An offer to discuss. First, I’ll quote a Mississippi public official, apparently delighted that the Governor is suggesting a return to the Doctrine of Interposition (or something like it), who states that the president is “circumventing Congress” and attempting “to limit or restrict” the right to bear arms. Also, complains that use of executive order somehow “silences the voice of Mississippians”.
I have an impulse here to suggest that, the least one can do if being silenced is to shut the heck up.* But, laying that aside….
Here’s a list of what Obama is going to do about guns using executive orders. To my eye, they appear to be the sort of thing that can be accomplished by executive orders using existing legal structures. That is, implementing statutes already on the books. To what extent is that not so? And, if it is so, isn’t that what presidents do with executive order Also up for discussion: What seems unreasonable to folks, unless its the concept that doing anything is bad?
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.
__________
*I kept thinking that this comment drew on something from Tom Lehrer, and finally found it, from That Was The Week That Was: “[T]he characters in these books, and plays, and so on, and in real life, I might add, spend hours bemoaning the fact that they can’t communicate. I feel that if a person can’t communicate the very least he can do is to shut up.”
After reviewing these descriptions of the executive orders, I agree with many of them. However, the devil is always in the details. And I think, for instance, No. 2 on the list would change existing law as passed by Congress — HIPPAA. And there are other EOs on the list that could go beyond “existing legal structure”, especially to the extent that they could intrude upon the rights of privacy of those who are seeking mental health services. Unless such a patient has been determined by a mental health professional to be a danger to themselves or others, then such patient should not lose their constitutional rights, including their right to bear arms, and they should not have the fact of their treatment disclosed to anyone but other medical professions on an as needed basis. Doing anything other than that would discourage folks from getting needed mental health treatment. Some of these EOs appear capable of going past that threshold, depending upon the execution of the order.
I like Nos 12, 18, and 19, especially if they require public school districts to have some sort of armed security on the premises of schools — eg a combination of trained, armed security officers (could be a local LEO assigned to the school) and selected volunteer teachers/coaches/admins who undergo proper firearm and ER response training who keep a locked weapon readily available on the premises. And some basic physical security of the premises would help as well — eg don’t have glass that can be broken next or adjacent to the door lock mechanism so as to allow access to a locked entryway.
No. 4 appears to have the potential to be very problematic. It all depends upon the AG’s definition of who is “dangerous”. While we might all presume that this would primarily include those persons with serious mental illness who are determined by mental health professionals to constitute a danger to themselves and others, I would not give much benefit of a doubt in such presumptions to our current AG, who might just think that someone who differs politically with the party in power constitutes some type of “danger”. That would be an unconstitutional overreach. Don’t our federal laws specifically spell out who constitutes such a “danger”? Why leave such to the whim of a politically appointed AG?
We will need more details of these EOs in order to make judgment calls on their legality and practical merit.
Have not had a chance to examine all 23 closely. Not as bad as I expected though.
4. If all of a sudden I’m in a “category” I haven’t been in before because the Hon. Eric Holder decides that is how I should be categorized and that means turn them over then I’ve got a constitutional concern.
7. I’ve got better recipes for pork than this.
13. $$$
Why did Hollywood get a TOTAL pass on this?
Although I think Obama – like most of the federal government – is drunk with power, I could not figure out why these executive orders were so controversial either. It would be interesting to compile a list of all the EOs that Bryant has issued for comparison.
The best yet of this is Schieffer invoking Bin Laden and Hitler in his analysis of Obama’s “fight” for his preferred gun control methods.
So Obama is now calling for armed guards in our schools (I assume “resource officers” would be armed). Last guy who did that was treated as some kind of nut, but of course he was opposed to mass gun confiscation.
“So lets see if we can have a rational and civil discussion about this”
First, NMC, let me compliment you on this concept! An amazing idea that I have not seen anywhere yet.
EO’s don’t seem to amount to much, but as noted, the devil is always in the details. That said, looks like much ado about nothing – especially as to what will result from this.
I have concern about #4, but think that AG Holder is just as likely to abuse this with or without an EO.
As has already been stated, the devil is in the details, but, I’ll play the game.
