Doctors can report some mentally ill patients to FBI under new gun control rule

a reply to: interupt42

I'm not a Republican.

All that for naught.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: concerned190
Here ya go. A link straight from the OP.
s3.amazonaws.com...

Whew, I feel soooooo much better. Not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

Given that that is the case, why advocate for or defend the enactment of more laws?

This is not a law.

People seem to have the idea that government's job is to continually enact new legislation, it is not.

Right. It is only the job of the legislative branch to do that.

It most certainly is advocating for new laws.

No, it is not the job of the legislative branch to continually enact new legislation.

a reply to: concerned190
Can you explain why, in particular, you feel threatened by it?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: interupt42

I'm not a Republican.

All that for naught.

Its 2016 its ok for you to come out of the Political Closet.

a reply to: Phage

An explanation of EOs by Yale Law Review->

www.yalelawjournal.org...

"While executive orders may bypass the procedural restraints imposed on other forms of lawmaking,25 they implicate individual rights and the structure of the federal government, thereby “affecting millions” of people.26 Presidents have used executive orders to suspend habeas corpus,27 desegregate the military,28 implement affirmative action requirements for government contractors,29 institute centralized review of proposed agency regulations,30 stall stem cell research,31 create the nation’s first cybersecurity initiative,32 and yes, authorize a surveillance dragnet.33"

The article is about Snowden/NSA but the explanation of EOs puts Obamas latest missive (with that pen!) in perspective.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: concerned190
Can you explain why, in particular, you feel threatened by it?

Why would he bother? I told you why I do and you called me paranoid.

a reply to: greencmp

No, it is not the job of the legislative branch to continually enact new legislation.

Legislative Branch: Headed by Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main task of these two bodies is to make the laws.

www.congressforkids.net...

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp
Did I say that? Name one law (even though this isn't one) which can't be "misused."

But you see, that's what the courts are for, to make sure that the legislative branch (which this does not involve) and the executive branch (which this does involve) do not violate the Constitution.

So, all law can be misused. I'm glad we've settled that point since it is crucial to my perspective.

Given that that is the case, why advocate for or defend the enactment of more laws?
People seem to have the idea that government's job is to continually enact new legislation, it is not.

LOL Yes it is. That's exactly what legislators aka lawmakers do. Otherwise how could any government pass a budget? And the President has the ability to make executive orders, which tell the rest of the federal executive branch how to interpret specific laws. that's literally part of the job.

a reply to: Glinda

An explanation of EOs by Yale Law Review->

Try again.
This is not an executive order. It an an executive action.

But again, executive actions and executive orders are both subject to judicial review.

a reply to: Glinda

However from the OP this is not an executive order but rather an executive action.

On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced 23 executive actions

s3.amazonaws.com...

NM phage beat me to it.

FWIW. an executive action is like a wish list with no legal weight.

"[Most] executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress." "A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

As stated above, individuals who are subject to the Federal mental health
prohibitor are ineligible to purchase a firearm because they have been “committed to a
mental institution” or “adjudicated as a mental defective.”
16 DOJ regulations define these
categories to include persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental
institution for reasons such as mental illness or drug use; have been found incompetent to
stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a
court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others
or unable to manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or
mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.

So basically, I could get denied a right if any lawful entity thinks I am a danger to myself or others or if they think I am incompetent. The wording is too broad.

a reply to: Phage

Conspicuously absent from that is the word continually.

I am making this point because I always hear people saying that congress is unproductive because it only passed X number of laws.

I wholly reject that idea. Furthermore, even the Democrats can be heard to lament the failure of the very same body to repeal deleterious legislation.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp
Did I say that? Name one law (even though this isn't one) which can't be "misused."

But you see, that's what the courts are for, to make sure that the legislative branch (which this does not involve) and the executive branch (which this does involve) do not violate the Constitution.

So, all law can be misused. I'm glad we've settled that point since it is crucial to my perspective.

Given that that is the case, why advocate for or defend the enactment of more laws?
People seem to have the idea that government's job is to continually enact new legislation, it is not.

LOL Yes it is. That's exactly what legislators aka lawmakers do. Otherwise how could any government pass a budget? And the President has the ability to make executive orders, which tell the rest of the federal executive branch how to interpret specific laws. that's literally part of the job.

What's the minimum number of new laws that you think are required to be passed?

You also seem to be affirming your belief that laws are always good and more laws, naturally, must be better.

a reply to: greencmp

I wholly reject that idea.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to know much about how the Constitution set the government up. Or what the word legislation means. Legislature...legislation...see?

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep, cause...ya know, my mentally ill neighbor that hears voices should totally have a gun vault with 50+ guns in it.

*eye roll*

Every time there's a mass shooting 2nd amendment types scream, "It's a mental health issue!"

And now someone's doing something about the mental health issue everyone's upset?

Hypocritical?

so again as i literally never get an answer how does any one who is anti gun propose to ban an entire protected class from owning fire arms? and if they are in support of it do they not understand the implications that presents for the federally protected class list?

i mean you are either protected or not . Not with exceptions for the ones that scare some people,and if you accept that ok banning some things that scare people is ok what happens when a group that dislikes your group (gays for example) gains power and stripps you of your rights?

a reply to: concerned190

So basically, I could get denied a right if any lawful entity thinks I am a danger to myself or others or if they think I am incompetent.

Just as you can be protected from criminal prosecution if declared legally incompetent to stand trial. It goes beyond "thinking" you are incompetent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

I wholly reject that idea.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to know much about how the Constitution set the government up. Or what the word legislation means. Legislature...legislation...see?

Rubbish.

I give up guys, I really do.

People that are pro 2nd amendment just shrug every time there's a mass murder or the homicide/gun crime stats are shown I guess -- or claim its prozac and mental health issues.

Yet they never come up with, or push for, or scream and yell to police themselves and their fellow gun owners.

If you don't get a grip on yourselves and your fellow gun owners, someone else is going to do it -- and they are. I'm so tired of hearing people bitch, piss, and moan about their rights being taken away.

Well, you know -- if you'd just take care of your own folks inside the "gun culture" maybe someone else from outside of it wouldn't have to step in solve it for you, their way.

"But...but...it's criminals with guns!"

Well, how are criminals getting those guns? S&W and Glock aren't selling guns directly to the black market. Why don't you and your fellow gun people crack down on your shady neighborhood FFL's that operate out of their homes? That's something right there you guys could have been doing for years now!

I don't want to hear it anymore from these people opining about how Obama is taking their rights away. If you let your peers abuse their rights, don't be surprised when a bunch of people come hammering down on you and your like-minded compatriots.

EDIT: And this is only a half-baked solution anyway gun people will find "gun doctors" that love guns and just go to those doctors that swear up and down they'll never tell the feds anything. Names will float about in the gun community at the shooting ranges of what doctors are "cool" and which ones aren't.

Just find a cool doctor. There, all this can be avoided.