Executive Order

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

 

Executive Orders are done historically to set up agencies such as FEMA after a disaster (emergency) or order how existing laws would be executed. But to "make a law" such as this circumvents the process established where Congress does so. I'm sure its been done (exploited) before in this manner throughout history, doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

 

Here are three things that are in the package (according to the White House fact sheet):

• Hiring more people to run the FBI background check system, so the government can be "processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."

• Requesting from Congress an additional $500 million to increase access to mental health care.

• Clarifying that people selling guns over the Internet can still be required to conduct background checks on buyers if they are "engaged in the business" of selling guns, not just a hobbyist.

 

And here's the stuff discussed in the days before the announcement that is NOT in the package:

• A requirement that every gun sale in the country is proceeded by a criminal background check.

• A ban on gun sales to people on terrorist "no-fly" lists.

• A ban on large capacity magazines that hold a lot of bullets.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2016/01/05/obama-guns-proposals-sales-nra-ryan/78282918/

 

Two of the three actions seem to fit your definition perfectly. Hiring more people at a federal agency, clarify that the federal agency should also enforce the law when purchases are made over the internet.

 

The only questionable part of the bill, as far as executive order goes, is the 500 million for mental health care. But this is hardly out of line when compared to past uses of executive orders, even though it does not fit the description you provided.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2016/01/05/obama-guns-proposals-sales-nra-ryan/78282918/

 

Two of the three actions seem to fit your definition perfectly. Hiring more people at a federal agency, clarify that the federal agency should also enforce the law when purchases are made over the internet.

 

The only questionable part of the bill, as far as executive order goes, is the 500 million for mental health care. But this is hardly out of line when compared to past uses of executive orders, even though it does not fit the description you provided.

I don't know how well that whole mental health check will go. You have a lot of HIPAA involved with that.

[Mike Honcho 5,435]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2016/01/05/obama-guns-proposals-sales-nra-ryan/78282918/

 

Two of the three actions seem to fit your definition perfectly. Hiring more people at a federal agency, clarify that the federal agency should also enforce the law when purchases are made over the internet.

 

The only questionable part of the bill, as far as executive order goes, is the 500 million for mental health care. But this is hardly out of line when compared to past uses of executive orders, even though it does not fit the description you provided.

And it's only a request, not binding.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

Executive Orders are done historically to set up agencies such as FEMA after a disaster (emergency) or order how existing laws would be executed.

Yeah. He's directing the ATF and FBI to do more stuff, hire more people, fund new initiatives, etc. Not "making a law." Only congress can make laws.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

How do 2nd amendment purists feel about people on disability for mental health reasons being able to legally own a gun?

[Mungwater 601]

Yeah, the HIPPA is going to be a bear to enforce.

[Mungwater 601]

How do 2nd amendment purists feel about people on disability for mental health reasons being able to legally own a gun?

You could get around it if you had a database of every person who sought psychiatric help. You don't want the local guy to know your business. Then you require every doctor to disclose the information, which I'm not sure they'll be happy with. Imagine that information getting out in the public..

 

If the background check was totally lock tight, and the response to a background check is a binary yes or no. I can see it working, otherwise it'll get stuck in courts for decades.

[KSB2424 3,173]

 

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2016/01/05/obama-guns-proposals-sales-nra-ryan/78282918/

 

Two of the three actions seem to fit your definition perfectly. Hiring more people at a federal agency, clarify that the federal agency should also enforce the law when purchases are made over the internet.

 

The only questionable part of the bill, as far as executive order goes, is the 500 million for mental health care. But this is hardly out of line when compared to past uses of executive orders, even though it does not fit the description you provided.

 

I don't disagree if that is all that is in this EO. But that was not what Obama was selling in his speech. That is not how it is portrayed in the media (CNN). Both the administration and the media were saying that it expands background checks and does much more than what you just posted.

 

So either A. This EO does more than those three things on that sheet or B. The President and the Media are hyping this up as something its not.

[jerryskids 7,085]

"$500M to increase access to mental health care"... what does this mean? It sounds decoupled from guns.

[Djgb13 2,339]

You could get around it if you had a database of every person who sought psychiatric help. You don't want the local guy to know your business. Then you require every doctor to disclose the information, which I'm not sure they'll be happy with. Imagine that information getting out in the public..

 

If the background check was totally lock tight, and the response to a background check is a binary yes or no. I can see it working, otherwise it'll get stuck in courts for decades.

