White House announces two new 'executive actions' on guns

[aikoaiko]

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.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/03/22163660-white-house-announces-two-new-executive-actions-on-guns?lite

Some of the militant anti-gunners won't like these changes because they don't support their culture war against gun owners, but careful and prudent regulations that prevent those with mental illness symptoms that could lead to violence from acquiring a firearm are a good thing. Couple this with opening NICS to private sellers and some real change might occur.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[Hoyt]

2. If gunners really cared, they would not transfer a gun without FFL involved.

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)

You guys can do that now, rather than selling gunz in a back alley for fistful of cash without background check. Private citizens should not have access to NICS, they cannot be trusted to keep documentation, and do not have level of accountability required of FFL. Do the right thing now, President should not have to force so-called law-abiding gun owners into acting responsibly.

[Ranchemp.]

18. You have quite the imagination there.

[Deep13]

51. I never do.

The local FFL dealer charges $20 for that. Why not do it?

[Hoyt]

53. Thanks. I agree. I've seen some charge $35, but even paying that is responsible thing to do.

[Glassunion]

67. And if the state governments really cared they wouldn't require you to go just to an FFL

In my state, you can just swing by the Sheriff's dept and pay a total of $5 for a deputy to run the check and transfer.

[Duckhunter935]

69. I like that

[Hoyt]

73. That's good too. But, if the state doesn't, what do you think a so-called responsible gun owner

should do? What do you think most actually do?

I kind of like the idea of having to go by the Sheriff's office. I'd support that.

[Chuuku Davis]

3. I have a feeling that soon

If you have a DUI, possession charge or speeding ticket
You will not be allowed to own a firearm of ANY type
This govt is a bit overbearing in the last 25 years

[dhill926]

4. Yeah, exactly what I took from this....

Not.

[Hoyt]

5. Gun fanciers have been a bit out there too. I think if one has a DUI, they should not be able

to carry a gun in public. Too many irresponsible folks with gunz as it is now.

[madinmaryland]

36. Good thought. They should be charged with

a DUI type offense when thay are caught openly carrying a gun in public.

[seveneyes]

65. And I suppose shoplifters should never be allowed to shop again

Jay walkers never allowed to cross the street again.

[Hoyt]

72. How many innocent folks get killed, wounded, intimidated by a shoplifter or jaywalker?

But a gun in the hand/pants of a drunk is an obvious problem, don't you think?

[JoePhilly]

10. I think being determined to be PARANOID might be a better reason.

As determined by insane posts about ridiculous gun laws that no one is proposing ... as one example.

[Skip Intro]

17. Oh sure, tip of the iceburg.

Giant step down the road of we answer to and obey government. You will need the government's permission for so much more than guns if this actually goes into effect. And, since the con job didn't work, they're just going to declare it.

This should be stopped. The potential for acceptance that the idea that the government can just order something and your health records are scanned before you do anything they don't want you to do, even if you have a right to do it, is frightening.

[spanone]

21. bull & shit.

[madinmaryland]

41. Apparently you are living in Wayne's World. It has gone exactly 180 degrees

from what you just said. The gun-worshippers now can carry guns just about anywhere they want and the NRA wants everyone to have gunz.

[MyNameGoesHere]

50. And gun owners have been a little whiny in the last 25 years.

And still they feel so oppressed. Like a delicate flower, withering in the summers heat.

[Duckhunter935]

58. little whiny

what pointing out that laws like banning bayonet lugs and adjustable stocks are a joke and will not prevent anything. How about supporting legislation that might actually make an impact on some these events?

I always love the fact that some just have to go in the broad brush attack and name calling and then wonder why they are not taken seriously by gun owners. A large number of them are democrats and independents.

[MyNameGoesHere]

66. Exactly! Just like you showed and example of.

That was exactly what I was referring to.

[petronius]

62. In California, a bill passed the Legislature that would have given a 10 year

prohibition of gun possession for anyone getting 2 DUIs within the span of 3 years (if I understood it correctly). Governor Brown vetoed SB 755 (2013-2014) with the statement "I am not persuaded that it is necessary to bar gun ownership on the basis of crimes that are non-felonies, non-violent and do not involve misuse of a firearm." I agree with the governor...

[madinmaryland]

6. "militant anti-gunners" nuff said. You guys are all out tonight.

