Skip to comments.Obama Administration Trying to Grab Guns Through Executive Order
Posted on 05/03/2013 2:40:20 PM PDT by forty_years
...And sure enough, the Obama Administration is trying to unilaterally undo our recent victory in the Senate - and to undo the damage that all of us inflicted together.
But first, a little history.
Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI's gun ban list?
And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a violation of the Second Amendment?
Well, guess what? Barack Obama has just concluded that "he don't need no stinkin Senate."
Instead, Secretary Kathleen "ObamaCare" Sebelius - and her Department of Health and Human Services - has promulgated regulations which would, by executive fiat, waive all federal privacy laws and encourage you doctor to report you to the FBI.
Understand a couple of things: First, the standard which your doctor would use to turn you in is embodied in Clinton-era ATF language and in the anti-gun Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007. Specifically, you doctor would "drop a dime" on you if he suspected you were even a slight "danger to yourself of others" or were "unable to manage your financial affairs."
So if they say you can't balance your checkbook, then you lose your constitutional rights.
But there's another problem: The day these regulations become law, lawyers will be lining up to sue "deep-pocket" psychiatrists for every case where they failed to turn in a patient to NICS - if the patient subsequently engages in a horrific act.
The bottom line? Any psychiatrist who failed to report all of his patients to the NICS system risks losing everything if any of them engages in harmful conduct. Soon the rule of thumb will be: See a shrink; lose your guns.
And the regulations will apply to private, as well as government-employed psychiatrists.
The bad news is that 165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.
Sadly, what happened to military veterans has now begun in the private sector - especially in places like New York, after they recently passed their misnamed SAFE Act.
According to gun rights reporter, Dan Roberts, firearms are now being confiscated from gun owners because of their mental health information. For example:
[John Doe] received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history.
So now taking anxiety pills can result in ones forfeiting their Second Amendment rights in New York!
This is where the gun haters want to push their agenda. And this is one reason why background checks are so dangerous - because they give government bureaucrats the opportunity to deny law-abiding people their constitutionally-protected rights.
But the good news is this: The HHS rulemaking is still at an early stage, and HHS is (no doubt reluctantly) taking the views of the general public.
ACTION: Go to the Federal Register - at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-23/pdf/2013-09602.pdf - and respond to the regs entitled HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Let the HHS know how you feel about waiving all federal privacy laws for people who seek counseling.
Also, be sure to tell your congressmen that you oppose the see a shrink, lose your guns regs issued by the HHS. Ask him to issue his own comments as well.
The regs themselves lay out several ways that you may submit your opposition. The comment period ends on June 7, 2013.
The HHS will put anyone on their complaint list into the NICS system as 'combative; anti-government'
Would be much wiser to complain to a Senator..
“Do you have a search warrant?”
Is going to a .gov website and complaining about Obama and the gungrabbers really such a great idea?
I just had to answer a slew of these types of questions for a yearly physical appointment coming up. They said it was required for all Medicare patients. Some of the questions asked were along the lines of, “How often to do you feel depressed, anxious, down or sad?”
The government has zero power over you the LIVE, LIVING MAN.
Learn the law
This site is about protecting against the 16th amendment, but it is pertenent to any and all STATUTORY LAWS
Sounds like this is going to ensure that people who might need mental health help won’t seek it.
I had a friend who was a clinical psychologist, who used to say the same thing, that a close friend could do just as much for her patients as she could.
I’d rather walk through the jungles of Vietnam and take my chances on punji stick pits than go to HHS website
You would think a quote “Constitutional Professor” unquote would know better.
What a douche
only 2 minutes - pass it on after viewing. it is going viral ...
Back in the days of the old Soviet Union, you were considered mentally ill if you disagreed with the Communist govt.
Maybe I’m being overly paranoid but if the Dems take the House and Retain control in the Senate, I think they will say that anyone who disagrees with the Obama Regime’s “progressive” policies is, obviously, mentally ill.
That will give them justification to confiscate the firearms of conservatives.
No doubt about it! They are already trying to do that and don’;t have complete control yet ... except thaqt the republicants don’t oppose the socialist takeovers, so perhaps they do have complete control anyway since they hold the FBI files on all the degenerates IN CONGRESS.
A: "Whenever I read that Barack Obama is President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.