Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation

[Paslode]

Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

And away we go!

A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Final Rule published today in the Federal Register and a news release issued Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services, followed up with a notice to be published tomorrow, are two developments all but ignored by the mainstream press even though Vice President Joe Biden announced last week that the administration would be using executive orders to advance “gun control” goals following a Senate battle that could not muster the votes to do so legislatively.

The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services -- U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The clarification in deference to the Attorney General on ITAR matters makes fair the question of why Eric Holder, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and Congressional overseers were conspicuously disinterested when export violations were pointed out as matters for Fast and Furious investigators to concern themselves with.

Meanwhile, the HHS news release pledged “Obama administration moves to remove barriers to firearm background check reporting,” by “initiat[ing] a rulemaking process to remove unnecessary legal barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule that may prevent states from reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

Recent allegations that medical records in New York State are being cross-referenced with gun owner handgun permit records may raise a flag of concern that this could be a first step toward setting up a national system, dependent only on a change in current prohibitions to allow records already being created to be consolidated, with the second step being the so-called “universal background check”

As the HHS Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is not scheduled for publication in the Federal Register until tomorrow, Gun Rights Examiner has uploaded a copy of the draft to its Scribd document archive website account.

“The ANPRM will be available for review at: http://www.federalregister.gov/,” the HHS presser informs, anticipating tomorrow’s official publication, and further advises “Comments can be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov/.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/afte...gun-regulation

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013...2013-09392.pdf

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pr...20130419a.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137444433/...ck-System-NICS

[MiTTMedic]

I guess we can buy defense weaponry (fighters/bombers), since Egypt apparently got them without a background check.

[CSB]

Here is the new rule (which has the effect of law):

In short, the rule modifies the who and why "munitions"
are barred from import from the United States (and
despite the name, also the export of "munitions" to
other countries).
Such munitions are contained in the appropriately named
"U.S. Munitions Import List."

As you can see, the basic idea of who can buy and sell
tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopter gunships, etc.
fall within the provisions of the rule, but note the change:

§ 447.21 The U.S. Munitions Import List.
The following defense articles and
defense services, designated pursuant to
section 38(a) of the Arms Export Control
Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(a), and E.O. 13637
are subject to controls under this part.
For purposes of this part, the list shall
be known as the U.S. Munitions Import
List (USMIL):
THE U.S. MUNITIONS IMPORT LIST
(USMIL)
* * * * *
CATEGORY V [Reserved]

CATEGORY VII—TANKS AND
MILITARY VEHICLES
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
(e) [Reserved]
* * * * *
CATEGORY VIII—AIRCRAFT AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
CATEGORIES IX–XIII [Reserved]
* * * * *
CATEGORIES XVII–XIX [Reserved]
* * * * *
CATEGORY XXI—MISCELLANEOUS
ARTICLES
Any defense article or defense service
not specifically enumerated in the other
categories of the USMIL that has
substantial military applicability and
that has been specifically designed or
modified for military purposes. The
decision as to whether any article may
be included in this category shall be
made by the Attorney General with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense.Dated: April 17, 2013.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.

Now, Eric Holder, all by himself, can declare any article
that has "substantial military applicability" to be on
the Munitions List. Given the track record of this
administration, I suspect that with a few months we
will find every pistol grip, folding/collapsing stock, magazine
with a capacity over 5? 10? 15? rounds, telescopic sight,
laser sight, calibers of .50 and above, and many more
"items" will be declared as "designed or modified for
military purposes" and banned from import or export.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by CSB

Here is the new rule (which has the effect of law):

In short, the rule modifies the who and why "munitions"
are barred from import from the United States (and
despite the name, also the export of "munitions" to
other countries).
Such munitions are contained in the appropriately named
"U.S. Munitions Import List."

As you can see, the basic idea of who can buy and sell
tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopter gunships, etc.
fall within the provisions of the rule, but note the change:




Now, Eric Holder, all by himself, can declare any article
that has "substantial military applicability" to be on
the Munitions List. Given the track record of this
administration, I suspect that with a few months we
will find every pistol grip, folding/collapsing stock, magazine
with a capacity over 5? 10? 15? rounds, telescopic sight,
laser sight, calibers of .50 and above, and many more
"items" will be declared as "designed or modified for
military purposes" and banned from import or export.

How can they modify current law (§ 447.21) without congress? Doesn't that "addition" have to be approved by congress?

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

How can they modify current law (§ 447.21) without congress? Doesn't that "addition" have to be approved by congress?

"They" can do pretty much whatever they wish, as long as Congress lacks the 'cojones' to DO anything about it. Transcending politics and political party affiliation, this has been a concern of mine for a lonnng time.