1. Mostly no problem, however, I would want a definition of “relevant”
2. Mostly no problem, however, I would want a definition of “unnecessary”, particularly in light of the fact that HIPPA is for individual patient protection, not federal gun law enforcement.
3.No problem with the concept, but, how much money and validated how?
4. No problem. However, shouldn’t that already be the case? However, would this “review” result in making arbitrary changes defining what “dangerous” means?
5. Mostly no problem, however, I would want a definition of “full background check.” Does that equate to “top secret” or just “secret” clearance at a cost of 10-15 K for Top and 5-10 K for plain ole secret. Or so I’m told if you have to pay for the investigative expenses. Additionally, what is the time period allowed for this background check to be completed?
6. No problem.
7. No problem.
8. No problem. No problem. however, not quite sure what that accomplishes.
9. What does the “trace” consist of and for what purpose?
10. No problem. However, not quite sure what that information would accomplish?
11. No problem, in fact, excellent idea.
12. No problem, in fact, excellent idea.
13. Definitely no problem, in fact, that should have been #1. IMO. Not quite sure what “prevent gun violence” would mean to most perpetrators and how LEO would address that issue.
14. No problem. However, not quite sure that we can’t all surmise that on our own. However, I’d be concerned about bias in whoever the researchers are.
15. No problem.
16. Do wwwwwhhhhatttt??? Unless it is germane to why they are seeing their doctor or their treatment, WTF does this have to do with anything other than what appears to me to be a case of *reading into the record* for no apparent reason. I’d offer that this is pure bias or an overt attempt at making person be disqualified from owning a gun for no reason at all other than pure bias against certain classes of medication even though the vast majority that are compliant with their medications and are having no problems while taking it as prescribed. Waaaay overreaching. IMO.
17. No problem, in fact, seems to me that it is already the law.
18. No problem.
19. No problem.
20. No problem.
21. No problem.
22. No problem
23. No problem.
P.S. The governor and his ilk (Gunn et al) are absolutely sickening with their pandering and camera crusade. It makes Mike Moore look like a Shrinking Violet or whatever the saying is.
Guns are a problem for modern society because we have a foggy social and legal status for young people. Durkheim identified the social dimension of suicide as alienation. Teenagers are alienated adults with a very confusing set of social expectations and identities. Many mass killings include suicide. Teen suicide is already a problem. Soldier suicide is not understood. The social purpose of our education system is not properly fixed nor are our open- ended wars on terror or war on drugs. I support President Obama’s order to CDC to study gun violence, but they need to explore education and developmental dysfunction too.
No. 2 on the list would change existing law as passed by Congress — HIPPAA
Nope. Also: HIPAA.
No. 4 appears to have the potential to be very problematic. It all depends upon the AG’s definition of who is “dangerous”.
A “review” is just that, a “review.”
16. Do wwwwwhhhhatttt???
Guns are a public health issue. Could Nancy Lanza have benefited from a doctor’s asking about this? Maybe. You don’t like your doc asking you? Switch doctors. The point is that doctors are not PROHIBITED. Reading is fundamental.
… The bottom line here is that our moronic panderer of a Governor issued his letter before he even knew what the executive order(s) would say. It’s just a shiny red ball for his fellow morons.
In other words, HIPAA protects patient confidentiality in all cases unless it does not.
That’s the problem with HIPAA.
What I want is a confidentiality agreement with my doctor that really protects my information from the government.
And the 4th Amendment should shield my doctor-patient relationship from the government’s prying eyes. Without a valid search warrant, my records should be sealed from government snooping.
But that runs contrary to the Total Information Awareness plans that the ACA / EHR juggernaut has planned for us.
Pretty soon, the only safe thing for a citizen to do is see a Doc that accepts cash payments only for his services. All the rest are becoming appendages to Big Brother’s comprehensive spy agency.
Might as well just be upfront about it and let the NSA host the EHR cloud for the whole country.
John Pittman Hey
I would agree that our Gov. should have waited until the EOs were issued before commenting upon them. While its ok for us to speculate and comment for the sake of interesting discussion, he is the head of our state and should show some restraint.