The patient can even sue the doctor and hospital for violation of HIPAA. Those records cannot be given out unless consent has been given by the patient which I'm pretty sure they won't. So no way do I see that ever happening

[Strike 6,021]

"$500M to increase access to mental health care"... what does this mean? It sounds decoupled from guns.

 

The thinking is that a lot of people who commit these heinous acts are mentally ill. And there's no doubt we don't spend enough on mental health. However, I don't think this 500 mil is going to help so, like most everything else in this set of plans, it's a waste of money.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Close all the loopholes, eliminate all of the mass shootings with legally obtained guns. How many killings are done with legal weapons versus illegal? Take out suicides and that's the real number. I honestly don't know it.

Sigh. The school shootings get the headlines, but the real number includes all gun-related deaths.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

 

I don't disagree if that is all that is in this EO. But that was not what Obama was selling in his speech. That is not how it is portrayed in the media (CNN). Both the administration and the media were saying that it expands background checks and does much more than what you just posted.

 

So either A. This EO does more than those three things on that sheet or B. The President and the Media are hyping this up as something its not.

 

 

I did not listen to the speech and pretty much my only source of news is USA Today, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

 

The reason for the difference is that the administration does not believe it has authority under existing laws to do the bigger stuff. So they are using administrative actions to squeeze the stuff out of the corners of existing laws.

 

www.usatoday.com

 

Same article as I linked earlier.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

However, I don't think this 500 mil is going to help so, like most everything else in this set of plans, it's a waste of money.

A GOP congress will also never authorize it either, so it's a moot point.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Every time government even suggests more gun control gun sales go through the roof. Seems like this stuff has the exact OPPOSITE effect as what is intended. Keep up the good work.

So should we eliminate all gun laws then?

[Strike 6,021]

A GOP congress will also never authorize it either, so it's a moot point.

 

Saw a quote from Paul Ryan that there isn't much they can do about it. Already passed a spending bill or some such thing.

[Djgb13 2,339]

Sigh. The school shootings get the headlines, but the real number includes all gun-related deaths.

Disagree. Suicides should not be considered in the equation. Suicides are their own category and should not be listed with gun deaths.

[Mungwater 601]

Sigh. The school shootings get the headlines, but the real number includes all gun-related deaths.

Suicide is different, shouldn't count

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I hate that Obummer is the first president to ever use an executive order. How dare he?

[jerryskids 7,085]

 

The thinking is that a lot of people who commit these heinous acts are mentally ill. And there's no doubt we don't spend enough on mental health. However, I don't think this 500 mil is going to help so, like most everything else in this set of plans, it's a waste of money.

Agreed. Basically I was wondering if the money was targeted for something gun-specific (like a mental health DB to block purchases) or general mental health funding. Seems like the latter.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Of the last five presidents, Reagan has issued the most executive orders.

Obumbler: second fewest.

Yeah, I saw a chart where executive orders ebb and flow, with both parties issuing roughly the same number over time. Obama hasn't ordered very many, just like Bush before him.

[Mungwater 601]

Sigh. The school shootings get the headlines, but the real number includes all gun-related deaths.

Automobile fatalities include people who close the garage door and kill themselves?

[hoytdwow 202]

I hate that Obummer is the first president to ever use an executive order. How dare he?

He's the only one to trample the Constitution so, in an election year, when the opposition party is in power and thus in a position to sensationalize the act, and capitalize on the fallout to sling red meat to their base

[penultimatestraw 473]

Something I read a while back. If I can find it I'll post it

It isn't that much:

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of Oct. 1, 2013, there were 367 former members of Congress who had retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, the old system that was criticized for being too generous. Those members were receiving an average annual pension of $71,664. The pensions of the 250 former members who retired under the Federal Employees Retirement System, which began in 1987, average even less. Their average pension was $42,048 in 2013, CRS said.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

He's the only one to trample the Constitution so, in an election year, when the opposition party is in power and thus in a position to sensationalize the act, and capitalize on the fallout to sling red meat to their base

Are you calling KSB stupid?

[hoytdwow 202]

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

And now you know why they oppose term limits and vote themselves raises every chance they get.

[KSB2424 3,173]

If this EO ONLY throws more resources (gov't employees doing background checks) and money (to somehow check mental illness before gun purchases) then there is nothing to see here. That is a perfectly normal Executive Order and makes somewhat sense.