[1000words]

32. Yup

Surely there are no "Obama is taking our guns" types declaring DEFCON 1 tonight

[X_Digger]

7. I'd like more detail

If it's like the 23 (21?) EO's that the president signed last year.. yeah, kinda token measure.

USC 922 is pretty straightforward as to what constitutes a prohibited person. I'm not sure what the president could propose that would be within his power yet significantly changed that.

e.g. A 'diagnosis' of mental illness doesn't meet the due process burden to deny a right the way a conviction or an involuntary commitment does.

[HereSince1628]

8. Not an executive order, but "statements", it's posted at the WH website here are

brief explanations included there:

Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. 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.

Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. 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. 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.

--------------

For those not familiar with the term "outpatient commitment" apparently refers to mandated/involuntary treatment that allows the patient to live in the community rather than within an institution.

[X_Digger]

9. Ahh, thanks for the text!

It really is enforcing the current system, then.

I would assume that outpatient commitments are a judicial proceeding where a person gets an advocate or attorney, right? If so, I have no due process problems with this executive statement.

[Tx4obama]

13. Below is a link to the full White House fact sheet regarding the 'executive actions'

Here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/03/fact-sheet-strengthening-federal-background-check-system-keep-guns-out-p

[X_Digger]

20. Well, that's only mildly more explanatory..

Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications

What rule change is being proposed? What section of what rule or law?

[Tx4obama]

27. Found more info, links below

Regarding the DOJ - http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/January/14-ag-002.html

Regarding HHS - Here's a link to a HHS article with more details: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/01/20140103a.html
and there is a link at the bottom of the article that says...

The NPRM will be available for review beginning at 4:15pm on Friday, January 3, 2014, at: http://www.federalregister.gov

[X_Digger]

29. Ahh, so a change to USC 922. That clarifies a lot.

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.

The only thing I can see that gives me pause is a scenario like the following: Let's say a father finds his daughter being sexually abused and kills the abuser, but is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. That person would never be able to own a gun.

Which gets to a bigger point..

The 1968 GCA was written when the typical 'treatment' for mental illness was involuntary commitment, frequently for decades of a patient's life. There was little understanding about actual treatment- if you were broken, you could never be fixed.

That's a perception that lingers in popular culture today. However, we've come a long way in effectively treating depression and suicidal ideation among other mental conditions that might make one a danger to themselves or others.

The GCA needs to be updated to match the current realities in clinical treatment. It's not an easy challenge, but it needs to be done.

[TroglodyteScholar]

33. Grade A post!

Your point about the GCA being written in a different era is an excellent one.

[Hoyt]

14. Would you sell one of your guns to someone with a serious mental condition?

Or, would you cop out and say that legally it's not my problem or business and take the cash?

[HereSince1628]

19. The issue isn't really the presence of a 'serious mental condition'

the issue is a decision on whether a person is a 'danger to self, others or property'.

Although popular belief suggests that serious mental illness always or even usually makes the afflicted person either violent or incompetent, that's just popular belief.

A serious problem that laws don't actually address is, according to the APA, that even for person with 'serious' mental illnesses the psychiatric industry really cannot predict with any accuracy who will be a danger to self, others or property.

Some states like Texas, have attempted to address the issue with lists of mental illnesses that preclude gun purchases. But in the state with the worst numbers for getting people diagnoses the list really can't even address the intent of the legislature that created it.

[Hoyt]

34. I don't think I've ever met a gun fancier capable of making that determination.

So I guess we just let gun fanciers transfer gunz to just about anyone with a fistful of cash as long as it is a private sale, or doesn't arise to being in business of dealing gunz at a gun show (the loophole gun fanciers say doesn't exist, but does).

[X_Digger]

24. I would never knowingly sell to a prohibited person.

But 'serious mental condition' is so vague as to be meaningless.

Someone with OCD? How about serious arachnophobia?

[Hoyt]

35. I know, you guys will find a way to rationalise taking the cash. Never had any doubt.

[X_Digger]

37. Details matter, Hoyt. Bloviating and hand-wringing don't actually *do* anything.

I know that would require you to actually *think* about problems rather than just flailing and squealing.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Hoyt]

39. The only aspect of the problem that concerns you is how to protect your access to gunz and

the ability to sell them to whomever you please.

[X_Digger]

40. ^ Perfect example. Thanks for making my point for me. n/t

[Ranchemp.]

