mother's guns, killed her, then proceeded with the rest of the atrocity. His mother passed all of the very strict regs in CT to legally obtain her guns (which, like MA, requires one to pass a criminal background check to even be licensed to possess a gun!)

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

because he's trying to add in restrictions about mental health


I don't understand why he does this crap, it just drives people away from the left toward the right

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

[PaulS]

So the first stuff I quoted meant it was an executive action. I just saw an other article stating it was an executive order

Just wasting time on a slow day.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

agreed on the second sentence! But let's say there was a mental health check required to buy a gun, the mother likely would have still passed it and she's the one who bought the guns, not her son who killed her and the everyone else!

Bottom line: It would have done NOTHING to stop Newtown. Obama can cry us all a river, these actions won't stop this kind of thing from happening again.

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

I forget . Isn't she dead ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps there's a solution here where liability could be factored in. If you have a son with known mental issues, you should be responsible for preventing that person access to your weapons.

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

it was silly question...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[ThrowingTimber]

What is NICS and how does it work?

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. "

Congrats. Hussein obama has given you something thats been in place for quite a bit.

Stay the course maybe he'll give you a pizza party or maybe even taco tuesday 😱


Posted from my

iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

LOL! true! and I don't think he has ever fake cried about all these kids killed in chicago either

[PaulS]

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I have to assume anyone that takes the life of an innocent person has a screw loose somewhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I don't recall much about that?

But this kid in Newtown, and absolutely the Jared Loughner kid in Arizona, these were kids that were terribly broken, in desperate need of help, there were plenty of warning signs.

There are 2 things we can do. we can continue to let the mentally ill roam free, until after they hurt someone. If this is what we decide to do, we can't be shocked when they occasionally snap.

Or we can make it easier to commit the mentally ill. If we do that, we will be locking up a lot of people that probably wouldn't ever hurt anyone, but if we stop a very small number from going on killing sprees, maybe it's worth it. Maybe not. That'sthe conversation we need to have, at lesat regarding large-scale shootings by the mentally ill.

Th egarden variety urban violence, which accounts for the vast majority of gun violense, is a completely different issue, requiring a completely different solution.

[Rockport24]

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

You mentioned newtown a few times and have said this wouldn't have done anything to prevent it from happening. Maybe it would have prevented VT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device