New executive actions on gun background checks

[TripleDigitRide]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/

 

The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus. 

 

Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

 

One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA. 

 

"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 statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules." 

 

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.   

 

The statement from Biden's office claimed these changes would help ensure that "better and more reliable information" makes its way into the system. 

 

Over the past year, the administration has been trying to get states to offer up more data for that system, after failing to pass legislation to expand the background check infrastructure. 

 

The administration made a robust effort to pass gun control legislation after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., but the bills, which included new bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, failed to gain enough support in Congress.

In the Friday statement, President Obama and Biden renewed their call for Congress to pass "common-sense gun safety legislation" -- including by expanding the background check system and making gun trafficking a federal crime.

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by TripleDigitRide

[bersaguy]

I see so many flaws and holes in that you could not strain boiled potatoes through it. All it is going to do is stop people that really need help from seeking the help. Also most mental hospitals will probably not comply with it or will with hold a lot of information that they feel is an invasion of

patient / doctor confidentiality. Also, don't we already have background laws on the books? Every time I buy a gun at a gun shop or Gun Show they run one on me.  Also I can't help but wonder why they thought they had to add that last part about Gun Trafficking being a Federal Offense. I thought is was already a  Federal Felony Offense and if that is true why has Eric Holder not been charged with it and already in the Graybar Hotel with big Bubba?  ..................jmho

[Raoul]

So if they make gun trafficking a federal crime will Holder be charged....

[Peace]

It is already illegal for a private individual to "traffic" with intent to sell across state lines.  -though... I do not believe it is a specific (in name) federal crime.

[mikegideon]

So if they make gun trafficking a federal crime will Holder be charged....

 

Members of the Obama administration are exempt from all laws, and the US Constitution.

[Oh Shoot]

It is already illegal for a private individual to "traffic" with intent to sell across state lines.  -though... I do not believe it is a specific (in name) federal crime.

 

Sure it is. Personal sales are illegal between residents of different states regardless of where they occur. Illegal for seller to do it in any state and illegal for buyer to bring it into his state.

 

Seems inclusive to me, no?

 

The mental health reporting is of course fraught with possibilities of abuse on federal level. How can voluntary mental health treatment be both private and yet shared with the feds at the same time?

 

- OS

Edited January 3, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[PolePosition]

I think there is value in increasing the amount of information available to TICS/NICS/etc. Don't ask me to outline a plan, because I have none. But lets say a person is a paranoid delusional schizophrenic (just naming an extreme condition that the general public may be aware of). Wouldn't it be in the public interest for this information to be available to the database so that a purchase can be stopped? The database report doesn't give the FFL or Feds or anyone with a detailed report. It is a simple yay or nay. If it is not ok for criminals to possess firearms, the same rationale applies to the very mentally ill. I also think there needs to be a measure put in place that allows an individual to appeal a rejection. Perhaps a formal psychiatric evaluation would be able to clear the person from the database if they indeed are no longer deemed severely mentally ill and do not pose a threat.

 

Having spent some rotations at the VA hospital...there are some very sick veterans that have suicidal ideations that I would not think it prudent for them to have the ability to purchase firearms which may be used to harm themselves or others. I'm not talking about having the "thought police" or anything like that. But just like criminals have a higher propensity to commit violence, very mentally ill individuals also have a higher propensity than the general public. This is not to say that anyone who has anxiety should be banned from owning firearms. But those that are very sick, perhaps to the point of institutionalization, should be flagged and barred from purchasing until cleared. There are ways to make it work and hopefully somebody will come up with a good system that will protect the public safety, the 2A, and the privacy of health information (by the way, it is not a violation of HIPAA to report a mentally ill patient who has expressed intent in committing violence)

Edited January 3, 2014 by PolePosition

[MemHeli]

I'm not sure where I fall on this.  It's a challenge for me.  A quote comes to mind though.  "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[mikegideon]

I think there is value in increasing the amount of information available to TICS/NICS/etc. Don't ask me to outline a plan, because I have none. But lets say a person is a paranoid delusional schizophrenic (just naming an extreme condition that the general public may be aware of). Wouldn't it be in the public interest for this information to be available to the database so that a purchase can be stopped? The database report doesn't give the FFL or Feds or anyone with a detailed report. It is a simple yay or nay. If it is not ok for criminals to possess firearms, the same rationale applies to the very mentally ill. I also think there needs to be a measure put in place that allows an individual to appeal a rejection. Perhaps a formal psychiatric evaluation would be able to clear the person from the database if they indeed are no longer deemed severely mentally ill and do not pose a threat.

 

Having spent some rotations at the VA hospital...there are some very sick veterans that have suicidal ideations that I would not think it prudent for them to have the ability to purchase firearms which may be used to harm themselves or others. I'm not talking about having the "thought police" or anything like that. But just like criminals have a higher propensity to commit violence, very mentally ill individuals also have a higher propensity than the general public. This is not to say that anyone who has anxiety should be banned from owning firearms. But those that are very sick, perhaps to the point of institutionalization, should be flagged and barred from purchasing until cleared. There are ways to make it work and hopefully somebody will come up with a good system that will protect the public safety, the 2A, and the privacy of health information (by the way, it is not a violation of HIPPA to report a mentally ill patient who has expressed intent in committing violence)

 

This sounds reasonable. But, how do you pull it off without doing more harm than good? The government is riddled with so much incompetence, do you really think they can pull off anything with even an ounce of good judgement? My gut says that they will have a very low success rate with the true goal, but will give the "guns are icky" crowd another tool to terrorize gun owners.

[Dane]

Problem is that anyone that wants a gun can get a gun regardless of any amount of background check in place. The background checks are a complete waste of resources. That money could be better spent helping those with mental illnesses. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It would encourage troubled people to avoid treatment. To stay under the radar so to speak.

[DaveTN]

I just read a story about how many Americans are on antidepressant drugs. So much for their background checks.

[Oh Shoot]

I just read a story about how many Americans are on antidepressant drugs. So much for their background checks.

 

Exactly. That's all it might take, and a simple additional executive order would make it take effect.

 

And hey, try getting off the list if you improve and don't need the meds anymore, eh?

 

- OS

[JohnC]

You can comment here (see links at bottom): http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/January/14-ag-002.html

The way it is worded here is a problem:
 

The revised definition clarifies that the statutory terms “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court.  The proposed regulation also clarifies that the statutory term includes a person committed to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment.

 
What the red says to me is a cleverly worded ending that states "regardless" of whether or not a court has adjudicated you as mentally ill (mental disease, mentally ill, lacking mental responsibility,, deemed insane, etc), you can still have your 2A rights denied.
 
If that is true, this is the most dangerous regulatory addition they could add. Remember, Obamacare will connect your medical records.  Doctors already try to trap folks like you go in from an injury and they ask their usual battery of questions probing for any reason to prescribe you drugs like "felt depressed lately, etc."
 
Also, just imagine how connected medical records are going to be and if you ever had a temporary issue in your life that they feel they want to make you ineligible to purchase guns, that they could revoke your rights because of it.

It's mental health today, tomorrow it'll be physical health. How long before something like Cataracts and Parkinson's will deem you a danger to self and others because you can't see good or shake too much?
 
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I do not trust the Govt with anymore power over our rights than they already have. Edited January 4, 2014 by JohnC

[frankmako]

you need to watch what you tell your new obama care doctor.  loose lips, sinks ships when you are talking to a government agent.