E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Conservative opponents of President Obama have called him a “dictator,” a “tyrant,” “imperial,” for proposing executive actions he believes would help prevent gun violence.
“President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress,” charged Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is widely believed to be eyeing a 2016 White House run, in response to the president’s announcement Wednesday.
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, accused the president of an "executive power grab." "Representative government is meant to give voice to the people; President Obama’s unilateral executive action ignores this principle," Priebus said in a statement.
But the 23 executive actions the president signed today do not seem to go very far, as his critics suggest. In fact, most are administrative – publishing letters, writing memos, and appointing administrators.
There is even one the National Rifle Association would seemingly embrace -- No. 18 “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”
Related: Obama's gun plans spark little enthusiasm with key lawmakers
The NRA called for the government to pay for an armed guard in every school in America.
The vagueness of some of the directives may cause controversy, but only one specific one jumps out that may get some talking -- No. 16: “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
There are some who believe the health-care law outlaws doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes. But that’s not true.
What it does prohibit, however, is “employers and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from asking about gun ownership in many instances, and it prohibits HHS from collecting such data,” according to the Kaiser Health Foundation.
Seven states – Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia -- have considered laws to prevent doctors from talking to patients about guns in their homes. Only Florida’s became law, but a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against enforcing it.
“Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities,” according to a White House fact sheet released ahead of the president’s address Wednesday. “But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence.”
Recommended: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad
It continues, “Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home.”
Here are the full 23 executive actions:
Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions
Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
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.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
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.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Leave a Comment:
Wow - 23 executive actions - just think of all of the people he will have to appoint to run the show on these so-called executive actions...............more SPEND SPEND SPEND and nothing will be accomplished. Anything to divert our attention away from the BUDGET.
24. Mandatory liability insurance on each and every gun owned - just like auto insurance! And an absorbent TAX on ammo just like you "MY RIGHTS" hypocrites did on my smokes -
Laughing my ass off
Good one, Rev
Philip "Bushmaster Morris", creator of the "Smoking Gun"
Tax 'em Rev!
"Since your 1st Amendment speech is hurting my feelings, maybe we should lobby limit yours."
There are MANY limits on the first amendment...fighting words, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, slander, screaming at the top of your lungs in front of your neighbor's house at 3AM, etc., etc. Most "rights" have limits and some degree of regulation. The second amendment needs those too. The system provides many means for doing this. Our elected officials can create legislation and yes, even pass executive orders. If you dislike it, work within the system you want to protect. But whining about restrictions as if there are none for other rights really doesn't give you any credibility.
Those have nothing to do with 1st Amendment free speech issues, but rather disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. You're the one with a credibility issue.
Marin County California has had a very successful gun buy-back program. People inherit guns for one reason or another. They don't have a use for the guns and so they turn them in for $200. They actually ran out of money and had to give vouchers to be used after further fund raising. Bay Area cities have had similar buy-back programs and they have helped curb the availablity of firearms to those who shouldn't have them.
Looking at the Administration's plan it seems the NRA is getting a very sensible program, much of it what they have been asking for. Yet, that same organization publishes despicable statements about the Presidents children. It is very childish.
No one is taking anyone's guns away. The Administration has no intent and even if they did they know it would never get through Congress (good thing). We have to understand that what they have proposed is sensible and will hardly, if at all, make a dent in the sales of guns as they will be sold to the good guys who are sane. So the gun manufacturers shouldn't have to worry.
Unfortunately if Jesus Christ or Buddha came down and made the exact same proposals the right wing nut jobs and the NRA would go along but because they are being proposed by President Obama they buck it.
Bull@!$%# - they'd re-crucify Jesus and shoot Buddha in the face.
I seriously doubt that a very high percentage of firearms turned in during your buybacks are worth what is paid for them. BTW, I happen to be a Republican and a gun owner who has watched issues like this for a few years. I will not attack those individuals that are in favor of Feinstein and company if you are polite to me and others like me that try to be reasonable.
and im sure not one gang banger or criminal sold any guns to them, only law abiding citizens. so that program really helps to deter crime. LOL
Gun Buy Back programs are fantastic. If I was a criminal and had used a firearm in a crime, this would be a great way to dispose of it. After all, aren't these Buy Backs done on a no questions asked basis?
@mrwood3,
Maybe the "criminal" didn't participate in the buy back program, but I suspect that at least a few of the guns were turned in by people that were afraid the weapons would get into the wrong hands--and had reason to think that was imminent. Believe me, if I discovered my teenager with a gun, I would confiscate and turn it in immediately.
I lived in a city with almost daily drug related gun violence and know that Mothers (and all parents), are trying desperately to keep their sons on the straight and narrow. That's the third element that needs to be addressed: Guns, Mental Health, and DRUGS.
Guns, guns, guns- I'm most worried about the mental health stipulations. Now I must watch what I say to my therapist, lest he turn me into the authorities. Statements such as "I'd like to put him in his place", "I'm worried for my safety", or "I hate the President" could all be construed as warning signs. Best not to say anything & let it build up inside?
p.s. - I'm personally offended by all these "nut job" remarks
This argument would be funny if it wasn't so D$^*#d important!!!!!!!! Here in the first 100 some odd comments, I've seen insults aimed at gun owners and the left as well. And I've also seen a number of comments intended to drown out the other side. This reminds me of nothing more than a group of 3rd graders arguing with one another over how to play a game or for that matter the anti war protests during Vietnam. All of you need to grow up and realize that it takes everyone working together to solve this problem.
Then lets work together. Everyone strap on a sidearm, wear it openly, and make it plainly aware that the odds are against criminals and psychos being successful in their chosen quest. Sure, a few innocents will die but aren't they already? Hang that Smith or Colt or Ruger on your hip and use it as necessary. When we start dusting off a few politicians because they are professional liars and cheats, we will see gun reform. You can count on it. Meanwhile, so long as its just thugs, gangbangers, and nutcases doing the shooting, they have no interest in rocking the boat.
Jim, if you have gone through what the various states require for a carry permit, you do not as a general rule start blasting away indisciminately. Very few of us want the headaches involved in screwing up. Personally, I'm not in favor of open carry because I don't care to advertise.
Just so you will be aware, the reason that the shooter in the mall in Oregon didn't shoot more than he did was because of a civilian that was carrying his pistol, The civilian had his pistol out but couldn't shoot at the individual because someone was behind the shooter and the civilian didn't have a clean shot. The person with the stolen AR, saw the good guy and went into a stair well where he wound up shooting himself. This is an abbreviated account. you can get a better look from the papers in Oregon.
In case no one else noticed - these are Executive Actions, not Executive Orders. None of those actions are creating new law or ordering anyone to ignore existing law. Is that the difference between Executive Actions and Executive Orders?
#19 should include anyplace that specifically prohibits guns, as those are the places the nut jobs will target, being as they don't want to be killed before they accomplish their objectives. (Why are guns the centerpiece of his initiative?) [Do I see an 'agenda' here?]
Most of these issues which are not already covered by the Gun Control Act of 68 or by the law which set up the instant background checks deal with either HIPAA or the ACA. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. The issues on tracking stolen guns as well as those used in crimes, I would have thought were already being performed.
What I have to laugh at is for those of you who thought the idea of armed guards/responders in schools was ridiculous...that made the list. Oh yeah, for the training and safety programs as well as assistance in designing emergency response plans, just who do you think will be involved in that? Well, it won't be the military (violation of Posse Comitatus) but rather local Law Enforcement and the NRA.
"Representative government is meant to give voice to the people; President Obama’s unilateral executive action ignores this principle," Priebus said in a statement. Wow, kinda sounds like what we have here in Michigan especially during Lame Duck!!!!
*lafs* Funny, but the only real order that will do anything is the one the NRA suggested from the beginning. You know, the one that all the liberals thought they were crazy for;
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
And even then, he only listed it at number 18!
I agree we should step up the effort to go after the cause - people. Why would anyone think we should give up the right of many because of the actions of a few.
Remember back in grade school when the whole class didn't get to go to recess because someone wrote something stupid on the chalkboard. The 1st, 2nd, 4th & 10th amendments are currently under attack, and not just by this administration, all under the guise of the greater good.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Ben Franklin
The real truth is a safe society is not a free society, it's a controlled society.
All of the 'proposals' appear to be reasonable and non-constitutional threatening. OK, 'conservs', in the light of Sandy Hook, what are your 'proposals'?
OK moron how are we ging to pay for this mess. Remeber, the odds of a child drowning far outway the odds of kids dying in school. We should outlaw pools immediatly if we all care about the little ones. Out law bikes and skateboards as well. An acentive to hire a resource officer, wow and who is going to pay for it. DLK, you and the dictator and cheif can take the actions and stick them then where the sun the shine.
You propose doing nothing?
Your 'name' calling exhibits your level of education.
Ken, you are correct but, you immediate attach on DKL kind of buries the rest. Remember civil discourse is the key....