In general, it appears that the most controversial positions being taken in this new gun control debate are arising out of the Senate (not to diminish the valid concerns being expressed in this comment thread). And while being echoed by the President, these more controversial positions are not contained within the EOs. They will obviously be the subject of proposed legislation, which would first have to be approved by Congress to become law —- just as it should be. And I project that the necessary votes won’t be there to pass anything drastic.
I agree with the concerns expressed by John Pittman Hey. While one common denominator to most of these mass killings is a killer who is mentally ill, we will need to be very careful in crafting a solution to address this specific aspect of the problem so as not to infringe upon the privacy of our citizens. A kneejerk reaction with hastily crafted legislation that no one has had a chance to read or digest (or EOs) will likely create more problems than it solves — the law of unintended consequences — and very likely could run afoul of our constitutional privacy rights.
Ah, unintended consequences.
These days, almost everything the government does reminds me of King Canute.
Or like a person who demands that the balloon be squeezed to make it “smaller on the right hand side.”
As a person who has lived his whole life immersed in the health care profession, and intimately involved in the records/regulation/technology side of it at the small provider level, it has become so dysfunctional, due to government interference and regulation, that I no longer wish to participate in it.
I have informed my clients that the EHR regime the government is now mandating is unethical, and I will not support them or help create them.
John Pittman Hey
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Gov. Bryant makes me long for the days when Haley Barbour was in office. From day one, Bryant has aligned himself with the worst of the right wing in this state, i.e., religious fundamentalists, gun nuts…..and now the Ross Barnett wing of the GOP. From the moment he said that “Satan wins” if an extreme personhood amendment didn’t pass, I knew we had a different kind of Republican in the Governor’s mansion, and not in a good way.
All of the items on this list are fairly moderate and reasonable. The fury coming from the right is a reflection of the how much the GOP hates this president and how far to the right they have swung, not in the unreasonableness of these EO’s. When I first saw the list, my reaction was “really, this is all that you can do?”, not “POWER GRAB OMG OMG Obama thinks he’s a dictator!”
The right wing has gone crazy, and that’s my rational and civil 2 cents worth.
no huge problems with the list itself, huge problem with the whole dog and pony show approach of Obama. nothing in that list is going to stop someone hell bent on doing a mass killing. Gun control is just not practical in the United States, the horse has been out of the barn since before the USA existed. The former assault rifle ban was in effect when several school shootings took place. Assuming the deranged subject can’t find an assault rifle, why, a semi automatic .12 gauge shotgun with the plug pulled and loaded with 3 inch magnum buckshot will kill many people quite efficiently, and if no one is shooting back, reloading isn’t much of an obstacle to keep firing. I do think intensive background checks are useful, but I think the CDC should be working on the flu, etc, instead of playing headshrinker, most of the list is just a waste of money which Obama is quite well versed in doing.
Dave Weigel on docs & guns:
Sergio Munoz does a nice job explaining why the panic is wrong. The Affordable Care Act allows, but doesn’t require, doctors to ask whether their patients have guns. (“You keep saying you’re so depressed you want to kill yourself. Do you have a gun in the house?” For example.) The language is a little confusing, because it was inserted by Harry Reid to mollify gun owners. But one of the politically clever responses to that Act has been a mini-movement to ban doctors from asking about gun ownership. This is obviously unconstitutional, and has been struck down, but damn it, it sounds like freedom.
My only comment at this time is that I would like to see the federal courts defend the Second Amendment (wherein the right to bear arms is listed before protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and before the right to due process, and before the right to an attorney, and before the right to a jury trial) against infringement as zealously as the federal courts have been in defending the “right” to abortion (which is NOT in the Bill of Rights).
That’s real good, Observer. You’re on top of your game today. Your reasoning is pure … everything in its proper place and order. And speaking of keeping things in proper alignment, let’s put that bearing arms thing subordinate to that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … thing. Well subordinate.
Observer, you may want to use your internet and find out about the Heller decision and its progeny.
(Why is that the only context anyone uses “progeny” in any more? One context too many, perhaps.)
