CDZ The provisions of President Obama's latest executive order

[320 Years of History]

Will the President's EO have an impact? Not really. There's a difference between taking small steps and nibbling around the edges of a problem. A problem that is never properly defined in the first place.

It may not have an impact. I find it hard to say whether it will or won't for, in the main, it is little but clarifications and reiterations of existing laws and regulations. Yesterday's E.O. seems to issue from a belief that existing laws and regulations can have an impact on the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession. Yesterday's E.O. seems aimed at making it clear to all employees of the relevant executive branches (federal and state) that they should and must enforce the existing laws to the fullest extent and to their fullest ability to do so. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Will the President's EO have an impact? Not really. There's a difference between taking small steps and nibbling around the edges of a problem. A problem that is never properly defined in the first place.

It may not have an impact. I find it hard to say whether it will or won't for, in the main, it is little but clarifications and reiterations of existing laws and regulations. Yesterday's E.O. seems to issue from a belief that existing laws and regulations can have an impact on the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession. Yesterday's E.O. seems aimed at making it clear to all employees of the relevant executive branches (federal and state) that they should and must enforce the existing laws to the fullest extent and to their fullest ability to do so. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

Yesterday's EO seems to issue, imo, from frustration. It is no more possible to have a rational debate about guns in Congress than it is here. As I said, the debate is not even focused on the right problem. Here's a couple of possible definitions.

1- The gun industry controls this issue. They have masterfully created a completely false narrative about threats to gun rights. That smokescreen makes it impossible to address this problem. Solution? Break the NRA. Restore citizen control of government. Easy!

2- The cost of gun violence is far too high. It has a domestic as well as an international cost. The numbers must be brought down. We need to commit to bringing them down. Solution? The CDC needs to be let off the leash, with a mandate to create programs to address the specific problems they discover. That would be a small step in the right direction.

 

[Stephanie]

None of HIS EO's are legal or binding. he can't change or make up his OWN LAWS

 

[2aguy]

I wonder how many folks have read the executive order Mr. Obama issued. (That is assuming the formal order has actually been issued. The rest of Mr. Obama's executive orders are here: Executive Orders .) From what I can find on the White House website, the provisions of it are as follows:

Provisions of the executive order announced yesterday (some don't seem all that "new" to me):

• Ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. It is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
    
  • A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.
    
  • Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
• Finalize a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
  
• FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks.
  
• Improve the NCIS system/background checking process to allow processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
  
• Dedicate $4 million (ATF funding) and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).
  
• Establish the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally.
  
• Licensees shipping a gun must notify law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
  
• Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
  
• Increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
  
• The Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
  • Provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
• Permit certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
  
• Direct the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
  
• Review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  
• Consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Now I keep hearing about "taking away guns." Under the guidelines of the executive order announced on 4-Jan-16:

• Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?
  At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).
• Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?
  Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns.

You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein.



That woman clearly doesn't care what the 2nd Amendment says. Mr. Obama is not Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein does not speak for or represent everyone who wants to identify and implement one or several tactics to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence in the U.S.

What did Mr. Obama say about the 2nd Amendment? He said,

• In 2008, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."
• In 2011, "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters."
• In 2012, "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
• In 2013, "We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks or from using such records to create a federal gun registry. Nothing in the president’s order would change that.

The weapons Mr. Obama would like to see banned in accordance with an "assault weapons band" are the following:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Seeing as those criteria still allow one to have semiautomatic weapons, just not the ones expressly described above, I don't have a problem with such a ban coming to be. If it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just buy one that lacks any of the noted military features, is expressly made as a semiautomatic gun, fires 10 or fewer rounds from a fixed magazine and that isn't a semiautomatic shotgun fitting the noted criteria.

Obama told John Lott when they were both at the University of Chicago that he does not believe Americans should be allowed to own guns.

He supported the handgun ban in Chicago when he was in the Illinois Senate....

There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.

Yes....now if you sell your old pistol to a friend to buy a new one...you are now a licensed gun dealer.....

