Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What did I miss?

What did I miss?

Seven hours in the car because the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations decided this morning to forget how to drive, so there were spinouts on Route 146 which had me sitting in a virtual parking lot as I headed towards the Mass Pike and eventually Ithaca.

I crossed three jurisdictions.  Thankfully none of them were D.C.

I have not had a chance to review Obama’s new gun proposals and executive orders.  So enlighten me.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I have to show id if I want to buy a gun, which means the Obama administration is racist towards the poor and illegal immigrants who want to exercise their Constitutional rights.

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

    1. I don’t follow gun politics closely, but at first blush it looks like he’s backing away from an open, all-out Constitutional brawl.

    2. Which is something to keep in mind wrt the fiscal crisis—if we can get the country on our side.

    3. 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

    So he agrees we were crazy to reelect him?

    lightning in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 16, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    What these do is utilize the medical/mental health health records (that were created by Obamacare) as the new database to determine the criteria for gun permits. What people miss, is that this isn’t just about your doctor asking if you own a gun. This is about you, your spouse, or your child(ren) telling a doctor, therapist, or school psychologist that they feel depressed, anxious, suicidal, fearful, or that they have a condition that requires psyciatric medication. Once you have been treated and given your psych meds, your doctor/therapist writes notes. These notes are what are submitted to insurance companies for payment. Medicaid already has a system set up to screen notes & treatment plans to determine if they will pay and cover future treatment. Once these agencies have open acess to each others database (executive order #1) this will be used to determine if you are qualified to have a gun permit or to pass a background check. This and #4 are the most concerning of these orders. The good news is that right now the individual states determine the criteria for gun permits. I currently live in a state that has decent criteria. God help those in states that don’t. God also help us if the power base changes and these executive orders are utilized in the method they were intended. Worse case? I see a future were vets, tea partiers, anyone who is taking any form of psychotropic medication, and people who have someone in their home who is taking medication being told they cannot have a permit and/or that their current permit is revoked. I think Mr. Higgins is correct in his quote of Mein Kampf. This is the beginning of something very bad. It can be stopped, but the question is do people have the backbone to do it? I don’t fear Obama. I fear the unknown future politicians at both the state and federal level who will take these executive orders and use them just like Hitler did. This has happened before. I hope we can stop it before we have a true recreation of history.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to lightning. | January 16, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      I mentioned on the California as test case thread this angle & got snarled at.

      Bobby Jindal is definitely thinking upping the mental health restriction. Intrusiveness aside – this is going to be difficult to push back on.

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to lightning. | January 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm

      I don’t think the doctor/therapist submits all notes, just codes from the DSM-whatever-number-they’re-on. Anything more violates doctor/patient confidentially.

        Wrong. I am a therapist and I had to submit my notes and treatment plans to medicaid. Trust me when I say that Medicaid already has a system set up to key in on certain words or phrases in notes/treatment plans. I spent most of my time learning how to write notes and treatment plans to ensure payment for the services I provided. In regard to confidentiality, it is common practice for therapists to not include details. What is done in the notes is we state what treatment goal on the treatment plan was discussed, progress towards that goal, and future plans to continue to address that problem. We also need to put in statements about how the problem still exists and that progress is being made, without saying too much progress is being made or we won’t get paid. My point about the data systems in the actions is that the professional (doctor, therapist, etc. will need to (at the very least) state the problem under discussion, the treatment initiated, and/or the progress such treatment has had. The professional won’t need to ask if you have a gun. They will simply write in their notes that Mr. Smith came today complaining of depression/anxiety and Zoloft was prescribed. Follow-up to come in two weeks. That is the note – that will be in the data base. The data base will be programmed to pick up on the word “Zoloft” and will then identify Mr. Smith as someone who should not pass a background check or have a CCW permit. These are how notes are done now. The difference is that that information used to be used soley for compensation. Obama is now making that available to determine whether or not you enjoy your second amendment rights.

    snopercod in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    “7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”

    That’s pretty funny since the NRA has been doing exactly that since the fifties!

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2013 at 3:04 pm

“I have not had a chance to review Obama’s new gun proposals and executive orders. So enlighten me.”

