List of Obama’s 23 Executive Actions on "Gun Violence."

From the Wall Street Journal.

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.

Pay special attention to numbers 2, 4, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 23. I've said before that my biggest concern from all of this are new "mental health" laws, that will lead to confiscation of weapons from "mental defectives" and eventually lead to civil detentions. Well, this looks like the start.

Onward and upward,
airforce

This was issued just BEFORE he released the above EA's and are the teeth of BoamaCare which will "allow" the health organizations to get directly involved with Gun Control...
Yes AF you are correct in your closing summation sir. If nothing else we finally have proof that he is a muslim - only a muslim would use CHILDREN AS A HUMAN SHIELD AT A PRESS CONFERENCE.

Obama Asks Doctors to Help Deal With Guns
11:56 AM, Jan 16, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here's the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

 Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: 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. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

 Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: 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. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

Is #2 saying that your medical records are no longer confidential if you want to have anything to do with firearms? Also with regards to #4 who would become a prohibited person?

As far as #2 goes, that is indeed what it appears to be saying. And for #4, I don't know who the Attorney General will deem to be "dangerous," but I have a pretty good idea.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The mental health angle is going to nab a lot of gun owners before open hostilities commence. I've had a few people tell me local cops use the "are you okay?" line to bait you into 'admitting' you're not, and therefore fitting within the legal flytrap of being mentally off. Then they feel they can sidestep your rights and take you and your guns. They also want more reporting from medical personnel about if you own guns and if you admit to not being absolutely chipper and nothing's wrong.

The rest of it is tightening up on the current system until they can pass new legal bullshit.

Yes, it is a broadening of the "insanity" thing. I have seen the baiting too, and it is getting more common in some workplaces.

All it takes is someone baiting someone to anger, make a phone call, show any emotion whatsoever, and you are "unstable".

Now for the clincher: show no emotion at all, and you are "sociopathic".

all valid points guys.
but concern is with #5
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

scenario:
While driving I happen to go over the limit and get pulled over. no big deal I know the routine
cop : License and registration.
me : I have a concealed carry permit and I am carrying.
cop : OK
and the usual BS of going through the hoops which usually results in the cop taking possession of my weapon. OK no big deal until this crap!
now he would have to run a full background check on me and that will only take a few more minutes unless the "computers are down" and then he'll have to retain my gun until the Background check comes back so we wait longer or he takes it with him and now I have to go unarmed until I retrieve it from the station.

which is total BS!
are those carrying a gun without a permit going to say oh by the way I'm carrying a gun would you like to run a background check on me officer duh!

this "law" is a useless waste of time.

Wait and see. Anyone that speaks out against any part of there agenda. Will be labeled unstable and forced to give up there guns.
Just one more way for them to do the some old song and dance. One here and one there,until none are left that will speak out.

I hate to say it, but almost every one here has said something on here, they could say makes that person unstable and prohibited...It doesn't even have to be that bad..Just a "screw that guy, some one should kick his a##" statement..

Not only does this make your right to privacy history..

Your first amendment rights are gone...because you cannot say how you feel in public anymore...

Or you can say what you think, and lose the second amendment rights...

Or both anyway, because your a member of the militia and therefor unstable..

This is the line we all have talked about..

greywolf

And so the Intifada begins! So be it.

It won't stop with merely taking weapons from "mental defectives." In the old Soviet Union, dissidents were commonly labeled as "mentally ill" and confined to "mental institutions." I think you can see where this is heading.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Guys,

I've always lived by one simple rule.

I never ask permission to exercise a Right I already have. I just do it and their rules be damned.

This government is irrelevant. Make it so.

There isn't a gun to take if the enemy don't know you have one. That means not admitting to having one and being able to pull off a poker face while diverting the cop to another subject. This is why I never went for a CCW.

Or maybe being faster on the Draw.

I dont lie about having guns. I am not afraid to protect my God given rights, with force when neccesary. Yes I have guns by God, come and try to take'em.
When the time comes we have to be bold and courageous, not spineless. Be ready, willing and able to stand up to the bastards!
DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR GUNS BECAUSE THEY SAY YOU HAVE TO! USE THE DAMN THINGS!

This all brings to mind a quote by the great Robert Heinlein...

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

Just as ConSigCor said above.

Yeah, in Texas, elsewhere the big city cops kill people like you every few days. Even in Texas, look up the name Roland Carnaby.

