The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.
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.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Obama's Executive Actions
Fox News
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Out of curiosity, what were you looking for him to do via executive order?
ReplyDeleteWhat Cuomo did in NY.
DeleteAfter the passage of legislation which will require universal background checks for the purchase of all firearms, the president ought to use an executive order to suspend funding for background checks involving the distribution of arms and munitions to the common civilian. Reserve such purchases to State Actors and other entities capable of demonstrating a legitimate need.
DeleteMike,
DeleteDisregarding my problems with the things Cuomo did, that would have been completely outside the power of the Executive. Here, the President mostly stayed within the bounds of existing precedent. I say mostly because I've not read the text of the orders yet (haven't seen them online yet) and because I think there may be an issue with number 16 (remember your post about what the NRA got placed in the law). Several of these appear to be just telling ATF and others to do a better job of enforcing existing law the way the NRA has been urging--something that would even fit into my idea of an appropriate use of executive orders (which is admittedly a little more restrictive than current precedent which allows a lot more delegation by Congress than I think is wise).
Had he attempted to executive order an assault weapon ban into place, that would have been taking more legislative power than Congress has tried to delegate so far, and would have been a dangerous precedent to set. Imagine Santorum or Bachman with that power--gives me the willies personally.
Cuomo's actions have placed the mental health professionals (MHPs) in the position of having to do that for which they are not qualified. Not to mention its impact on confidentiality. Not a good time to be an MHP in New York.
DeleteSo the president has basically pledged that people will do their jobs... what was he/they doing the past 4 years?
ReplyDeleteObama's executive orders are mostly talk, calls for more studies, a little bit of tightening on some rules, and so forth. Good luck getting an ATF director appointed, by the way. Congress will block the worst of the administration's efforts, and rightly so.
ReplyDeleteAs for Cuomo, your side already has New York. That's not a victory. It's just New York politicians digging themselves deeper into the hole. Virginia won't pass what you want, and neither will most other states.
As always, we're stuck with status quo until the courts weigh in.
Winning!
ReplyDeleteJust wait for Congress, Goldilocks.
DeleteMore states are passing gun protection bills. Meaning it will be illegal, to in force any federal gun bans.
ReplyDelete"to in force" Geezus, you gunsucks are dumb fucks.
DeleteIn response to a most illiterate Anonymous,
DeleteThe Federal Government may force States to adopt stringent gun control measures, under penalty of the loss of highway funding. The maximum speed limit of all States was set a 87 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) for many years, and the loss of highway funding was used as a means of enforcing this upon the States.
Mike, you're a twit. You want the president to skip congress and make federal law himself? Doesn't that kinda just negate congress? What kind of special stupid are you? Is there a name for your level of stupid or can we call it the "GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE" or the "MIKEB302000" level of stupid? Cause I like that plan, I think it could catch on. I will say this simply for all of you Gun Control morons out there. Go ahead and take my guns, I'll hand them over to prevent being labeled a criminal, but you're gonna have to ban and confiscate not only my guns, but bladed weapons in all forms from wood splitting axe to kitchen knife, anything that can be used as a blunt instrument from tree limb to sledgehammer to the steel toed boots I wear for work, and you're gonna have to amputate my limbs as well. Why you ask? Because I refuse to be a victim, and I will use any of those to defend my life from the criminals you freaking morons want to protect. "Oooh, we can't put the murderers to death! that's not right!" Kill them! They aren't benefits to society, and neither are you!
ReplyDeleteYou all want a dictator? Fine, go to another damn country where they have dictators, but this here is the U.S.A! Dictators aren't welcome here, and neither are those who don't believe in the right to defend yourself. Respectfully, you and all those like you can go to hell, as for me and my family, we'll defend the constitution against the dictator in chief the dumbasses of this county voted back in. I'm already writing my reps to inform them that if they support any of this, I'll be joining the groups who will be moving for their trials for treasonous activity. Same for the dumbass in chief who lost all those weapons and is responsible for benghazi. Oh right..... you gun control advocates don't give a shit about benghazi. You know, I miss the days when the media covered the wrong the president does, but now? Odumbass owns the media. The hell with all of you. You sicken me.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" MEANS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED YOU LOW I.Q. SPORTING, FECES EATING, EUNUCHED TWITS!
