Octopus Overlords

WaPo

Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress
...
The package includes 10 provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers. Obama would devote $500 million more in federal funding to treating mental illness — a move that could need congressional approval — and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.

At the president’s direction, the FBI will begin hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other personnel to help process background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new center to investigate illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.
...
Limiting the scope of the background checks measure — the administration is clarifying what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms — may have bolstered the measure’s legal defensibility at the expense of having a far-reaching impact. This does not constitute new regulation, which would be subject to public comment and congressional review, but its application depends entirely on how aggressively federal authorities press the matter.

And though most of the actions the president outlined can take place unilaterally, lawmakers could raise the prospect of blocking the implementation of some of his plans through the funding process.

Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?

Jaymann wrote:Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?

Because they're good customers.

Exodor wrote:

Jaymann wrote:Why do gun lobbyists love terrorists?

Because they're good customers.

To be fair, the Do Not Fly list *is* a rather poor and opaque list to be using to restrict constitutional rights, and is probably unconstitutional in and of itself (preventing freedom of assembly, etc.).

However, it is in place and is the Government's tool of record until such time as the Do Not Fly list is successfully challenged in court, IMHO.

Isgrimnur wrote:WaPo

Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress
...
The package includes 10 provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers.

Makes sense. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standards as B&M stores?

Obama would devote $500 million more in federal funding to treating mental illness — a move that could need congressional approval —

Much needed funding, regardless of how it fits into the gun issue.

and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.

Makes sense. Otherwise "losing" product would be an easy way to sell it untraced.

At the president’s direction, the FBI will begin hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other personnel to help process background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

If they're understaffed, do it. But if they're that understaffed that's a serious problem.

Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new center to investigate illegal gun trafficking online

As long they don't try some more of that Fast and Furious gunwalking bullshit, seems like a good idea.

and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.

Ok.

And though most of the actions the president outlined can take place unilaterally, lawmakers could raise the prospect of blocking the implementation of some of his plans through the funding process.

Yeah, that's what they do.

So is this the long-prophesied taking of all the guns by Obummer that triggered historically high gun sales? This is what they were afraid of?

Enough wrote:So is this the long-prophesied taking of all the guns by Obummer that triggered historically high gun sales? This is what they were afraid of?

I think gun nuts are afraid of legislation like a national NY SAFE Act, or the old assault weapon ban. They'll buy up high capacity magazines, or AR-15s, or whatever else they think might be banned so they can grandfather them past the legislation (or to just have and hide from the government if they become banned). Some are also afraid of 'lists'. Things like the mandatory registration of assault weapons in the NY SAFE Act are thought of as a first step for "the government is gonna come and take my guns", and also feature prominently in the imaginations of apocalyptic gun nuts who are prepared for the US government to turn on us and try to enslave us.

As one of those rare weirdos who slants left wing for just about every single thing on the list except for gun control, the stuff Isgrimnur quoted above doesn't bother me much. The changes to HIPAA frighten me, though.

I'm very much in favor of protection of privacy and wish our laws were as stringent as those in the EU. I get that this new legislation is well-meaning, but it makes me anxious to see an executive order put a big ol' asterisk next to the privacy rule of HIPAA that says "*but some of your private medical history will be reported to the FBI".

I also worry that this change might be a deterrent to some for seeking mental help. How many potential mass shooters sought out mental help and ended up taking a better path in life, and how many of those people would have avoided getting help if they knew their diagnosis would be reported to the FBI?

I really hope the legislation is worded in a way that addresses this stuff, but so far I've just seen vague things like HHS.gov saying "the new modification is carefully and narrowly tailored to preserve the patient-provider relationship and ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking voluntary treatment."

wonderpug wrote: I really hope the legislation is worded in a way that addresses this stuff, but so far I've just seen vague things like HHS.gov saying "the new modification is carefully and narrowly tailored to preserve the patient-provider relationship and ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking voluntary treatment."

My understanding from a very brief overview is that it only applies to very few "covered entities" (that is, organizations that meet to be HIPAA compliant) for specific cases. Things like involuntary institutionalization or court-ordered evaluations/institutionalization.

I agree that it might discourage some people from seeking out mental health treatment but only because they don't understand the nuances of the law. Much like it already does.

FWIW, there are a lot of individuals who pay cash for treatment because they don't want it showing up in their insurance records.

NRA is offering half off lifetime memberships. Includes $2500 yearly theft insurance in case a democrat steals your guns(one way or the other). http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDAT ... rship.html

Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.

Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.

Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we?

raydude wrote:

Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.

Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we?

You won't see my costs skyrocket. I stay away from the Federal Officers of Medicine as much as possible.

While none of the actions bother me per se, I am not at all comfortable with implementing them via Executive Order. The Legislative process isn't just a handy convenience to pass the legislation that you want, to be discarded for other means when it doesn't.

raydude wrote:Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket.

In case?

Costs were skyrocketing for almost a decade before Obamacare was passed.

Rip wrote:

raydude wrote:

Rip wrote:Much in the same way that Obamacare was "carefully and narrowly tailored to make sure you would save money and could keep your doctor and insurance" I am sure.

Saving this in case Obamacare does get repealed and we see our costs skyrocket. Wouldn't want you to forget the 'good ol days' would we?

You won't see my costs skyrocket. I stay away from the Federal Officers of Medicine as much as possible.

You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.

RunningMn9 wrote:While none of the actions bother me per se, I am not at all comfortable with implementing them via Executive Order. The Legislative process isn't just a handy convenience to pass the legislation that you want, to be discarded for other means when it doesn't.