I’m all with Observer about the abortion issue, but after Heller, it seems to me that the court has “leveled the field” with regard to the enumerated protections of the Bill of Rights.
Which isn’t really saying much. The 4th and 5th Amendments have not been zealously guarded by our courts, from my perspective.
Examples include the Patriot Act, molestation at airports by the TSA, warrantless wiretapping and data vacuuming by the NSA, takings by the government, eminent domain atrocities, ineffective counsel, cruel and inhuman punishment (torture, severe solitary confinement, etc.), due-process-free assassinations, etc., etc.
Would that the court were as zealous in defending *all* our liberties, but they have been traded away, piece by piece, in the name of “security” and “safety.”
John Pittman Hey
America sanctions the killing of millions of unborn children with not so much as a whimper. Then, a tragedy like the CT. one occurs and America faces a president who wants to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. Obama is over-reacting and pandering. His reaches into HIPAA are unjustified but no one who has tried to see him vetted should be surprised.
“America sanctions the killing of millions of unborn children”
“Unborn child” sounds to me a little like “unwritten novel.”
“His reaches into HIPAA are unjustified”
You are so uninformed, it’s pitiful. Who do you think wrote the Privacy Rule? Have you ever in your life *read* the HIPAA statutes, as opposed to the agency regulations?
“America faces a president who wants to take away guns from law-abiding citizens”
Please name an Obama proposal to take away a gun from a law-abiding citizen. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
Even Obama realizes the extreme risk to the country should the government attempt to seize all firearms and will not go there under any circumstances. He also knows that an assault rifle ban is not politically feasible and will propose it knowing its DOA in the House and likely in the Senate. The President is a shrewd politician and will take what he can get from Congress and take credit for his efforts whether they work or not.
Though I’m generally pro-gun, I don’t own a true assault rifle because I don’t want to spend $1100 [the price tag before the scare ran prices up] on what would essentially be a toy for me. I have working firearms both for hunting and personal protection [I can lawfully carry while on duty and I have a concealed permit when not] so I am pro-gun, but I am anti thugs having military weapons. I’d like to see some criminal sentencing laws imposing mandatory minimums for crimes committed with a firearm and harsher enhancements for using any military grade firearms.
I hate the NRA tactic of inciting the Bubbas by telling them Obama is coming to their trailer and take their deer rifle away from them. As stated above, the background checks are good as are the efforts to ensure that convicted criminals and deranged folks cannot legally purchase even a derringer.
Consider the “Like” button clicked on your comment, Terminator.
wow. Just wow, Anderson!
Ben, the question is, “Who regulates the militia?”
“The people” regulate the militia when they are armed.
There are plenty of historical examples of unregulated militias running amok.
“The people” enact regulations by their elected Congress. The notion that elected representatives are somehow opponents of “the people” is dubious. We rebelled against Britain for want of representation, not out of dissatisfaction with our representatives.
Conservatives accusing Obama of wanting to take guns away is mild compared to Obama accusing Republicans of wanting to starve children and deprive old people. And, Anderson, your suggestion that an unborn child is the same as an unwritten book may be the most heartless comment ever uttered. Is that the way you ease your mind over the subject of abortion – telling yourself that a child doesn’t really exist until it has been delivered outside the mother’s body? And I guess a woman who miscarries is being silly if she grieves the loss of her…uh..her..what? Her clump of cells? You, sir, are a waste of oxygen.
I agree with Observer in his desire that our federal government protect our second amendment right to bear arms with more advocacy — at least the level shown in protecting the unenumerated “right” to abortion created by the Supreme Court.
Interesting, if the minority view had prevailed in the Heller case, then the second amendment would not apply to the states, with this issue becoming a states’ rights issue. Mississippi would be protected as we have an individual right to bear arms enumerated in our state constitution, as do an overwhelming majority of the states. If this position had become the law of the land, then we would have divided into armed states and unarmed states. And within those states with no constitutional protection, armed cities and unarmed cities. Ya think that might have produced some chaotic population migration away from the unarmed states? We are about one more whacko vote on the Court from finding out.