Due to a profound lack of intellect, you fail to realize that in any civilized society, the common subject has no rights. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State. The policies that you associate with a "totalitarian" State, ensure life, liberty, and property against infringement by one's fellow citizen. here exists no more devious a means to degenerate a society, than to speak of "freedom" and "individual liberty", but show wanton disregard for fundamental rights such as the right to a safe and orderly community.
DeleteThere can be no liberty without subjugation, and the individual submission to the whim of the collective authority, for the benefit of all mankind.
Thank you for your......response..... First question, what are you taking, and where can I get some, cause that seems to be some really good stuff. Second, if no one has any individual rights, why are you still breathing, you have no right to breathe, you also have no right to speak, wear clothes, own a home, or really even exist, unless your government has told you personally that you can. third, SHUT THE HELL UP! You want someone to run your life, get a wife, but don't you dare sit there and tell me that I have no individual rights. Read the damn constitution of the United States of America. And if you don't live here, you have no voice on the matter anyway, and yes that means your opinion means exactly nothing, not your country, not your problem. You control freaks are all the same. Again, Take my guns, I'll carry a sword. Take my sword, I'll carry a club. Take my club, I'll use my body as a weapon to defend myself. Any member of the law enforcement community, and military who attempts to enforce gun control or gun confiscation when it comes, should be imprisoned. Right next to you and Mikeb, so that when they feel the need for loving, you're close by for them to relieve themselves upon.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteIn case you are new here, E.N. is highly suspected by many of us to be a right winger or libertarian who is getting jollies from trolling as the most extreme collectivist possible.
It is possible that he is as screwed up as he seems, but either way, it's not worth the waste of time to flame him back--it's what he wants. Occasionally he makes a point that is worth refuting, but it's best to ignore him most of the time.
Dang commie E.N go back to Mexico with Hyugo Shavez or wherever you came from! You hippy-liberals are ruining our country by writing all these "laws" about what people can't do? If you outlaw somthing only criminals will do it stupid! Try tellling us that we cant drive as fast as we want, smoke what we want wheere we want, cant eat what we want like FREE roadkill and endangred feces, say you cant make moonshine, and make some dumbass laws about not shooting whenver you want and some laws about not carring guns.
DeleteHow about dis for a change? NO MORE LAWS!!!
Bubba, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
DeleteYou are a truly talentless hack of a troll. Why not offer something useful to the conversation rather than trying to imitate Jade's idea of a gun owner?
Anonymous, thanks for you thoughtful comments. First, the 2A is already infringed, always has been. Second, no one is coming for your guns, so you can settle down.
DeleteA history of infringement doesn't justify additional infringement; it demonstrates a need to stop infringing.
DeleteMaybe, but the history of infringement says we shouldn't take the amendment so literally. Screaming in all caps, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is a bit silly when the thing has always had limitations.
DeleteNo one's coming for your guns? What about the governments of Illinois and New York? What about California? What about Dianne Frankenstein? There are moves in control freak quarters to do precisely what you've told us all along won't happen.
DeleteGreg, there's been no talk of confiscations from any of those sources. Only in your overworked imagination are confiscations coming.
DeleteAn Illinois legislator proposed confiscations. The same talk has floated in New York. We in the United States won't tolerate that, and we won't tolerate the necessary precursors, either.
DeleteMike,
DeleteHow should we take it? Figuratively? There's no option but to take a constitutional provision literally, or you damage the integrity of the entire document.
As for the confiscation talk, there have been news stories with people discussing it. Cuomo in this one:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson#
No, they're not talking about confiscating everything, but they are talking about confiscations.
You're right there has been talk of confiscations. But it was left out of the NY bill. I believe it takes a wild imagination to envision the jack-booted thugs kinking in doors, though.
DeleteIf there are confiscatory bans, there will be SWAT raids to take guns from those who openly refuse to comply. Since guns are the target, and therefore they know the home to be armed, SWAT teams will be on hair triggers. Some will be killed reaching for their glasses, while the SWAT team thinks they're reaching for a gun. Toss in a couple hotheads looking for a fight, or for revenge for these SWAT raids that end badly, and you have a recipe for a huge amount of unpleasantness from both sides of that equation as they descend in a vicious cycle of increasing raids and recriminations.
DeleteFrankly, I don't find that scenario too far fetched.
I find it hard to believe that you DON'T find that scenario too far fetched. To me it sounds like the stuff of the lunatic fringe to which I did not thing you belong. Maybe you are one of them just a bit more educated and eloquent.
DeleteFascinating in that the language of the ACA is quite clear.
ReplyDelete