ADVERTISEMENT

And so it begins...

steffen91

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2005
4,352
3
38
Not that I'm for nut-jobs owning firearms. However, I am against the people deciding whether or not I am legally allowed to own/carry a gun use my medical history to make their final determination.

It's a slippery slope...

'After failing to strengthen background checks on gun buyers through
Congress, the Obama administration on Friday announced pending executive
action on the matter focused mainly on mental health issues that would
allow the government to get around certain privacy laws on the books in
order to obtain more information.


The new restrictions would take the
form of regulations from the Department of Justice and the Department of
Health and Human Services. One of the regulations would seek to gain
information previously withheld because of the Health Insurance
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-new-executive-actions-on-who-can-buy-a-gun/# Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPPA, which protects medical privacy.



"Too many Americans have been severely
injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence," a White House
release said Friday. "While the vast majority of Americans who
experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons
with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result
can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide."




The administration's Friday
post-holiday announcement came while President Barack Obama was still on
vacation in Hawaii, in stark contrast to Obama's first executive
actions on guns, which were announced in a White House ceremony. "Friday
news dump" announcements have also traditionally been used to try to
avoid media scrutiny.


Federal regulations do not require
congressional authorization, but must go through a period of public
comment and review before being enacted.




The Justice Department regulation would
clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law
for reasons of mental health. The White House says that terminology in
federal law is ambiguous.


Examples given by the Justice
Department are the statutory terms "committed to a mental institution"
and "adjudicated as a mental defective" to include involuntary inpatient
and outpatient
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-new-executive-actions-on-who-can-buy-a-gun/#
commitments, anyone found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by
reason of mental disease or defect, someone lacking mental
responsibility or deemed insane, and persons found guilty but mentally
ill.'


This post was edited on 1/5 7:26 PM by steffen91

article
 
Slippery slope arguments have become much more credible in the last 100 years. Just look at what the government has done after being given a little more leeway here and a little more there. You give an inch and they take a mile, but we keep letting them do it under the guise of "compassion" and "security".
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT