“BREAKING: Obama Issues New Executive Actions on Background Checks for Gun Purchases”
The Boy King is at war with the People and their flawed document. Again. And this time — as with much of how the left operates — semantics and deconstruction of language will be the tool through which they oppress us:
President Obama has released two new executive actions on background checks for gun purchases. The actions were posted on WhiteHouse.gov Friday afternoon and according to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, will make it easier for states to submit mental health information to the federal background check system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS.
“Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system,” the executive action announcement states. “The Administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.”
-Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.
-Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. 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. 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.While it is important states are easily able to submit mental health information to the federal background check system, changes in HIPAA should come with extreme scrutiny and thought due to a high risk of changes in the law resulting in major privacy violations. Many doctors are already asking patients (and not just those with mental health problems) about whether or not they have a gun in their home, a fine line to walk.
In the executive action announcement, the White House also urged Congress to pass more gun control measures, some of which Democrats voted no on early last year.
While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence.The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.Always be wary of the phrase “common-sense gun safety,” especially when it comes from gun control advocates. No “common-sense” gun control law has ever reduced crime or mass shootings. If advocates have to tell you they aren’t infringing on your Second Amendment rights, they are probably infringing on your Second Amendment rights. Further, gun trafficking is already a federal offense.
It is not difficult to recognize a camel’s nose poking under the tent, and the plan here — which is a plan other socialist and Marxist-Leninist political ideologies have deployed to unfortunate success — is to begin the process of having the government politicize mental health, with the upshot being future expansions and changes to the criteria for defining and codifying mental health issues, from prescription drugs issued to the conflation of ailments relating to mental health that have no connection to gun violence, and yet will permit the government to take away from certain citizens a natural right they have no authority to take away, and only the authority to secure.
Beyond mere privacy concerns — and those are of course legion, and tied not only to these Executive fiats but also to ObamaCare’s governmental intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship (thanks, John Roberts!) — what these orders do are disincentivize people who may need treatment for depression or other mental illnesses (PTSD, etc) from seeking help, knowing that to do so would mean that they will, in the future, be treated as citizens with reduced rights, even though they’ve committed no crime.
This is a form of fatalism insinuating its way into politics under the guise of protection; and it sets the stage for other such programs and instances in which the greater good is said to be served, from eliminating the financial burden of defective children by killing them in utero (see Belgium) to the world in which genetic coding is read as predetermining behavior.
At which point the government becomes the final arbiter of what is said to be genetically beneficial and what is not — a slippery slope down which others have traveled, and not too very long ago.
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. But the question is, what do we do about those who haven’t forgotten about the past, and yet seek to repeat it, anyway?