President Obama's latest gun control effort

[ToddG]

News from The Hill:

White House unveils new gun control effort

By Ben Goad The Obama administration on Friday announced a new set of actions designed to keep weapons from the mentally ill, declaring once again that the president is intent on using his executive authority to pursue tighter federal gun control in lieu of congressional action. The plan includes two proposed regulations designed to clarify who may possess guns and shore up a woefully porous national background check system. “Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence,” the White House said upon announcing the initiative. “While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.”

FULL STORY HERE

[BaiHu]

Your thoughts? I saw this earlier and thought weak sauce. Especially given his poll numbers.

ETA: Also, after the epic security failure of Obamacare, will anyone trust this government with their health data linked to their 2A rights?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[YVK]

Saw it too. Going to be interesting to see what language and provisions will be used in lessening the HIPAA restrictions, and how mental history will be instructed to be reported.

[Chance]

I think there are some demonstrable issues with the present system (Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes, especially), but having the architects of O-care implement it is bad news.

[jon volk]

The HIPAA bypass, if you will, is quite terrifying

[joshs]

Your thoughts?

As the article notes, the HHS rule is only to remove a perceived mental health reporting hurdle created by HIPAA. Information that is required to be reported by law can already be reported without prior authorization. The main issue is whether or not the information is "required" to be reported. The federal government cannot require state agents to do anything, compliance with record forwarding for NICS is voluntary. However, many states have passed record forwarding laws, so, at least in those states, disqualifying mental health adjudications and commitments could already be disclosed.

BATFE had already (informally) adopted the position that court ordered out-patient treatment was disqualifying, even though this position is contrary to the language of the statute and prior agency positions. I'm not sure how "committed to a mental institution" = "being ordered by a court to see a psychiatrist." They seem like clearly different things to me. Of course, if the court order included a finding that the person was a danger to themselves or others, it would have already been disqualifying under the current rule.

[GardoneVT]

I am not concerned about Obama.If the media liked him just a little less, he'd be facing impeachment charges already.

It is his Democratic Party successor which worries me.Especially if her last name is "Clinton".

[Joseph B.]

I'm wondering how PTSD will fit in the scope of this, especially with his administrations constant focus on the "veteran terrorism threat".

[Kyle Reese]

I'm wondering how PTSD will fit in the scope of this, especially with his administrations constant focus on the "veteran terrorism threat".

Report to the NKVD, Tovarish. Those who have seen the Imperialist West must be reeducated.

Oops. Wrong veterans, wrong era.

[ToddG]

I'm wondering how PTSD will fit in the scope of this, especially with his administrations constant focus on the "veteran terrorism threat".

Any veteran who expresses concern over whether PTSD will be a disqualifier will be deemed to be suffering from PTSD ... and it will be a disqualifier.