 

[2aguy]

Will the President's EO have an impact? Not really. There's a difference between taking small steps and nibbling around the edges of a problem. A problem that is never properly defined in the first place.

It may not have an impact. I find it hard to say whether it will or won't for, in the main, it is little but clarifications and reiterations of existing laws and regulations. Yesterday's E.O. seems to issue from a belief that existing laws and regulations can have an impact on the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession. Yesterday's E.O. seems aimed at making it clear to all employees of the relevant executive branches (federal and state) that they should and must enforce the existing laws to the fullest extent and to their fullest ability to do so. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

Yesterday's EO seems to issue, imo, from frustration. It is no more possible to have a rational debate about guns in Congress than it is here. As I said, the debate is not even focused on the right problem. Here's a couple of possible definitions.

1- The gun industry controls this issue. They have masterfully created a completely false narrative about threats to gun rights. That smokescreen makes it impossible to address this problem. Solution? Break the NRA. Restore citizen control of government. Easy!

2- The cost of gun violence is far too high. It has a domestic as well as an international cost. The numbers must be brought down. We need to commit to bringing them down. Solution? The CDC needs to be let off the leash, with a mandate to create programs to address the specific problems they discover. That would be a small step in the right direction.

The CDC is not on a leash......they just can't use research to advocate violating civil rights.

And 1.5 million Americans use guns to stop violent crime a year...saving billions of dollars each year..a net gain for our society.....according to bill clinton, the rapist.

It is not a false narrative..it is the truth...given the power democrats would get rid of guns.

 

[2aguy]

"Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?

At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).

Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?

Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns."

No one is 'at risk' of having his guns 'taken away'; nor is anyone 'at risk' of losing his ability to sell firearms.

Anyone adjudicated mentally in a court of law, having been afforded full and comprehensive due process, is by law a prohibited person who may not possess a firearm.

That someone might only be suspected of being mentally ill is not 'justification' to prohibit someone from possessing a firearm, or to compel them to 'surrender' their guns, absent affording that individual full and comprehensive due process.

And if someone fails to obey the law with regard to selling firearms, and is convicted in a court of law of that crime, such an individual has only himself to blame for losing his ability to sell firearms.

In some states, courts do adjudicate one as being mentally ill. In others medical professionals determine whether mental illness exists in a person. Depending on the state, the two may or may not be not the same things. (Mental Incompetency and Keeping the 'Mentally Incompetent' From Voting) The variance among states as to whether "mentally ill" is a legal status or medical one is problematic insofar as it clouds an apsect of the matter that should should be crystal clear.

If one is in a state where mentally ill is a status determined by a court, I see no reason why one should be entitled to due process regarding that status. In states where mentally ill is a status determined by a medical professional, I do not believe one is entitled to due process regarding that professional's determination because being mentally ill in those states is a medical status, not a legal status. One is free to obtain a second, third, etc. opinion about whether one is mentally ill.

Are you advocating that people with diagnosed mental illnesses that potentially make their owning a gun dangerous to others or themselves should nonetheless be permitted to own a firearm, provided they have not also been declared mentally incompetent?

If one is in a state where mentally ill is a status determined by a court, I see no reason why one should be entitled to due process regarding that status. In states where mentally ill is a status determined by a medical professional, I do not believe one is entitled to due process regarding that professional's determination because being mentally ill in those states is a medical status, not a legal status.

And this is exactly why we do not support mental health checks added to background checks...you guys will use them to deny gun rights to anyone you can catch in a mental health false diagnosis.....

No due process....boy...you guys really hate the rule of law don't you...

 

[2aguy]

I wonder how many folks have read the executive order Mr. Obama issued. (That is assuming the formal order has actually been issued. The rest of Mr. Obama's executive orders are here: Executive Orders .) From what I can find on the White House website, the provisions of it are as follows:

Provisions of the executive order announced yesterday (some don't seem all that "new" to me):

• Ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. It is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
    
  • A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.
    
  • Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
• Finalize a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
  
• FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks.
  
• Improve the NCIS system/background checking process to allow processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
  
• Dedicate $4 million (ATF funding) and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).
  
• Establish the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally.
  
• Licensees shipping a gun must notify law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
  
• Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
  
• Increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
  
• The Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
  • Provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
• Permit certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
  
• Direct the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
  
• Review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  
• Consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Now I keep hearing about "taking away guns." Under the guidelines of the executive order announced on 4-Jan-16:

• Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?
  At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).
• Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?
  Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns.

You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein.



That woman clearly doesn't care what the 2nd Amendment says. Mr. Obama is not Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein does not speak for or represent everyone who wants to identify and implement one or several tactics to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence in the U.S.

What did Mr. Obama say about the 2nd Amendment? He said,

• In 2008, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."
• In 2011, "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters."
• In 2012, "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
• In 2013, "We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks or from using such records to create a federal gun registry. Nothing in the president’s order would change that.

The weapons Mr. Obama would like to see banned in accordance with an "assault weapons band" are the following:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Seeing as those criteria still allow one to have semiautomatic weapons, just not the ones expressly described above, I don't have a problem with such a ban coming to be. If it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just buy one that lacks any of the noted military features, is expressly made as a semiautomatic gun, fires 10 or fewer rounds from a fixed magazine and that isn't a semiautomatic shotgun fitting the noted criteria.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature:

capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds

That is all semi automatic pistols..........

And then they will go after 6 round revolvers after a mass shooter uses those for a mass shooting.....

Here is my counter proposal...

Not one more gun, bullet, magazine or other piece of equipment........we already have every single law we need to deal with gun criminals.....

 

[oldsoul]

I have but one thing to say on this subject, no two:

1. Those who would surrender any amount of freedom for even a small amount of security, deserve neither.
2. To ensure that one who is deemed mentally ill (by any means) and therefore cannot possess a gun, does not have ready access to a gun, one would necessarily need to remove guns from their home. This would, effectively take guns, and 2nd amendment rights, from ALL persons in said home.THAT is who is in danger of losing their guns, and rights to them.

 

[320 Years of History]

None of HIS EO's are legal or binding. he can't change or make up his OWN LAWS

Actually, they are unless and until legislatively passed laws override them or a court having adequate jurisdiction strikes them down. Both the presidents you agree with and the ones you don't like have had that ability, and believe me, both types have used it.

 

[FA_Q2]

What are they going to do NEXT TIME a mass shooting occurs outside of the black community(because nobody cares about them)?
Issue more "small steps" that equate to ZILCH except for pissing off legal gun owners?
Hell, we cant even keep our current laws working properly. Lets be real. This is nothing but a fools party.
How do poor people pass down family heirlooms? Get a loan so they can pay someone to regulate the transaction? This is ridiculous nonsense. And not to mention unconstitutional sections that lie here.
How does the president have the authority to regulate private firearm transactions?
How is expanding the current ATF constitutional? Hell man, the DHS itself is unconstitutional.

OP, you are always talking about how people cant stick to your subject, but then you ignore 3/4 of what I said

I ignored most of what you wrote because all of what I ignored has nothing to do with the realizable effectiveness of the actions put forth in Mr. Obama's latest E.O. I ignored it because not one bit of what I ignored speaks to whether any of the E.O's elements will help to reduce the incidence of gun deaths, gun injuries and illegal gun possession.

I responded to the "small steps" bit because it is at least so that the steps noted in the E.O are small ones and will plausibly have small impacts, but they may surprise us and have larger than small impacts.

That said, I was of a mind to ignore the whole damn post because all of it, even the "small steps" part, consists of a bunch of fallaciously based objections to the E.O. Not one thing you raised provided a shred of evidence indicating that there's any reason to think that the E.O.'s elements will not help to ameliorate the downsides associated with our right to bear arms.