You bring up a great point in this article, there are things that both the NRA, Republicans, and Democrats would all agree on. So the question is why did Obama use executive orders today rather than trying to work with the Congress and Senate on this matter where there are many things they would all agree on? As you state, the executive orders are not much to see but the way it plays out is Obama is such a hero to little children (after they are born--but before that he doesn't mind you aborting them), and the Republicans in Congress are evil because as Obama and the liberal media wants you to believe they don't want to control violence. Hogwash to it all. Obama got another photo op with this time exploiting innocent children, and yet nothing was constructively was accomplished.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. You have to be f u ck ing kidding me. How are we going to pay for this mess. An accentive to hire a resource officer, how will this be paid for. I for one am getting pretty pissed off at our discator in chief with his f c king exceutive orders. He can take all of them an shove them right where the sun does not shine.
My concern is not so much these 23 proposals - many of them I actually agree with - but I think it is extremely dangerous for our form of government to replace legislation with executive fiat. This is much too close to dictating for me to be comfortable. Obama seems to think he can ignore the Congress whenever it becomes inconvenient for him. Simply put, Obama is not sufficiently good to allow him to "rule" without being checked and constrained. In fact no man or woman is that good! There's a reason for our system of governmental checks and balances. Obama should not be allowed to ignore them!
I'd say let the Second Coming of Obee walk the line and be all he wants the rest of us to be...
Meaning, have him place his precious offspring (like we don't consider ours equally precious) in the public schools (the very best millionaires can buy), then keep their IDs a state secret since after all there are plenty of whack jobs out there who want to make the evening news. Then stridently resist having these schools (or teachers) be armed...
Go for it, hypocrite. What do you have to lose ? You were already elected by a whopping 3 %
There is not much boldness here. A really bold move would have been to require all individuals owning assault weapons to become members of the Armed forces in order to legally posses them-and subject them to military discipline as militia members,and as commander-in chief required states to follow suit and enroll them as militia.
that would be bold and in keeping with the second amendment.
Sorry Arlin, it doesn't work that way. If you are in the military, you are not a part of the militia. You might make a thin case that the National Guard is the "Organized Militia", but every able bodied adult, not in the military, is a member of the militia.
Many civilians who own AR 15s have seved in the military and like the idea having a rifle similar to what they trained on. After WWI it was either the 1903 Springfield or the 1917 Enfield. After WWII and Korea, it was the M1 Garand as well as the M1 Carbine, both of which would be in viloation of New York's new law.
Obama acts like he is King. making laws with the flick of his pen instead of going through congress as our constitution set up. He takes million dollar vacations when the country is quickly reaching the point of no return as far as our economy goes. He is an arrogant A_— that thinks because he buys votes from ignorant liberals he is a ruler instead of a leader of free men.
King Obama rules with the stroke of a pen over supposedly free people. In a free society the government doesn't rule over the people but insures their freedoms.
There are 300 million guns in the US. If you honestly think there will be some movement to ban or confiscate all guns, you are truly delusional. Taking that reason away from you, what are your other concerns in simply limiting some types of extremem weaponry and having universal background checks to buy the rest? Heck, you have go through a background check to get a job sitting in a dark, dreary cube adding numbers together. Why not to buy a gun? Let's get real and quit being mad and paranoid. Save the foil for your leftovers and let's talk rationally.
You just do not get it do you. Go ahead and read the excutive articles signed today. How are we going to pay for it. The debt will be the downfall of this great nation, not all the assalut rifles out there.
Where are all these Constitutional violations the NRA spoke about?
it would appear that the NRA is prepping for a fight.
tell ya what, bring on whatever rag-tags you got. overthrow the govt.
seems this is what you are hoping for - the ONE opportunity to have that "right" realized.
do it, A$$holes.
The problem is that there are proper processes for laws set forth by our founding fathers. They did that with an intent to avoid tyranny and activism. We have to be very careful with the executive orders because we are in danger or giving away rights set forth in the constitution. It is a very fine line.
How can the author claim that the EO that will cause the most conversation will be #16, when #14 is actually against the law? The CDC is expressly forbidden, be federal law, from conducting studies on gun violence and gun control. An executive order which is directed toward circumventing federal law is unconstitutional.
There is no difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle. There is no difference between a 10-round magazine and a 30-round magazine, either. That's why the military uses hunting rifles and 10-round magazines in combat, right?
Gun nuts are sounding stupidier by the minute. Their ignorance and lies are only reinforcing my belief that they are not responsible enough to own a gun-- any gun!