Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
jehosoba84
Executive orders 2-5.....
January 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM

 These are Executive orders 2-5.  I will insert what I assume each of them to mean. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system. Basically, screw HIPAA. We demand information that was promised to be kept confidential.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system. What are these incentives? Do states get more fed $ for releasing confidential info about their residents?

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. I take this to mean: Broaden the list of 'potentially dangerous illnesses' to include more people, since so many of us are on meds for one reason or another.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. Meaning, if police seize a person's weapons and their reasons for doing so are proven to be unfounded, we will still make people jump thru red tape to get their weapons back.

 

Replies

  • momtimesx4
    January 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.

  • stormcris
    January 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM

    to see if he would do as told or something more?

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.


  • jehosoba84
    January 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM

     

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.

     Ok, Actions. Sorry. And what are you implying? That none of these will be pursued into action?

  • momtimesx4
    January 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM



    Quoting jehosoba84:

     

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.

     Ok, Actions. Sorry. And what are you implying? That none of these will be pursued into action?


    Actions are a child's Christmas wish list

    Orders are a parents shopping list.

    Many of the items he proposed will take time to either implement, to redo existing laws/regulations or to clear red tape that the government is well known for.

     

  • momtimesx4
    January 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM

    Ever see Joe at the recent Senate swearing in ceremony.  I've seen him in person and I was like yep, that's Joe, hasn't changed much.


    Quoting stormcris:

    to see if he would do as told or something more?

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.




  • stormcris
    January 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM

    ahhhh ok

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Ever see Joe at the recent Senate swearing in ceremony.  I've seen him in person and I was like yep, that's Joe, hasn't changed much.


    Quoting stormcris:

    to see if he would do as told or something more?

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.





  • jehosoba84
    January 18, 2013 at 1:26 PM

     

    Quoting momtimesx4:

     

     

    Quoting jehosoba84:

     

    Quoting momtimesx4:

    Executive Actions, not Orders....the entire event was a dog and pony show and a test to see if Joe Biden could behave.

     Ok, Actions. Sorry. And what are you implying? That none of these will be pursued into action?

     

    Actions are a child's Christmas wish list

    Orders are a parents shopping list.

    Many of the items he proposed will take time to either implement, to redo existing laws/regulations or to clear red tape that the government is well known for.

     

     Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining it to me toddler-style. lol

  • jaxTheMomm
    January 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM



    Quoting jehosoba84:

     These are Executive orders 2-5.  I will insert what I assume each of them to mean. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system. Basically, screw HIPAA. We demand information that was promised to be kept confidential.

    This all depends on what happens with the information and who's trained to handle it.  At this point there really aren't details.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system. What are these incentives? Do states get more fed $ for releasing confidential info about their residents?

    Don't know.  However, I think the sharing of information between different states and groups has been a hurdle.  If they do it, could be a good thing.

    4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. I take this to mean: Broaden the list of 'potentially dangerous illnesses' to include more people, since so many of us are on meds for one reason or another.

    Being on medication or having a mental illness doesn't prevent you from purchasing a firearm.  This is probably more like, convicted felons and/or immigrants who have yet to meet the qualifications necessary to purchase a firearm.  Reviewing catagories kind of sounds like rhetoric to me.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. Meaning, if police seize a person's weapons and their reasons for doing so are proven to be unfounded, we will still make people jump thru red tape to get their weapons back.

    What red tape?  You wouldn't even notice a background check being done.  If you are a responsible gun owner, you should have no problem with a background check being done before your property is returned to you.  Just because a weapon was seized and is being returned, does not mean the weapon wasn't illegally aquired or your status has somehow changed.

     



  • momtimesx4
    January 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM



    Quoting jaxTheMomm:



    Quoting jehosoba84:

     These are Executive orders 2-5.  I will insert what I assume each of them to mean. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system. Basically, screw HIPAA. We demand information that was promised to be kept confidential.

    This all depends on what happens with the information and who's trained to handle it.  At this point there really aren't details.

    HIPPA has been a failure from the get go

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system. What are these incentives? Do states get more fed $ for releasing confidential info about their residents?

    Don't know.  However, I think the sharing of information between different states and groups has been a hurdle.  If they do it, could be a good thing.

    Each state maintains records differently, many not computerized due to time it takes to manually input them and money costs. Hell, we can't even get individual federal agencies to work together and share information.

    4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. I take this to mean: Broaden the list of 'potentially dangerous illnesses' to include more people, since so many of us are on meds for one reason or another.

    Being on medication or having a mental illness doesn't prevent you from purchasing a firearm.  This is probably more like, convicted felons and/or immigrants who have yet to meet the qualifications necessary to purchase a firearm.  Reviewing catagories kind of sounds like rhetoric to me.

    Ever read the 4473 questions.  Broaden the list does mean to expand the list of disqualifiers. Holder himself brought it up during the last revision of the forms FFLs maintain.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. Meaning, if police seize a person's weapons and their reasons for doing so are proven to be unfounded, we will still make people jump thru red tape to get their weapons back.

    What red tape?  You wouldn't even notice a background check being done.  If you are a responsible gun owner, you should have no problem with a background check being done before your property is returned to you.  Just because a weapon was seized and is being returned, does not mean the weapon wasn't illegally aquired or your status has somehow changed.

    Background check is one thing, they seize the X item  and say, prove it is yours.  Got a receipt for it?  Until you can prove this item is really yours, we are going to keep it.  Said item does not have to be a firearm, it can be any item, your car, watch, money you happen to have in your purse.  Stuff like that has happened in the past.





  • yourspecialkid
    January 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    I think you covered it pretty well.  I expect to see PTSD added to those things preventing you from owning a gun.  Homeland Security has already added our military members/retirees to their security threat list.


Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts