Executive Order background checks

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Did you ever think that is because now people know they need counseling now, where before it came out of nowhere.

People who fail or are prevented probably also didn't want to succeed.....they were looking for help.

If somebody truly wants to die.....they will.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it goes back to people making a quick decision (say you unexpectedly get fired and think your life is over). Once you have not succeeded you'll probably get some help. With a gun there are probably few 2nd chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree it's a worthy cause but that would require Republicans to stop thwarting VA funding.

Seems to of found the money for this useless Executive Order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Seems to of found the money for this useless Executive Order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure that's going to be another fight the Speaker caves on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm sure that's going to be another fight the Speaker caves on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True
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).

[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

[Rockport24]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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 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

[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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think it goes back to people making a quick decision (say you unexpectedly get fired and think your life is over). Once you have not succeeded you'll probably get some help. With a gun there are probably few 2nd chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and sometimes when you fail you're #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up for the rest of your life....

http://frater.com/suicidelist.html

and not a lot of wiggle room on some of these methods either....

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-metho...lethal-methods

9 out of 10 times when you try hanging yourself you succeed....and the other 1 probably doesn't re-try it again because they can only eat soup through a straw due to the irreparable brain damage they suffered...

[Slipknot]

watch this and learn the truth

https://www.nranews.com/series/wayne...kground-checks

[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."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

Not to be snarky but if that's his wish , most of this can be done with out a big dog and pony show . What's the point of taking shots at the GOP . Yea we know he "cares " deeply but what has he done . His justice department doesn't care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

OK,
so if it's an order then congress would need to un-do it

well as I've said before, they should fix the system they have and stop blaming the guns for these tragedies he is crying about and find the real root of the issue

[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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here it is...let's say 250 get shot in Chicago in an average weekend. If we put these rules in place, how many less shootings can we expect in Chicago in an average weekend, as a direct result of these regulations? 3? 5?

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

[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

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

True and that's how mine are stored .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I see the liability being shifted to the doctors .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device