"Obama’s 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence"

[philnotfil]

As announced by the white house.

wsj.com

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.

[wgbgator]

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

Hmm...I don't see anything there that will prevent another Sandy Hook.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Hmm...I don't see anything there that will prevent another Sandy Hook.

Cool, so we've established that we can't and won't ban all guns or completely eliminate tragic shootings. But I already thought that had been established.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Cool, so we've established that we can't and won't ban all guns or completely eliminate tragic shootings. But I already thought that had been established.

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

I think that most of them fall into three categories:
- making sure that background checks are done for all gun purchases, and that they are more complete
- making schools, and to some extent other public places, are safer
- addressing mental health issues

I'm not sure how anything he did breaks new ground with the second amendment.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

Is the point of making laws, or enforcing existing laws better to inhibit all freedom or stop all crime from occuring?

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

Obviously, it's a show for his lemming masses in an attempt to show that he cares about this issue, just not enough to do anything about it.

IOW, his politics far outweigh his desire to do anything that he thinks will make Americans safer...

So, what else is new?

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

Didn't expect it to be in these exec. orders either, because Obama couldn;t just come out and say that to the entire country because he'd have come close to starting a civil war doing that.

Only a complete and clueless fool would would believe this is the end of this too. Obama is famous for his executive orders in the hush of the night and this won't stop with just SAR's and high-yield magazines either.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

That's just the abridged version for the public to see and approve of.

Wait until they come out with the full version of these 23 (illegal/un-Constitutional) executive orders. Each one of these so called laws with ten thousand pages or more of "protections," later to be published.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

That's just the abridged version for the public to see and approve of.

Wait until they come out with the full version of these 23 (illegal/un-Constitutional) executive orders. Each one of these so called laws with ten thousand pages or more of "protections," later to be published.

I await with bated breath.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I await with bated breath.

And is that with shrimp, sand flea, or cut bate ?

Your doctor will be asking about the source of that. And about your guns.

[philnotfil]

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

Does an ATF director have to be confirmed? Because that may be the problem, there's been a tendancy to block, filibuster or delay confirmation votes on many gov't positions.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Does an ATF director have to be confirmed? Because that may be the problem, there's been a tendancy to block, filibuster or delay confirmation votes on many gov't positions.

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

Hmm, it appears he has nominated someone previously.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-andrew-traver

Obama nominated Traver in November, triggering strong opposition from the NRA, which called him hostile to the Second Amendment and urged Obama to withdraw the nomination.

Traver "has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities," Chris Cox, who leads the NRA's lobbying arm, said at that time.

Obama renominated Traver when the new Congress met in January and the NRA's rejection of Traver still stands.

The job of ATF director has required Senate confirmation only since 2006, but that's never happened, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors. Even President George W. Bush couldn't get his nominee, a Republican U.S. attorney from Boston, through the Senate.

Apparently no one can get confirmed to this job!

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

Who in their right mind would accept a nomination as head of the ATF? If they accept, is it per se evidence that they are not fit to serve?

Whatever happened to the Fast and Furious investigation? Let me guess - it's a cover up.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

I agree with your take on this.

Looks like there are political reasons for him highlighting the ATF Director nomination.

Overall, it doesn't seem like he is doing anything that infringes 2nd amendment rights... although perhaps the 4th amendment with #5 (and others?).

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

Yep. A lot of these fall in the category of; DO YOUR JOB.

[gator996]

There hasn't been an ATF head for 6 years now...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep...ector-20110907

Republicans refuse to confirm leader for ATF despite its troubles

Reporting from Washington — Congressional Republicans have been upset at the management at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which authorized a botched sting operation near the Mexican border that put guns in the hands of drug criminals.

But Republican leaders, responding to complaints from gun-rights lobbyists, have refused to confirm a director for the bureau since it was split from the Treasury Department eight years ago.

"They have had nothing but acting directors. Do you wonder why some things would go wrong there?" said John Killorin, a retired special agent from Atlanta and president of the ATF Assn. "This is a major law enforcement agency, and they need a confirmed director with the full responsibility and authority to run it."

President Obama's nominee, an ATF special agent from Chicago, has yet to have a Senate hearing.