Later, there were official denials that he was a CIA agent with official credentials (the cops thought the credentials were fake) claims hotly contested by the guy's friends, family, and even with the expected testimony of former President Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upY_MxSN6VQ

The guy with boots on the ground is the guy who has to make the decision at every encounter, and it is an entirely legitimate choice to shorten a police encounter by NOT grandstanding on some issue.

In the past, I once got pulled over with an "illegal" weapon in the vehicle. That was in CA, where we did not have the friendliest of laws on the issue. Sure, it was well hidden, but I was also making sure to have my insurance, license and tags all up to date and current. Why turn it into some grandstand event? Pay the ticket, maybe cuss a little, and drive away.

Other times I had everything legal, knew the prick was looking for trouble, and since I did not have anything to hide, I decided to be a prick, but I would only push it so far since I was only looking to put him down a bit off his high horse but not come across as the aggressor. Even then, I can't imagine any good that comes from announcing that you have a gun in the vehicle and that "duty to inform" is the worst thing ever. Matter of fact, I would still stuff the firearm in a briefcase and lock it before the cop gets out of his vehicle just to avoid any legal obligation to inform in the states that require it.

In the executive protection world sometimes effective options are not always legal options, but there are people who work under existing laws with broad exemptions which only work once something has gone to court, so while you can't successfully be convicted of doing the job, you can still get hauled down to jail and prosecuted, so a number of procedures go into place for avoiding arrest and prosecution, even though you are "legal" when push comes to shove because of case law that supports defense of another who is under threat of death or grievous bodily harm. However, you can't do anything to protect a VIP if you are in a jail cell. Assuming you are driving a respectable sedan, most luxury sedans are equipped with a "pass through compartment" which is located behind the rear seat armrest, advertised as being for skis and long objects, in reality, it is for getting a gun from the passenger compartment to the trunk during a pullover. The driver alone can't do it, but can easily enough pass his piece back and a rear passenger can handle that with some practice at not looking suspicious while doing it.

Better to save two lives (the poor cop and your own when his buddies eventually catch up with you) than have an unscheduled grandstand event, if possible. Curbside lawyering and posturing is also not going to work as well as other jail avoidance tactics, or get this, refraining from driving like a maniac in the first place.

One of the big issues with getting involved in any covert, clandestine or open militia group is to develop the SOPs for police encounters and stick to them effectively, that means EFFECTIVELY, from a force preservation standpoint.

The executive orders are pointed directly at those the government deems "mentally ill" as a workaround to people asserting their rights, since the argument will be relatively easy on a case by case basis.

"This only applies to crazy people, so if you are not an advocate for being crazy, then you should not have a problem with it".

"Anyone can agree that crazy people should not have guns, it would be crazy to think so. By the way, you have guns? Are you crazy?"

There are going to be a lot of new protocols put in place for baiting people to be determined as "mentally ill" and while this is not welfare state 1970s standards where people would declare themselves "mentally disabled" due to drug abuse and go on the public dole for life, it actually can have the reverse effect, due to mental health record sharing, the person is economically marginalized to the point they cannot support a family (that comes early on) meaning their end of and family tree quickly becomes a stump within a couple of generations even if they are born wealthy, or if not wealthy, they will be barely able to survive once they have exhausted their resources. You don't get a job with a mental illness tag on you, its even worse than being a felon. Having a gun ownership related felony AND a mental illness tag thrown at you, do you honestly think the NRA would even answer your phone calls?

So what is in store for a whole lot of people is not "door to door gun confiscation" but the "Dave Sarti treatment", being "crazy Dave" can work, as long as you don't try to own guns, and being the local version of "Alex Jones" only works if you are a majorly syndicated radio host.

The various Police State countries in the last century did not use brutality as much as you would think, but intelligence driven economic controls for just about everything. How and what the police system thinks of you then controls most aspects of your economic life. That's the big difference a lot of people don't fully understand about the difference between purist Marxism and Leninist/Stalinist reality as it actually was practiced. That's why in the last big Russian revolution, they were also revolting in the name of their Marxist constitution, since their country had actually ditched that constitution a decade prior. Even under that, the real enthusiastic revolutionary Marxists were usually given the choices involving getting along with the powers that be, ending up committed to insane asylums, or if lucky, getting sent to fight (and likely die like Che Guevara) in some far away revolutionary struggle.