I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power. The most significant-sounding measure - expanding the scope of entities who have to do background checks - seems to be based entirely on just adopting a broader interpretation of a phrase ("engaged in the business" of gun sales) within an existing statute, and interpreting phrases in statutes is at the core of what the executive branch does. Most of the rest is just moving resources around and changing priorities.

From activist judges to Congress removing their own insider trading restrictions to executive orders, every branch is pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with.

If they can try the argument that an Amish hate crime is a federal case because the scissors were a product of interstate commerce, the idea that people that sell guns at gun shows are "engaged in the business" of gun sales isn't that much of a stretch.

I don't even see it as a stretch. If you sell a gun at a gun show, you're "in the business" to some extent. And thus you should be held to the same registration and background standards.

hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.

Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.

El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.

He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.

RunningMn9 wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.

He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.

There is undoubtedly a broader dynamic like you describe, but each use of executive power still needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It doesn't really make sense to condemn a use of executive power easily within a traditional view of executive power just because other instances of executive power are questionable.

RunningMn9 wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I do worry about ever-expanding federal power, but unless I'm missing something these all seem WELL within traditional executive power.

He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.

By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

RunningMn9 wrote:

hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.

Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.

"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it.

RunningMn9 wrote:He has better lawyers writing these than I do interpreting them - but it doesn't change the fundamental disconnect where I feel like the Executive branch is trying to do an end around Congress because they don't like what Congress is doing. I don't like it.

They don't like that Congress isn't doing anything.

Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.

First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

That's all well and good, but the real question is How will this affect Massachusetts?

MA has some of the toughest gun laws in the US and among the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to HI. HI has the advantage of isolation, whereas MA is surrounded by states with loose standards (I'm looking at you, NH). Boston's mayor says that 70% of gun crimes in the city (wherein resides most of MA's population) are committed with firearms bought out-of-state. So, to the extent that broadened enforcement makes it less convenient to drive to NH or RI for easy guns, the new rules are likely to have a positive effect.

And here I was ready to dismiss them as showmanship.

hepcat wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.

Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.

"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it.

Overlook is my middle name.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

hepcat wrote:You refused to get health insurance even before the health act. So really, you're point of view on any of this is kind of ridiculous.

Doesn't he also overlook things like paying his taxes, and stuff like that? Party of Personal Responsibility(tm) and all that.

"Overlook" is a nice way of putting it.

Overlook is my middle name.

Wasn't that the hotel in The Shining?

Ergo, it stands to reason, Rip was the hotel from The Shining.

El Guapo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.

First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

Honestly I don't see this as the end-around that RM is making it out to be. Much of these measures are enforcement related, directly under the executive. The mental health funding provision is still subject to congressional approval.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Jeff V wrote:By "Congress" I assume you mean the marionettes owned by the gun lobby? What do you do when a majority of the population favor a legislation but special interests prevent Congress from acting in the majority interest? Executive action is one answer.

Yes, the marionettes that were elected by the People(tm). And if the majority of the population favors a legislative answer, it's up to them to elect representatives that support legislative answers. Having them elect representatives that DON'T favor a legislative answer is not an indication (IMO) that they instead want the Executive branch to find loopholes big enough to squeeze executive orders through to address it.

First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

Honestly I don't see this as the end-around that RM is making it out to be. Much of these measures are enforcement related, directly under the executive. The mental health funding provision is still subject to congressional approval.

Yeah, my point is mainly that his general grievance is sound, it's just that it's not all that applicable here.

El Guapo wrote:
Yeah, my point is mainly that his general grievance is sound, it's just that it's not all that applicable here.

Exactly. Going to war by executive action? Yes, that's overreach. Wiretaps or drone wetwork without congress? Yep. (not pointing to any particular executive here, just examples)

Tasking the DEA to enforce existing laws through new, legal methods? Not so much.

Well, Arizona fixed it:

House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.

Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:

House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.

Before this were they spending a lot of resources enforcing unconstitutional laws and orders?

Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:

House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.

Let the celebrations begin!

12:10 p.m. MST January 6, 2016

Tucson police say they are in a standoff with a man outside a department substation who claims to be armed with guns and explosives.

The incident has shut down several roads around the substation on Miracle Mile and Flowing Wells. The Interstate 10 ramps are also closed in that area.

Police say the man parked his recreational vehicle on Wednesday morning in the parking lot of the substation and claimed he had guns and explosives.

El Guapo wrote:First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

I can't speak to the legalness of what he's doing. That's far less important to me. For a long while I've felt that the Executive Branch has abused the EO power of the office.

And no - I wouldn't argue that the People(tm) voted for legislators that wouldn't take action, and a President that would take this action, because this was their preferred way of handling it.

El Guapo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:Well, Arizona fixed it:

House Bill 2024 would prohibit Arizona and its local governments from using staff or financial resources to enforce or support any presidential executive order, federal agency policy or U.S. Supreme Court opinion that “is not in pursuance of the Constitution” and has not been passed by Congress and signed into law.

So who exactly will be making these determinations? Can another front on gay marriage be far behind?

RunningMn9 wrote:

El Guapo wrote:First, you can just as easily invert that answer, given that the President was elected by the People(tm) as well. If a majority of the population favors legislative over executive answers here, it's up to them to elect a President who won't pursue executive orders.

Second, it ultimately has little consequence for what Obama is doing here. Either this particular set of executive actions is supportable under the law or it isn't, regardless of any general complaints about the nature of executive power.

I can't speak to the legalness of what he's doing. That's far less important to me. For a long while I've felt that the Executive Branch has abused the EO power of the office.

And no - I wouldn't argue that the People(tm) voted for legislators that wouldn't take action, and a President that would take this action, because this was their preferred way of handling it.

Isn't the legality of the orders a highly relevant part of the question of whether he is abusing his power in this case?