This pretty much covers it:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

–Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler [Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403]

Seems to me that the list of 23 is mostly the creation of paperwork and hot air. Good Lord, do we really need another “national dialogue”?

Beyond that, according to the press release “we must redouble our efforts” to reinstate the “assault weapons” ban, limit high capacity magazines, blah, blah, blah . . . .

At least the Emperor seems to realize that this is within Congress’s purview. And, since Harry Reid has already said such legislation is a dead letter, and nothing of the like is going to pass the house, it seems like this grand announcement is nothing more than a bunch of preening before his fawning press.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.*

*Except for those guns sold as part of a Justice Department firearm relocation program.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Barry asking/directing, Mr. Fast&Furious? Sure, uh huh, yep.

Buwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..

    lightning in reply to JP. | January 16, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    No, that is for when Homeland Security doubles down on its claims that domestic terrorism by right wing extremists is a greater threat to national security than anything else. That way they can attempt to ensure that the crazy vets coming back from Afganistan can no longer have access to weapons. They (the vets) are the “bad guys slipping through the cracks”.

Some of what Obama proposed is pretty much inline with NRA suggestions. What I dont understand is the Obamacare relationship he hints at…as if Obamacare is the be all and end all of how Doctors do business.
And how will Doctors find comfortable middle ground between confidentiality and urging by government?
Drudge likened it to Deputizing Medical Professionals.

    So which one wins ?
    – The E.O. # 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes
    Or
    -The Congress approved and Supreme Court upheld Obamacare law?

    (c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

    ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

    ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

    ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘

    (2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

    ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

    ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

    ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

    ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/12/obamacare-provision-forbids-democrats-from-restricting-guns-and-ammo/

      lightning in reply to tazz. | January 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      That is the a very important question. My understanding of executive orders is that they are directives to the various agencies under the executive branch in how to act in a given situation. He is attempting a line item veto and my understanding is that this is not constitutional. If anyone knows differently please share. The other aspect is that I think that states control the criteria for gun permits and for background checks. This makes these orders less worrisome, but not completely; especially since this can always change.

        It looks like he is trying to rewrite the parts of a Congressional approved, Supreme Court defended, Obamacare law that he doesn’t like.

A capsule of the 23…

Pres. Fast & Furious offers old stuff as new, agreement with NRA on “crazy stuff”, more Big Brother, and vacant chin-music.

But mostly vacant chin music.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 16, 2013 at 3:37 pm

I watched it. Maybe he was intentionally sullen out of respect for the Sandy Hook victims, but he seemed a bit dejected. It made me think he realizes he’s not going to get much of what he had initially hoped for.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

This is the start…..of banning private gun sales…which can get them where they want to go without a ban.

If you cannot sell your own private property, well…….follow the yellow brick road.

NY Senator Kathy Marchione Speaks Out Against Restrictive, Unconstitutional New Gun Control. VIDEO.

    george in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    I am sorry. I do not get the angst about the NY laws. The old laws were already very restictive. The new ones are jsust additioanl tweaks. Not very alarming given it is NY were are talking about.

    For example under the old law, the max # of rounds in a magazine was 10. Now it was moved to 7. significant?

    and from Ap

    Previously, New York state law on assault weapons banned semiautomatics that have detachable magazines and at least two military-type features, such as a pistol grip, folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The new law outlaws weapons with just one of those features.

    It also requires background checks for even private gun sales, except those among immediate family.

    In addition, it says handgun owners must renew their licenses every five years, and it increases prison sentences for using guns in various crimes or taking them onto school grounds.

    In a concession to the pro-gun side, local authorities will be allowed to withhold the identities of registered gun owners – an issue that erupted recently when a suburban New York City newspaper published the names and addresses of gun owners in its readership area.

    SO TELL ME WHAT THE HUE AND CRY ARE ABOUT?????

    —————–
    you can still buy a shot gun or a rifle for your home. You can still get a pistol permit. What is so scary???

      janitor in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      Did you notice the new registration requirements?

        george in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2013 at 4:15 pm

        yes. I register my car. I register to vote. i need a passport to got ot Canada.

