Colonel Dan, SASS #24025 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 FYI... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/ Link to comment
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 "The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules." If this happens, I certainly hope "they" take this passage to heart. I've been accused of having an over-active imagination, and it doesn't take much imagination to see people tagged as "legally prohibited from having a firearm" after counseling for grief, or divorce, or any number of other relatively benign "adjustments." On the closing subject... what exactly constitutes "gun trafficking?" Would giving your old Model 97 to your brother-in-law qualify? Link to comment
Guest Two Fingers Slim Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I agree with you Hardpan, I know my son-in-law was having trouble adjusting after his last tour in the "Sand Box" (his 5th). But being an "Combat MP" if he did get help it would flag him. So the young staff-sgt and I would have many late night/early mornig talks, (being a combat vet myself) so he decided to get out 2 years ago after 12 years in and sign up in the reserves. The other thing that bothered him was that if he did get counseling the state (Ca.) would take his firearms. So this is a slippery slope at best. Two Fingers Slim Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The Hon. Mr. Mike Thompson's statement “These important executive actions will strengthen our criminalbackground check system and go a long way towards helping make sure gunsdon’t get into the wrong hands,” said Thompson. “Theevidence shows background checks work when they are used. Last year,background checks identified and denied 88,000 sales to prohibitedpurchasers at licensed dealers. However, there is no way of knowing ifthose 88,000 prohibited purchasers, after being denied at a licenseddealer, then bought a gun at a gun show or over the Internet with noquestions asked. This is a huge loophole that costs lives, and that’swhy we need to pass my bipartisan background check bill expandingcomprehensive and enforceable criminal background checks to covercommercial firearm sales such as those at gun shows and over theInternet.” Link to comment
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Good on ya, Slim...! And please pass on our good wishes to your son-in-law! And by the way... seems we happen to live within walking distance of each other! More later~! Joe... next time you have the opportunity to speak with "Mr T," ask him just what exactly an "internet sale" of a firearm might be that would skirt the existing laws. Good Grief.... what a maroon. Him, not you!! Link to comment
Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 FYI... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/03/obama-administration-proposes-new-executive-actions-on-gun-background-checks/ The only problem I see with this, what if you have to see a mental health person and that individual is really anti gun what stops them from reporting anybody and everybody so they can't even own a fire reguardless of their mental health condition. KK Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Good on ya, Slim...! And please pass on our good wishes to your son-in-law! And by the way... seems we happen to live within walking distance of each other! More later~! Joe... next time you have the opportunity to speak with "Mr T," ask him just what exactly an "internet sale" of a firearm might be that would skirt the existing laws. Good Grief.... what a maroon. Him, not you!! I did that on his FB page right after I saw his note. Said that internet sales must go through FFLs who then perform the required background check. Also pointed out that it seems the only way he can push the anti-civil rights agenda is to lie. Link to comment
The Shoer 27979 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Good on ya, Slim...! And please pass on our good wishes to your son-in-law! And by the way... seems we happen to live within walking distance of each other! More later~! Joe... next time you have the opportunity to speak with "Mr T," ask him just what exactly an "internet sale" of a firearm might be that would skirt the existing laws. Good Grief.... what a maroon. Him, not you!! he called me on the phone the day after Veterans day Hardpan the man does not have a clue. All he did was give me political double talk every time I tried telling him back round checks don't work every time I gave him an example of why back round checks don't work he would come back with, we re talking about my bill. Link to comment
Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 The only problem I see with this, what if you have to see a mental health person and that individual is really anti gun what stops them from reporting anybody and everybody so they can't even own a fire reguardless of their mental health condition. KK Right now, the only thing I can see is a malpractice suit. Which may turn inot a "he said - she said" argument in court. Link to comment
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The Hon. Mr. Mike Thompson's statement “These important executive actions will strengthen our criminal background check system and go a long way towards helping make sure guns don’t get into the wrong hands,” said Thompson. “The evidence shows background checks work when they are used. Last year, background checks identified and denied 88,000 sales to prohibited purchasers at licensed dealers. However, there is no way of knowing if those 88,000 prohibited purchasers, after being denied at a licensed dealer, then bought a gun at a gun show or over the Internet with no questions asked. This is a huge loophole that costs lives, and that’s why we need to pass my bipartisan background check bill expanding comprehensive and enforceable criminal background checks to cover commercial firearm sales such as those at gun shows and over the Internet.” There is a simple answer to the allegation above. "There is no way of knowing what 88,000 denied applicants did (after their denial) because of the 88,000 acts of governmental failure (Malfeasance) to investigate and prosecute crimes. If this was about protecting the public, why were there virtually no prosecutions? This is about controlling the American public. Link to comment
Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I serve as a "Marine4Life" counselor in North Idaho's Panhandle. That is a puely volunteer effort by the Marine Corps for assistance to any Marine Corps veteran. Sadly, there are many, many PTSD sufferers in that small area. None of them appear to pose a threat to anyone but themselves. One Big Ass Mistake America is simply exercising CYA on his way to total gun confiscation. He is a Chicago pol. Anyone that is familiar with Chicago politics know that anything goes in that hopelessly corrupt burg. Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 There is a simple answer to the allegation above. "There is no way of knowing what 88,000 denied applicants did (after their denial) because of the 88,000 acts of governmental failure (Malfeasance) to investigate and prosecute crimes. If this was about protecting the public, why were there virtually no prosecutions? This is about controlling the American public. Nice one, Mr. Flint. Link to comment
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I fear for so many of the vets that I ride with and know otherwise who have gone the route of securing a 100% service related disability due to PTSD. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.