74. ^^^^

[HereSince1628]

16. I don't know that there is a national standard for outpatient commitment.

AKA "assisted outpatient commitment" in the states that do this it's involuntary. I would expect this to vary from state to state in a manner similar to variations of "involuntary commitment".

[X_Digger]

26. Well, as long as there's an actual judicial hearing, with proper representation..

.. it doesn't raise any due process concerns for me.

If it were voluntary outpatient treatment.. that would be a whole other kettle of fish.

[Skip Intro]

11. Some who value individual rights and libeties don't like it either.

Not thrilled with the idea of the government mentally evaluating the populace before allowing the rights we all share to become effective.

Might be cool with many when it comes to guns - the less guns the better the saying goes, but it won't stop at guns.

It won't.

The government will have access to your mental health records and will, on some other flimsy justification and associated crusade, seek to curtail other rights. Sounds like tinfoil hat lunacy, until you look at the huge, fully intrusive spying on every American by the government, and the tapping of phone lines of the media by the government (talk about a chilling effect on dissent and oversight and criticism), and yes, the effort against guns, which is also chilling when you're not mesmerized by propaganda.

Mental-health registry of the American people. No. No thanks. I hope it is prevented. It is not a good thing.

[Tx4obama]

15. See the link in Comment #13

[Skip Intro]

30. Worse than I thought.

Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. 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. 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.

--------------

read that, every word - that is the government declaring it can limit your rights based on its evaluation of your health history - having a bout of depression and talking about it to a doctor suddenly became a liability, based on the government's declaration.

this is not good

[Tx4obama]

31. Also see links in Comment #27

[Skip Intro]

44. And even worse. n/t

[X_Digger]

43. Skip, I think you may be reading more into it than is intended..

There are some states that have submitted ZERO records of involuntary commitments to NICS- because the way those states' attorney general offices read HIPAA, they're claiming they're not allowed to make that submission.

This is a suggested change to remedy that.

[Skip Intro]

49. I think you may be reading less into it as intended

however, I hope you're right and I'm wrong

Given the context of the government's mass surveillance and tapping the press' phone lines, etc, I think what I've read on this, which I think is all there is on it so far, is not good. The government gets to more closely examine and evaluate your mental health records, via new, self-declared powers, before allowing you to exercize your rights.

Depressed 12 years ago? Sorry, no ___ for you. Thank you for contacting the government.

Next...

[X_Digger]

56. I'll await the final language for the proposed rule change, to be sure. n/t

[X_Digger]

64. Here's the proposed text..

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/07/2014-00039/definition-of-adjudicated-as-a-mental-defective-and-committed-to-a-mental-institution

The proposed rule would clarify that the statutory term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, lack of mental responsibility, or insanity, and that the term includes persons found guilty but mentally ill. The Department recognizes that the term “mental defective” is outdated, but it is included in the statute and cannot be amended by regulation. The proposed amendments would further clarify that federal, state, local, and military courts are recognized lawful authorities that can find persons incompetent to stand trial or find them not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, lack of mental responsibility, or insanity.
...
In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of “committed to a mental institution” to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment.
...
Persons are not considered to have been “committed to a mental institution” as a result of a voluntary admission to a mental institution or a temporary admission for observation unless the temporary admission for observation turns into a qualifying commitment as a result of a formal commitment by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. Great news. Get ready, gunners! FEMA camps by 2015!

Muahahahahah!

Participate in guns for bows campaign and start working on archery skills. You may soon be called up to provide entertainment and sportsmanship at tournaments for the 1%!!11

[bowens43]

22. " culture war against gun owners"

that's like complaining that there is a culture war against cancer.

"militant anti-gunners??? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Ah, so now you've sunk to equating gun owners with cancer.

Could you possibly be any less rational...?

[Hoyt]

38. Hey gun fanciers use autos, flashlights, fire extinguishers, hammers, etc., to rationalize their

need for gunz everywhere. I get his point. You should too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Oh, I get his "point" all right.

His "point" (aside from the one under his hat) was to make an incredibly insulting, assholish insult to all gun owners. A perfect example of why allowing gun threads in GD (the ban is useless, as it's entirely unenforced) is a horrible idea.

A pity I can't say what I really thing about that poster, to be blunt...although frankly, given DU's rapid degeneration, getting banned might be no bad thing.