I didn't agree a lot with Tip O'Neill or LB Johnson (while in the US Senate), but you did NOT piss in their pool without their permission - no matter your party affiliation - without some kind of blow-back.

The Supreme Court could find their 'quarters' in GP Mediums.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

The Supreme Court could find their 'quarters' in GP Mediums.

Green for summer and Tan for winter!

[CSB]

Many, many laws passed by Congress contain provisions on the order of:

"Under rules promugated by the Secretary ..."

to allow Congress to pass a broad law and allow the Secretary to "fill in the details."

For example, the Congress can't keep up with every new drug/medicine/surgical procedure, so the federal law passed by Congress
will delegate to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to
pass rules concerning drugs (legal and otherwise), surgical instruments,
etc.

Even the military is granted discretion to write its own rules, that the
Congress blesses with a broad grant of authority, such as promotion
boards, contracts, chapter boards, and so on.

Of course, the Congress can always step in and disapprove any administrative
rule promugated by a federal agency, but that takes interest, ability and integrity.

[Dusty]

We need a political Elliot Ness.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Dusty

We need a political Elliot Ness.

I'll second that, Bro! There are people who need to be pushed off the roof. Just movie making, but still my favorite part. That guy deserved it. (Along with Capone's Baseball analogy -- Baseball makes everything make sense. That guy deserved it, too.)
If you have time for a good movie, I recommend Gangster Squad.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by CSB

Of course, the Congress can always step in and disapprove any administrative
rule promugated by a federal agency, but that takes interest, ability and integrity.

Spot-on, or they'd never allow such clauses to be published & passed in the first place.

Ultimately this is going to lead to AG & HHS also making medical decisions as they work to gut patient record-keeping safeguards by holding some $tate$' hostage.

Fortitude at the individual state level is going to matter more than ever.

[bushmaster11]

Come on guys. Obama has enough shit that he deserves being put on the rack without this action. All this action does is allow some (not all) people with proscribed histories from buying guns. This action has an approval over 90% of the population. It puts teeth into the mentally prohibited from getting a legal firearm. I would think having a felon acquitted by reason of insanity would not be allowed to buy a legal firearm. That is all this folderal is about, common sense.

J R sends
DOL

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by bushmaster11

Come on guys. Obama has enough shit that he deserves being put on the rack without this action. All this action does is allow some (not all) people with proscribed histories from buying guns. This action has an approval over 90% of the population. It puts teeth into the mentally prohibited from getting a legal firearm. I would think having a felon acquitted by reason of insanity would not be allowed to buy a legal firearm. That is all this folderal is about, common sense.

J R sends
DOL

But what is the definition of mentally ill and insane? The DSM is updated on a regular basis to include and exclude the definitions of metal illness. Do realize BM, that Form 4473 already covers these issues?

[bushmaster11]

I think that the definition of mental defect is whatever the law dictates at the time of trial. You are right that the definition changes over time. I think that whatever differences between DSM and the law should be resolved prior to trial. If he/she is not guilty by reason of mental defect, they should be considered too sick to buy a legal weapon. There are a wide range of societal/legal issus here. It is a complex set of variables that need to be resolved. My position is how to limit being legally denied purchasing weapons. If the individual is too sick to be in the Nation Guard or USAR then they should not being able to be armed. Remember, the weapon is to be part of a "well regulated militia." I have been seen by psychiatrist, should that be a disqualifier? I think not, I could serve in USAR by any current standard. I have been convicted of spousal abuse on multiple occasions. In that case I posit, not eligible. If I would assault my wife unarmed, then I would be prone to pull a trigger. The whole buy/not buy issue is a complex one that needs an aceptable definition. I am a strong 2d Ammendment guy, but there are people that has no business with a gun. It is easy enough to get one illegally, let us not make it easier than a pack of cigarettes.

J R sends
DOL

[The Reaper]

Slippery slopes.

What is "reasonable" today, turns out to be the camel's nose under the tent.

TR

[Badger52]

Casual remark to a pshrink when bummed about something --> "patient depressed" --> medical record info becomes available for background checking --> "hmmm, looks like suffers from depression" --> becomes prohibited person --> purchase denied.

Accelerate process if remark to a VA doc, since everyone knows how tip-of-the-iceberg whacko-dangerous those white heterosexual conservative-thinking vets are.

Yes, it is a complicated issue but is one that, all-too-often, is seen as something that needs a cookie-cutter approach. The philosophy in this country epitomized by "better a guilty man go free than an innocent go to jail" is long gone. Nowadays the politically-expedient thing is "let's jam up as many people as we can & hope we stop the bad ones." (until the next bad one - rinse/repeat.)