|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 3, 2014, 05:12 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Executive Action: Background Checks
The President has released information on proposed Executive Actions to make it easier to indentify and report individuals who have mental health issues which should prevent them from owning a gun. The release states, “Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.”
Admittedly I am not an expert in the mental health field, but one point did give me pause. It states that, “DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments.” So, I understand the inpatient commitment, but is the outpatient commitment a new issue or just a clarification? Could this include anger management classes or something else that might be required as part of a divorce for example? The rest of the proposal seems to deal with clarification related to reporting and HIPAA issues. So, does anyone have more specific insight to these proposals pro or con? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...eep-guns-out-p
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman Last edited by BarryLee; January 3, 2014 at 06:27 PM. |
January 3, 2014, 06:02 PM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 12, 2013
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 135
|
The major change seems to be including outpatient treatment. So if a court orders someone to undergo counseling, that may now strip their firearms rights. Potentially even court-ordered marriage counseling would do it.
Last edited by WardenWolf; January 3, 2014 at 06:07 PM. |
January 3, 2014, 08:54 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
It appears that both the DOJ and DHHS are proposing regulations to effectively amend existing regulation relating to (1) the definition of terms under the GCA of 1968 (DOJ); and (2) the confidentiality of medical information (HIPAA) and disclosure rules (DHHS). These regulations must go through the formal rule making process to be adopted. So they will be published and the public will be invited to comment.
Of course we really need to see the proposed regulations. Given the subject matter I'd expect various professional medical/psychiatric organizations to weigh in. Those groups were very involved formulation of the HIPAA rules and are usually quite protective of the interests of persons with mental or emotional issues. They are also quite influential.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
January 3, 2014, 09:11 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 107
|
Quote:
If true, that's just wrong. Cnon |
|
January 3, 2014, 09:13 PM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
That "involuntary outpatient" crappola worries me- if my RVFD Chief tells me to attend a CISM session after working a bad accident, then that could be loosely construed as "involuntary" psychiatric counseling, no?
|
January 3, 2014, 09:22 PM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Enough uninformed speculating. We need to read the proposed rules and then we can discuss what they actually say and what the actual problems with them might be.
But there's nothing really to discuss without actually reading the proposed rules.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
January 3, 2014, 09:35 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
I fully support taking away the rights of those who are mentally ill or have violent behavior. We all have met individuals who are far too aggressive to own any type of weaponry. My earliest encounter was with a roommate in my early 20s who was ordered by the court to see a psychologist. This was a roommate I did not live too long with. Another encounter at an early period in my life I witnessed someone at a place I worked at who was obviously on drugs and had behavior swings. I do have many more stories and fully believe that none of these bad apples deserve to own firearms.
Its a complex issue with much debate, but in any event there are guys out there whose mental health and violent behavior disqualifies them in my mind. I dont want these individuals representing gun owners at all. |
January 3, 2014, 09:36 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
PTSD? A Vet home from war? You know, one who is a trained killing machine and probably not too liberal in their political leanings (stereotyping here, which is bad, I know)? It's the unintended consequences that are always a worry as well, somewhere down the road. Who will be making the decisions as to placing he/she on the list, this one is or that one is not? Who will handle Funding for the decision makers, list keepers and watchdogs with guns? EO or Congress? Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Common Sense Executive Orders. Time will tell. I feel safer already. Don't you?
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address |
|
January 3, 2014, 10:33 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
As Frank pointed out, we don't have enough information for a cogent discussion. We don't need another general thread about mental illness, so I'm going to close this.
If more information becomes available, we can open another thread.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
|