FACT CHECK: The Supposed "EO"'s Issued On January, 16, 2013.

So what agenda do think is at work here? Personally I think there is a subversive agenda from either an outside country or internally through seditious means to generate enough fervor provoking a civil unrest and to the extreme a revolution.

To me this is the End Game and one that would be the biggest mistake this country will ever make!

reply to post by Hefficide


Thank you for your post it taught me a few things I didn't know. But, and I can only speak for myself, I've never thought of the 23 items as things that immediately became law, but as a call to action by the president, and it's that future action, things like feinsteins proposed ban, and any legislation about mental health issues that has me worried, and that's what I've been discussing in the many many many threads about these issues on ATS.

Although I've been advocating preservation of our liberties, primarily 2nd amendment rights, in all honestly it's the "mentally ill" thing that bothers me most. The fact that there are many levels of mentally ill doesn't seem to come into play, and the idea that anyone who is mentally ill is a violent danger to society is just wrong. They seem to like to paint with an obscenely wide brush when they can get away with it. Which is not to say that sane measures to keep guns out of the hands of the the mentally ill who are a violent danger to society is a bad thing or something I would be against. Just don't want to see people who have mental health issues that don't relate to a desire to do harm lose their liberties, or people who are for all intents and purposes sane labeled as mentally ill as a way to strip liberties from them.

reply to post by Hefficide


Just because these 23 recommendations have not been signed into law doesn't mean that it doesn't set a precedent, just look at the fact that insurance companies are starting to cancel policy's of individuals tied to arms industry companies. link

This is a slippery slope, and it seems that it's not just pro 2nd amendment that are going off half-cocked!

reply to post by Taliesien333

Originally posted by Taliesien333
The fact that there are many levels of mentally ill doesn't seem to come into play, and the idea that anyone who is mentally ill is a violent danger to society is just wrong.

I don't want to get too far off the topic, but what, in this list or any other document, leads you to think that the levels of mental illness don't come into play? I have seen NO indication that there is a message being pushed that claims anyone who is mentally ill is a danger to society.

The most I have seen is the New York law, which requires mental health professionals to report someone who they think is a danger to themselves or someone else. And that has always been the case. They are under no legal obligation to report it, a consensus is requires before authorities are contacted and the professional is not liable for any legal action, whether they report the patient or not.

Source

reply to post by Hefficide

Now things like this tend to run above my pay grade as they say, and I am not trying to argue...but would'nt those that work in the system know better?

i will post a few quotes then add sources at the end..

Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota is calling President Obama's use of executive orders to push more gun control "wrong headed," saying in a recent interview there "isn't any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this [mass shootings]."

Sen. Marco Rubio:

“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill. Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress. President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.

“President Obama’s series of gun control measures amount to an executive power grab that may please his political base but will not solve the problems at hand. He paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights, but took actions that disregard the 2nd Amendment and the legislative process. Representative government is meant to give voice to the people; President Obama’s unilateral executive action ignores this principle,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has a plan to undo President Obama’s executive actions on guns. […]

“We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.

Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.

Source
Source Source


In a reply to a letter I sent to sen. Jim inhofe....he also called them executive orders

So why are even the law makers calling them that?

reply to post by okiecowboy

Originally posted by okiecowboy
....he also called them executive orders

So why are even the law makers calling them that?

It's propaganda. They're calling them that to manipulate you into thinking that Obama is coming after your guns. How are they doing?

What is an Executive Order?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I already know they are coming after mine, and they will only get the business end when they do...but that isn't the topic of this thread, so lets not veer away from that....

reply to post by Hefficide


The believe that anything on that list will be considered as anything other than law in the near future is denial. When it becomes the norm for doctors to ask about yours guns and for mental health providers to turn over your details to the alphabet agencies at will, then we will see how much of a "memorandum" or "presidential letter" this really is.

I'm surprised people can still be this thick.

The people you are aiming this thread at will never admit they were wrong. And they will continue to play it off as Obama is "coming for our guns so he can install socialism." Nothing will convince them otherwise until 2017. then they'll say things like, "if it wasn't for us, he really would've done those things."


I'm pretty sure the reason they called it an Executive Order is simple. It's easier for people to understand since most already know what it is. People are dumb. Having to explain the difference would've taken up a lot of time, and would not be entertaining to watch.

What do you mean supposed?