 

But that is not how it was portrayed in the Media and in that speech. It was hyped as much more. It was hyped that there was actual changes, not just more resources and money thrown at already existing laws.

[KSB2424 3,173]

I hate that Obummer is the first president to ever use an executive order. How dare he?

 

Nobody ever said that, you're making up stuff.

[BudBro 183]

I'd rather have him just do it than worry about the process. This congress hates Obama and he'd never get done what he's promised if he waits for them. Such a shame but I'm glad this is another notch on his belt before he leaves office.

I'd prefer he stay within the scope of his job, which doesn't include making and enacting new laws for whatever whim to which his narcissist mind awakens. Congress makes new laws, which they DIDN'T bother to do when they had majority control through the last 2 years of W and six years of this guy. Is that the Congress to which you're referring that "hates" him? The one made up of a majority of dems in the both houses? Maybe he could start working on lowering the deficit, or maybe stop parading around the world blaming America for everything, or maybe stop the thieving of the treasury through mmgw nonsense. Maybe he could just play golf until November so he can't do any more harm than he's already done.

[penultimatestraw 473]

You could get around it if you had a database of every person who sought psychiatric help. You don't want the local guy to know your business. Then you require every doctor to disclose the information, which I'm not sure they'll be happy with. Imagine that information getting out in the public..

 

If the background check was totally lock tight, and the response to a background check is a binary yes or no. I can see it working, otherwise it'll get stuck in courts for decades.

That doesn't sound remotely HIPAA compliant. And people may avoid seeking mental health care if such a database existed, which is already a big problem because of the stigma of mental illness.

[Mungwater 601]

I'd prefer he stay within the scope of his job, which doesn't include making and enacting new laws for whatever whim to which his narcissist mind awakens. Congress makes new laws, which they DIDN'T bother to do when they had majority control through the last 2 years of W and six years of this guy. Is that the Congress to which you're referring that "hates" him? The one made up of a majority of dems in the both houses? Maybe he could start working on lowering the deficit, or maybe stop parading around the world blaming America for everything, or maybe stop the thieving of the treasure through mmgw nonsense. Maybe he could just play golf until November so he can't do any more harm than he's already done.

Every president does it, the reason who's doing it now is there are a ton of seats up in next election. Any incumbent isn't going to put their name on the record for almost anything this close to a re election. Just let the guy who isn't going for an office put his name on it.

 

Politics as usual

[Mungwater 601]

That doesn't sound remotely HIPPA compliant. And people may avoid seeking mental health care if such a database existed, which is already a big problem because of the stigma of mental illness.

That was my point

[Djgb13 2,339]

That doesn't sound remotely HIPPA compliant. And people may avoid seeking mental health care if such a database existed, which is already a big problem because of the stigma of mental illness.

People already have problems going to get help as it is. Put them on a database? Hell no they won't be going. There is a reason behind HIPAA. No one but the doctor, the nurse, and the technician should be able to look at their encounters.

[penultimatestraw 473]

"$500M to increase access to mental health care"... what does this mean? It sounds decoupled from guns.

It's super vague. Unless there is something more explicit, this sounds like more $ for providing mental health care than anything to do with psych background checks. And yeah, the two are only loosely related.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

But that is not how it was portrayed in the Media and in that speech. It was hyped as much more. It was hyped that there was actual changes, not just more resources and money thrown at already existing laws.

So? There's the reality of the thing and the political and media version of that reality. You should be able to tell the difference.

[hoytdwow 202]

I'd prefer he stay within the scope of his job, which doesn't include making and enacting new laws

I stopped reading here. Executive orders do not make or enact laws.

 

People on the far right smell blood and have taken leave of their senses.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Disagree. Suicides should not be considered in the equation. Suicides are their own category and should not be listed with gun deaths.

 

Suicide is different, shouldn't count

Well, we can agree to disagree. If you'll pardon the pun, it blows my mind that the largest segment of gun deaths should be excluded from gun control considerations. Also a big mental health issue, obviously.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Automobile fatalities include people who close the garage door and kill themselves?

Probably included in garage door fatalities.

[Mungwater 601]

 

Well, we can agree to disagree. If you'll pardon the pun, it blows my mind that the largest segment of gun deaths should be excluded from gun control considerations. Also a big mental health issue, obviously.

I guess my point is the suicidal guy will find another way, gun or not, to do the act, can't really control that.

[penultimatestraw 473]

That was my point

Judicious use of the sarcasm emoji would be appreciated.