The answer, AGAIN, to these situations is going to have to be insular communities where people can look out for each other and get on the same sheet of music when it comes to dealing with the outside world. If you can bite off the entire state of Texas, then more power to you, but lets face reality on a few things, I don't see the Texas legislature doing what the United States did in the 1800s or early 1900s of offering "a new life" to people who were disenfranchised, oppressed or otherwise following something some lady said in New York Harbor "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

Back on the insular communities thing, it will be treated entirely differently if you are a citizen of a jurisdiction which is not afraid to reach out and touch those who violate your god given rights, assuming you are not actively victimizing the local population. Entirely another matter when the cops run your address or see the tags on your car are from a state that can and will reach out to defend its people, where if you make your phone call, they are dealing with sufficient "money guns and lawyers" to make things much more difficult than they would have been if they just let you roll on about your business.

That's where the practice of sovereign citizenship comes into play, and claiming citizenship in some imaginary thing is an entirely different issue from becoming the citizen of a functioning governmental system which can and will recognize your rights while protecting those rights against encroachment.

The Texas Rangers did that in relation to the Mexican goverment against the remnants of the Santa Ana regime. Remember the original Texas revolution was about gun control, mainly. There were laws passed by the Mexican government which forbade Texans from America to posses firearms.

The Texas Rangers I understand, don't call an end to their jurisdiction at the borders of the state, but over issues involving Texans.

The Israeli government is well known for protecting the rights of its citizens, and Jews in general, everywhere, but as we know, you don't get Israeli commandos showing up to get every Jewish car thief, fraud artist or drug addicted hooker out of jail. The flip side being, that they have very little respect for anyone else's national borders when it comes to hunting down someone who made policy of killing off their people.

On the mental health issue...

I just read an article that claims atf wants employers to notify them if you have ever failed a drug test. Also said they would be checking records of gun owners to see if you had ever been busted for simple possession at any time in your past. If so, then no guns. ATF claim this is a sign of mental instability and or criminal activity.

Next, they'll be requiring a drug test before purchase.

All 23 EO violate the 5th Amendment, denying my rights with out the benifit of a trial by jury.

What do they plan to do in states where marijuana is legal?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Sen. Rand Paul has a plan to nullify all 23 executive actions.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2013/01/rand-paul-nullify-obama-gun-document.php?page=1

I'll post the Separation of Powers Act and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013 when it becomes available.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I have verified reports from two people that the ATF has used the possession of medical marijuana cards as their main point of argument that someone is ineligible to possess a firearm. Enforcement on it is every selective except in the case of the NFA items, where at least in the Portland/Vancouver area it has been part of what gets asked during the interview process that NFA owners are expected to go through before their paperwork is submitted for approval.

it is a great plan except for one problem. Since it is legislation, it would need to be voted on by Congress and then Signed into Law by Obama the Usurper, so unless there are enough votes to Override Obama's Veto, Rand Paul's plan is worthless and will never work.

The only things that have a chance of Working are the Armed Demonstrations that I have suggested, but without an Actually Turn in Your Gun Ban I don't see enough Gun Owners being pissed off enough to demonstrate.

Another thing is for the Supreme Court to rule on the EOs since they are Unconstitutional in more then one way. The Supreme Court has Ruled that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and it has also Ruled against the State of Illinois on Carrying Firearms.

The thing that I believe will have the best chance of succeeding is for enough Red States to do what Wyoming and Texas are doing plus they need to include a provision to nullify Obama's EOs which I don't know if the Wyoming and Texas Legislation includes.

Don't be too sure the votes to override aren't there. Gun control has left a sour taste the mouths of a lot of Democrats. Obama may be a lame duck, but most of the Democrats in the Senate aren't, at least not yet.

Onward and upward,
airforce

From what I hear they could care less about state law. I really hope the feds attempt this in some of the states that are calling for their arrest if they try it.

Tenn now has legislation coming up for a vote that is similar to Wyoming and Tex.

NPR, of all people, ran a story on why the new mental health laws are unlikely to reduce shootings. And they even quoted psychiatrists and psychologists for the story.

What they don't say is that people on the mental edge might be a lot less likely to seek help if they know their doctor might have a hot line to the legal authorities,which sort of destroys the trust and confidentiality people used to have with their doctors.

Read the whole thing here, complete with audio:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...th-gun-laws-unlikely-to-reduce-shootings

Onward and upward,
airforce

So if anyone shows emotion that can be inturpited as being violent.
Everyone that speaks there mind on this board and others like it could be considered violent.
So much for free speech.