        Gun registration sounds fine to me. Probably makes things safer for cops too. they know which houses are armed.

        why is registration so bad?

          wyntre in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm

          10-round mags are standard nationwide for rifles, handguns and other weapons. Most manufacturers don’t make a 7 shot mag. The law says now you can only put 7 rounds in a 10 round mag and if there are 8 rounds in it you’re breaking the law. Since the firearms already purchased come with the standard 10 shot mag the law basically says you can’t use the gun legally. The law is absurd. Not only has it made millions of New Yorkers criminals, overnight, it has also cost a lot of people a lot of money.

          Add to that outrage the bill was not even read by the senate or the HR and just shoved down our throats by Cuomo and it’s even worse.

          NYS calls for a three day window of transparency for the bill to be available to the public.

          That was not done, deliberately according to Cuomo, so there wouldn’t be a run on gun shops.

          He’s an SOB and this move was purely political, just like the POS’s bread and circus performance today with little kids who “wrote letters” expressing their fear of guns.

          BS.

          Teachers were told by their unions to include the letter writing as part of their daily lesson plans. Teachers wrote the form letter on a blackboard or handed out copies of what to write, prompting the kids to use their imaginations to come up with a sentence or two.

          Do I know that for sure? No. But as a former teacher in an urban leftie district I can guarantee you that’s what happened.

          The law is like waking up and suddenly discovering the car you bought last week is suddenly illegal because of some change in EPA regulations.

          It is BS. It is infuriating,. And it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

          There are already challenges to it and I hope like he11 NYS is forced to retract most of it.

      janitor in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm

      Did you notice the new restrictions on private sales?

        george in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2013 at 4:16 pm

        private car sales are registered too. Not a big deal.

          janitor in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:21 pm

          There is no constitutional right to have an automobile.

          george in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:33 pm

          true. but there is a constitutional right to vote and you registere for that.

          I guess this all is a difference of opinion between 2nd amendment absolutists and non abolutists.

          janitor in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:59 pm

          I’m no “absolutist”.

          If they want to make registering for gun ownership as easy as registering to vote or for selective service (ID the militia, not the guns), I don’t have a problem with that.

          If they want to have gun operation and safety classes in the public schools as a requirement for or incentive to graduate (instead of some of the non-academic pablum they currently push in schools), and hand out ID cards to be shown (not recorded) at the point of purchase, as might be required to buy a case of beer, I don’t have a problem with that.

          IrateNate in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 9:36 pm

          Janitor: Not sure if the 2nd Amendment gives the right to own a gun, or simply protects your right to do so…semantics.

      janitor in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:20 pm

      So, like boiling the toad in water until he discovers when it’s too late, it’s okay to infringe the Second Amendment as long as it’s done in baby steps, so that any new law is “not a big deal”?

      Correct, the law already was inappropriate. At what point do you say no, that it’s already gone too far?

      lightning in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      What is wrong is that most guns don’t have clips for 7 bullets. 10 yes, 7 no (except for Kimber which I have heard is located in NY). The features mentioned are commonplace on many guns and putting it down to 1 rather than 2 is more akin to an actual ban than “control”. Background checks seem benign, but then we get to the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment. If the government whittles down the number of gunowners and then has a database of the remaining who do have guns; it won’t be so hard to confiscate in the future. You have a God given right to not protect yourself and your family. The uproar in NY is due to people supporting the government in impeading the average citizen the right given by God to defend themselves and their family.

      creeper in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

      snopercod in reply to george. | January 16, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      George: I’m sorry you seem to have forgotten your history, so let me refresh your memory. Adolph Hitler’s Gestapo first registered all guns in Germany…then confiscated them:

      “On order of the Reich Security Main Office, Berlin, the Head Office of the State Police in Munich is in charge of the supervision and control of the sale of weapons and ammunition in your district. The Rural District Administrators, as well as the Mayors and Mayors of former primary district towns in Upper Bavaria shall therefore record

      1. Monthly (beginning on February 10, 1941), all persons who have acquired firearms from arms dealers requiring a permit or who have submitted a request for a permit to acquire firearms if the request was granted by the responsible authority. This also applies to cases where the firearm was not acquired from an arms dealer. The record shall contain first and last names (for women also their maiden name), occupation, date and place of birth, as well as exact street address; further, the type and serial number of the weapon.