Btw, some of the comments here suggest that gun owners have no reasons to be concerned, even with key members of the Democratically controlled Senate (eg Feinstein) having espoused some pretty extreme desires regarding gun control and outright bans, combined with a President who seems to be stoking the flames of this left wing populism with emotional pleas of a vague nature. The NRA isn’t having to do much to stoke up fear, our Congress and President are doing this on their own. NRA membership and fund raising is soaring, as are gun and ammo sales. Just watching the mainstream news has been motivational enough in this regard.
Anderson, do you ever strive to debate without ad hominem attacks? Your challenges are akin to showing you evidence that the sky is blue. You presuppose to know more about HIPAA than me and question my knowledge of the act rather than the regs where the act is carried out. You may dislike what you perceive to be my views but for goodness sakes, your comments are unnecessary. I surely hope you are not a judge in real life, because you seem so quick to judge and ridicule that it is hard to take you seriously. When I first started commening on this blog, I responded to one of your attacks by informing you I would not respond. Then, over time, I thought your comments and knowledge to be worthy of give-and-take. But, I will go back to ignoring you and you can decide whether to mature in your comments or continue snarkiness.
HD, the person attacking you ad hominem is you. You write silly things, which makes you look silly. Don’t blame others for pointing it out.
Instead of 14 lines of garbage, you could try explaining how Obama’s “reaches into HIPAA are unjustified,” or otherwise back up anything you’re saying. Instead, you just want to shoot your mouth off, and then get all insulted when someone points out that’s what you’re doing.
I am not insulted by you. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. I object instead to the fact I like this blog but your snarkiness makes it difficult to engage in discourse.
No difficulty at all: just ignore my comments, like you ignore so very much else. I cannot begin to imagine how that could be a problem for you.
If and when NMC institutes a policy that comments making dubious and factually untenable claims must be ignored by other commenters, I will comply with same. Until then, if you write nonsense, you can expect to be called out on it … just as I am from time to time.
“Mama,” I’ve had a miscarriage myself (so to speak), and it was sad indeed. But I don’t think we should have been investigated for the accidental death of our unborn child, as would’ve been the case had a 6-month-old baby died in our care.
Treating “unborn children” as having the same rights as “born children,” and thus as potential victims of *murder*, is bizarre. Perhaps even heartless.
gun owners have no reasons to be concerned, even with key members of the Democratically controlled Senate (eg Feinstein) having espoused some pretty extreme desires regarding gun control and outright bans
Man, what a thread.
Right: gun owners have no reason to be concerned, certainly in the present Congress. This video may help you to understand why.
Man, what an arrogant jerk.
If you had bothered to actually read my comments, you might have noticed my prediction that no drastic gun control measure would make it through Congress.
And why do you care if anyone overreacts, assuming that is indeed the case? If folks decide to buy more guns, ammo, and clips, or contribute more to the NRA, so what? It’s their/our money, it helps the economy, and doesn’t affect you.
It’s been fun. Check please.
There you go again, Anderson. Thinking you have all the answers. Since you are an attorney (I’ll take you at your word on that), it won’t be difficult for you do a little research and discover that women have, indeed, been “investigated” for their death of their unborn children. Some have even been prosecuted. And your suggestion that a parent would be “investigated” JUST because a child in his care dies. Unless, of course, you consider someone asking “what happened” an investigation. Furthermore, parents who fail to properly supervise a six month old child DESERVE to be investigated AND prosecuted should that child become injured or die. And without a shadow of doubt, a woman who chops her six month old child into pieces and turns them into pulp in the kitchen blender would be investigated, arrested, convicted, & fried. The ONLY way you could accept such brutality to an unborn child is to do exactly as you have done…stick your head up your ass and pretend that child is just a figment of the imagination….like that unwritten novel.
I saw this by Andy Taggart on gun ownership. Hope the link works.
http://mississippipep.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/taggart-guns-and-the-heart-of-individual-liberty/
Wow. But what does the blender have to do with Obama’s overreaching into HIPAA? Or have we left the premise of rationality and civility so far behind that this kind of rhetoric is the only thing available?