He sat on stage with those children and put ink to paper that is an EO.

reply to post by Ghost375


well what ever you call it....it stinks, it invades my privacy, strips away my rights, and makes me very unhappy, and it shows across the board what they plan to do about our guns

reply to post by kaylaluv


This is not completely true. We are talking about them questioning about firearms when it is irrelevant to the visit. ALSO if it was nothing new he wouldn't be talking about striking unnecessary legal barriers put up by HIPPA. So you are downplaying it. Between your opinion of it and mine, and not to beep my own horn, but, beep beep, my assessment is a little more accurate.

As for the rest of it, yes we will wait, but it shouldn't even be a concern that people could be denied a right based on depression. Everyone gets down from time to time and they already over prescribe for it. Believe that it is a strong possibility that they are setting it up so that depression could be classified as a mental illness that restricts gun rights. That is where these three particular EO's are leading to.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

This is not completely true. We are talking about them questioning about firearms when it is irrelevant to the visit. ALSO if it was nothing new he wouldn't be talking about striking unnecessary legal barriers put up by HIPPA. So you are downplaying it. Between your opinion of it and mine, and not to beep my own horn, but, beep beep, my assessment is a little more accurate.

Well, the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended that doctors ask about guns since at least 1992 - because child safety is always relevant to a pediatrician.

The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home. Loaded firearms and unlocked firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children and adolescents. At especially high risk are adolescents who have a history of aggressive and violent behaviors, suicide attempts, or depression.

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

And every state in the union allowed this, with the exception of Florida, which tried to enact a law limiting what doctors could ask -- but I believe this law was overturned.

Beep Beep.

reply to post by kaylaluv


please show me in what is listed on number 16 where it is talking about child safety, and if you look on ats, there are already reports of adults being asked

reply to post by Hefficide


So basically the media are rocking the boat and stirring up the pot because they sure as hell were calling them EO/EA...

having said that, I'm pretty damn sure...in fact I'm positive Billy Bobo Biden himself said he would discuss using EO re: guns with Obama



there is the VP himself bringing up executive action. Now can you really blame people? The EO/EA thing didn't pop up out of thin air from paranoia....the leaders of this country themselves are using those terms to describe how they are going to try and handle the situation...

Personally I think there is a lot of confusion going around about it...but to be honest most of it is due to the people in charge...Obama, Biden, the White House and of course the ever so "spot on" 100% factually unbiased MSM......

Yea people may be misled but its not because its their fault....its because the people were looking to for information are compulsive liars...

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

please show me in what is listed on number 16 where it is talking about child safety, and if you look on ats, there are already reports of adults being asked

It doesn't have to specify whether it is for reasons of child or adult safety -- it's up to the doctor.

Can you show me where there was a law prohibiting it up until Obama's memorandum?

reply to post by Hefficide


I just couldn't let this one slide by, the word games this administration plays just kills me.

They both affect law and are used basically the same way.

In the words of our revered Sec of State "what difference does it make?" They both call for change under the power of the president, while bypassing congress and the people.

You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive.

As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order.

We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.

We are aware of no basis for drawing a distinction as to the legal effectiveness of a presidential action based on the form or caption of the written document through which that action is conveyed.

Cf. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials (Aug. 28, 1945) (concluding that a letter from President Roosevelt stating the government's policy "constitute[d] a Presidential directive having the force and effect of law," notwithstanding its informality of form). It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner. This principle plainly extends to the legal effectiveness of a document styled as a "presidential directive."

Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action

. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976) (including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).

RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Acting Assistant Attorney General


www.justice.gov...

Here's more info on it, I couldn't get it to paste.


www.llsdc.org...



Clinton seems to be the first one to really play this game, he used it because of the publics lack of knowledge concerning "memorandums". Of course the media is pushing this idea that they are harmless, truth is they carry the same legal weight as EOs.

The Presidential Memorandum: An Evolving Policy Tool

www.questia.com...

They are conditioning the people to accept whatever measures the Tyrant and his Fellow Travelers want. They are just not calling it an EO because they know people are on to EOs now. So they are going to call it a Memorandum.

Just like in Communism...instead of calling it the Communist Manifesto or Green Socialism, they will call it Sustainable Development.

Oh yah, and it's not Liberal, it's Progressive

reply to post by timetothink


Please point out specifically where this memorandum enacted a new law, or modified an existing law.

reply to post by snarky412


Hold your applause and read my post.

This is a game!!