      2. All persons who purchased ammunition for firearms from weapons dealers requiring a permit. Besides the personal information required, the type of the ammunition shall be listed. Exempt from the compulsory registration are persons acquiring firearms or ammunition or submitting requests for weapons permits, if they are members of the military with the rank of officer, leaders of SS Verfügungstruppe [SS Special Assignment Troops], police officers, or political leaders beginning with the rank of Ortsgruppenführer [community group leader] and up; likewise, persons who acquire hunting weapons or ammunition are not subject to compulsory registration.

      It appears advisable to have the weapons dealers monitored and checked by the executing police. Separate records shall be kept for each kind of weapons transaction.”

      –Source: Geheime Staatspolizei, Staatspolizeileitstelle München, An die Landräte in Oberbayern et al., Betreff: Überwachung und Kontrolle der Waffen- und Munitionsverkäufe, 21 January 1941. Found in BHStA, B.Nr. 28115/41, II Schd./Roh.

      I propose that 6 million Jews would not have been murdered if guns had not been registered. I further propose that 70 million Americans who died in WW II would not have died.

        george in reply to snopercod. | January 16, 2013 at 7:53 pm

        There was a small incremental change in NY gun laws. Small potatoes. Society in NY will continue with no change at all from these new incremental law. Militias will still function. Guns in home still ok.

        Your analogy is ridiculous. We are not living amidst Nazis. Geez Louise

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to snopercod. | January 16, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        The ‘Jews’ lived across Europe . They were always under varying laws . Even If many had had small arms they could not have held off Panzers & the Luftwaffe for 6 years.

        Snoper – 70 million Americans did not die in WW2.

        I hope you come back & correct that.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | January 16, 2013 at 8:39 pm

          I recently read a bio of a Jewish lawyer in soviet Poland in 1940. He had had a boarder for a few months that they suspected of being a German spy. This man left behind – perhaps on purpose – a small revolver .

          Whilst the lawyer could see the value , he knew possession of thus would have been an instant death warrant , so they had to dispose of it in bits .

          This man went on to become a lawyer for the Red Army in Stalingrad – so he was no fool.

    janitor in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    P.S. She would like NY’ers to sign her petition. She wants to repeal those parts of the law that infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

    wyntre in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    She’s already got 40,000 signatures. Go to the petition and sign.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. *

* Except for any person or persons participating in any past, current, or anticipated future Federal weapons relocation program.

Deputizes Doctors.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to gracepmc. | January 16, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    This is going to get interesting…..

    My doctor shoots at the same range I do, and my dentist.

    One of our asst coaches on our youth shooting sports teams is the most popular pediatrician in town.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to gracepmc. | January 16, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Now my sense of humor is kicking in…..

    Does this mean my doctor has to report my target scores? Because it’s been really cold this week and my targets are always bad on cold days! I swear!

I’m told there was some pedophilia on television today. Some sick whacko exploited children’s innocence and naïveté for personal gratification. Or so I’m told.

Professor, you should know better. The people of the State of Rhode Island didn’t forget how to drive, they never knew in the first place.

The most dangerous thing on a Massachusetts highway is a car bearing Rhode Island license plates.

And what the heck were you doing on 146 in a snow storm?

Should have just bit the bullet and gone up 95…

Or can I no longer say “bite the bullet”?

Is that in those Supra-constitutional Executive Orders issued today by King Barack the Fibber?

Does Obama’s speech mean that Eric Holder’s DOJ is still going to give away guns to Mexican drug dealers?

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm

RE: Private gun sales

Here in NC, the law requires that if I want to legally sell one of my handguns to another citizen, that citizen must have one of two things, either a concealed carry permit or a one-time permit to buy, either one obtained from the buyer’s county Sheriff’s Dept after a background check. Either way, a background check on the buyer is conducted.

Is it different in other states?

hes more flexible now.
thats all you need to realize.

#11: Ted Nugent comes to mind.

Classic Obama: it’s not about guns, it’s about Big Brother. In addition to keeping any weapons they take the list provides a blank check for any government organization or agency to demand any information they wish about you from any organization or agency they ask by simply inserting the word “gun” in the request, including doctors who may ask about guns in your home if they wish. And the mandatory private sector “challenge,” of course.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend