Obama announces EO plans for the immediate future

[dennishoddy]

I guess if it's super easy, then you could tell me exactly how to go about that, right? I mean... in 20 years in the medical field, I've never seen or heard of a way to start this process. But now we're all worried it's going to be happening in every doctor's office every day. Seriously... how would one go about it? Like actually get the ball rolling. I've never seen or heard of a single clinician doing this. Hell, I've explicitly documented someone's violent tendencies, outright threats, psychotic delusions and very clear danger to themselves AND to society as a whole, all while completely sober and under the influence of no drugs. Then called Law Enforcement and had them taken into custody, at which point they got a night's sleep in the county lockup and went home the next morning.

But some folks here would like you to think it's easy as pie to just add a diagnosis of "depression" in someone's electronic chart in your office, and next thing you know, the three-letter brigade is showing up to confiscate their gun collection.



Riiiiiiight.....

The VA Doctors asked me that very question on my annual review. I answered that I didn't own guns. Don't know if he was working on a private poll, but I'd bet not.
Buddy (Cold War vet)answered that he had a cocktail about 3 days a week. Just three, and he was advised if he didn't slow down, he would be required to enter the alcohol abuse program.
I also checked zero on alcohol after hearing his report.

 

[cktad]

So far the VA has not asked me anything about firearms.

 

[rhart]

I lifted this from WaPo online - talking about the "new guidelines" only and not the NFA trusts or HIPA:

Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. It merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks. In other words, it is - as the document says - a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.
If the ATF guidelines are nothing more than a guidance, but not a tightening of the relevant legal standard - why would the administration do this? First, guidance documents are often useful insofar as they explicate relevant legal standards and (as the name implies) provide guidance to the regulated community. Such documents can help people know when they are subject to specific legal requirements.
A second potential reason for issuing a guidance document of this sort is that the administration hopes to “chill” marginal gun sales. Although a guidance document does not change the relevant legal standard, the issuance of such a document can affect behavior. Individuals who learn they are closer to the relevant legal line than they had realized might be encouraged to comply with the relevant legal requirements, or they may opt to stop selling guns. In this way, a guidance document may help to discourage behavior the government wishes to control but which may lie beyond the government’s legal reach.
A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)

 

[tRidiot]

It's a slippery slope though, isn't it? I don't know what that world would look like... How we could navigate something like that... You know, restricting an inherent human right based on a declaration and nothing more. We're supposed to be afforded a due process in this country... It's all just so complicated and I don't know the right answer but I lean towards the way we're currently doing things. With freedom comes more risks. We can almost eliminate some of them, but we lose freedom along with it. For many, it's just not worth the trade.

I don't want to live in safer world. I want to live in a freer one.

<snip>

I had a long diatribe here about the legal system and how it is stacked, but it's really not worth it, and not the place for it. Suffice it to say, I am looking as hard as I can at how to get out of medicine. I will run, not walk, RUN, and I will NOT look back.

 

[chuter]

I bet we start seeing phrases like "looking to improve my collection" in classified adds, since the guidelines say they don't want to go after collectors and hobbyists.
They said the way the seller presents themselves to the public is a factor in determining "in the business".

 

[Raoul Duke]

So what about the gun buy back programs supported by so many gun grabbers?

Will the sellers be required to get an FFL?

Will the buyers have do a background check for each sale?

 

[Defnestor]

So what about the gun buy back programs supported by so many gun grabbers?

Will the sellers be required to get an FFL?

Will the buyers have do a background check for each sale?

I think there was one derailed in Oregon, because no FFL would agree to do the transfers to the police.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think there was one derailed in Oregon, because no FFL would agree to do the transfers to the police.

If true, poetic justice.

 

[mightymouse]

Never mind.