[Hoyt]

47. At least he's not trying to defend something that should be taboo in a civilized society - more

gunz in more places. Gun fanciers' "point" is pretty darn insulting too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. I didn't really expect anything better than a "tu quoque" fallacy.

And I didn't get anything better, either...

Quelle surprise!

[Ranchemp.]

54. Keep it up Hoyt,

you are, by far, the best spokesman for the 2A movement.

[Hoyt]

59. Nah, best spokespersons are militia types, preepies, bigots, white wing,

Zimmermans, etc.

That's the majority of what you call the "2A Movement."

[Ranchemp.]

61. You're a riot.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. These are sensible steps.

Making a wider range of medical records available to the NICS system is something a lot of people (on both sides of the gun control debate) have been advocating for a long time.

[X_Digger]

28. Well, I don't see this as a wider range of records, but more of the records that the law intended..

.. as originally written- records of involuntary commitments.

[Deep13]

52. Honestly, I'm not so keen on mental health providers turning over confidential...

...information to police or Federal authorities on their own initiative.

[gwheezie]

55. Most murders are not committed by crazy people.

My concern is we get talked into a mental illness registry but god forbid we register guns, by registering the mentally ill, that would give the pro give a gun to everyone faction the argument that we don't need background checks for every type of gun transaction, just make a list of the mentally ill.
Each state has their own mental health laws, I've worked in 4 different states, most of the laws are about the same. Here is the problem in Virginia for instance. After VT and Cho the mental health laws were changed, we can now commit to outpatient treatment. The budget for this expansion was supposed to hire more case managers, it didn't. I've seen very few people take that avenue. Also, people who are mentally ill do not display symptoms all the time that are obvious, so if you are privately selling your gun, you yourself do not have some sort of detection system that determines who is mentally ill, if you believe you possess that, you are mentally ill. There is also the lack of beds and the limitations of eco's and tdo's.
Every commitment hearing I've been to has an attorney representing the rights of the patient. You can appeal your commitment and there is a mechanism to restore gun rights. I've worked with psychiatrists who have testified in restoration of gun rights hearings. Not many will do it, huge liability.
I've also had patients who were able to obtain weapons legally since they were not required background checks due to type of weapon or bought them privately, who were stable and able to reality test on discharge, leave treatment and after a few months wind up killing folks.
But mostly I have seen the chronically seriously mentally ill victimized more than anything.

[Duckhunter935]

57. lot of word salad

so bottom line is you just want to register weapons? And how would that help?

I do not think that adding good correct information to the NICS is a bad thing. As long as it is not abused as so often the government seems to do.

[99Forever]

60. Oh NOES!

...The po po opressed gun nutz and their *My Precious* ...

[onehandle]

63. 'Obama's comin' to git arr gunzzz!!!'

Gun fetishists just hate the Black President, period.

[Eleanors38]

68. Actually, a good discussion, here. Something you can't abide. nt

[Duckhunter935]

70. You notice that

Good discussion on a topic then one side starts with the name calling, racist baiting, penis jokes. just shows who really wants to have an honest discussion. Kind of sad actually.

[Eleanors38]

75. I've long contended gun-control is an elitist outlook. DU proves it...

The l ONLY thing some controllers want in DU is the widest possible forum (GD) where they can effect an uninterrupted and explicitly-stated campaign of smear, personal attack, potty talk and ostracizing. A posting of "national import" is just as good as some clod shooting himself in the foot in Buffalo Breath, Montana, because the dialog is always the same. I think Everyone is aware of this, but these folk are empowered & enabled, and elbow their way back into GD everytime, despite a general consensus that gun topics should be in the groups provided. No surprise: Their strongest suit is pressuring other elites to get their way.

I'll state again: acquiescing to this state of affairs has encouraged the degradation of dialogue not only about "guns," but about other issues as well.

Start a real movement, not some trumped-up, name-calling intramural "struggle" on a web site.

[Calista241]

71. Won't this require a change to the HIPPA law?

N/t

[Blue_Tires]

76. There's a "culture war" against gun owners?

I must have been missing it all this time...

Hell, from the Colorado recalls to guns from 3-D printers to the Zimmerman acquittal, 2013 was arguably the best year for gunners in recent memory....

Since I've mentioned Zimmerman, now might be a proper time to have a discussion about the culture war against black Americans...Of course I realize nobody here wants to go anywhere near that conversation...