The idea that the small steps will have any realized impact is just as much of a conjecture that they will do nothing at all. More so IMHO. You keep asking him for proof that it will do nothing while giving no proof whatsoever that they will have any effect at all.

This is the core problem I have with virtually every gun measure I have seen proposed - there is no reason to think that any of them will stop anything at all. I have pointed out many times that when England passed its massive and highly restrictive gun laws the homicide rate there did nothing at all. Gun laws are utterly disconnected from homicides.

 

[FA_Q2]

Will the President's EO have an impact? Not really. There's a difference between taking small steps and nibbling around the edges of a problem. A problem that is never properly defined in the first place.

That is because the real problem is cultural and massively complex. Guns are a sideshow and 'solutions' can be summed up in a catch phrase in a speech. Real solutions that deal with real problems cannot.

 

[Jackson]

How does a person sell guns at a gun show if it takes 24 hours for a background check?

 

[awesomeone21]

I wonder how many folks have read the executive order Mr. Obama issued. (That is assuming the formal order has actually been issued. The rest of Mr. Obama's executive orders are here: Executive Orders .) From what I can find on the White House website, the provisions of it are as follows:

Provisions of the executive order announced yesterday (some don't seem all that "new" to me):

• Ensure that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers.
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted.
    
  • Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. It is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
    
  • A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000.
    
  • Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
• Finalize a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.
  
• FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to assist with processing mandatory background checks.
  
• Improve the NCIS system/background checking process to allow processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a firearm.
  
• Dedicate $4 million (ATF funding) and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN).
  
• Establish the National NIBIN Correlation and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services, making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally, regionally, and nationally.
  
• Licensees shipping a gun must notify law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.
  
• Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
  
• Increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.
  
• The Social Security Administration (SSA) will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
  • Provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
• Permit certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
  
• Direct the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.
  
• Review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.
  
• Consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Now I keep hearing about "taking away guns." Under the guidelines of the executive order announced on 4-Jan-16:

• Who is at risk of having their guns taken away?
  At best, folks who have mental illnesses that make them potentially dangerous to themselves or others were they to posses a gun while having that illness(s).
• Who is at risk of losing their ability to sell guns?
  Folks who fail to comply with existing rules governing the sale of guns.

You know who we know wants to take away people's guns and right to have them? Dianne Feinstein.



That woman clearly doesn't care what the 2nd Amendment says. Mr. Obama is not Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein does not speak for or represent everyone who wants to identify and implement one or several tactics to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence in the U.S.

What did Mr. Obama say about the 2nd Amendment? He said,

• In 2008, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."
• In 2011, "Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters."
• In 2012, "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.
• In 2013, "We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks or from using such records to create a federal gun registry. Nothing in the president’s order would change that.

The weapons Mr. Obama would like to see banned in accordance with an "assault weapons band" are the following:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Seeing as those criteria still allow one to have semiautomatic weapons, just not the ones expressly described above, I don't have a problem with such a ban coming to be. If it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just buy one that lacks any of the noted military features, is expressly made as a semiautomatic gun, fires 10 or fewer rounds from a fixed magazine and that isn't a semiautomatic shotgun fitting the noted criteria.

What I'm having trouble with is the fact that one of Obama's quotes state: "...keeping guns out of the hands of criminals..." Then why issue this executive order? This only effects people who actually follow the law. Just take the definition of the word criminal: someone convicted of doing something against the law. A new executive order is not going to make the criminals follow it.

 

[320 Years of History]

What I'm having trouble with is the fact that one of Obama's quotes state: "...keeping guns out of the hands of criminals..." Then why issue this executive order? This only effects people who actually follow the law. Just take the definition of the word criminal: someone convicted of doing something against the law. A new executive order is not going to make the criminals follow it.

I suggest then that you read this post: CDZ - Gun-free zones in VA Hospitals - Open invitation to terrorists | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . You will find in the second half of that post the assertion underlying all gun control measures, along with the rational line of argument supporting it. (The section relevant to your remarks above begins with the words "contrast that with.")