This is a discussion on List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by DocT65 As a physician, I'll be quick to tell you 2 things: 1. I have never asked any patient this question, as ...
"...with liberty and justice for all..."
(Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states). - D. Stanhope
D.R. Middlebrooks - Shooting Coach & Gunsmith
Tactical Shooting Academy & Custom Shop
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Diligentia Vis Celeritas"
"There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
~ Tiger McKee
Unless they devise a means to do so through a Smartphone for example, that simply comes back with a 'Yay' or 'Nay', I see no other means by which it could happen.
I really have no problem doing the sale at an FFL, and I'm sure some would welcome the flood of $10/$20 transactions that would inevitably happen.
"Why do you need more than 10 rounds? What are you going to do with and assualt rifle anyways?"
"Why do you need a multiple purse's?"
"Well not all purses are comfortable in all occasions. Some fit the situation better than others"
"Exactly. You have your reasons for "needing" multiple purse's, I have my reasons for "needing" 10 plus rounds and an AR. Regardless if you think I need an AR or I think you need a Louis Voutton(sp?) purse's, the gov't shouldn't be telling us what we do and don't need."
"Ohh..... yeah guess not"
EDC: M&P 9*2
NRA Life Member
"I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady
How wil this affect law enforcement officers? We carry 46 rounds of .40 cal at a time. 90 rounds of .223. On duty.
If my rifle is personally owned but department inspected and maintained then what? 10 round mags for personal practice and 20-30 rounders for duty?
PROTECT THE FLOCK, CONFRONT THE WOLF.....
My and my wife's doctors both know we carry guns, and teach classes. We have been to their home and carried while doing so. For most people I think my above response would be appropriate, but since my doc. will never ask, I guess I won't ask him either.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
A few thoughts here.
1. 17 does NOT violate Dr. patient confidentiality. There are already laws on the books in every state that make all healthcare workers mandated reporters. In most states, clergy are mandated reporters as well. What that means (though it's a little different in each state), is that if someone is suicidal, or if they are going to commit a crime, the mandated reporter MUST inform the proper authorities. This is a reaffirmation of a law already on the books.
2. CDC research is offbase because guns and gun violence is NOT a disease and as such, there is no mandate for the Center for Disease Control to research it.
3. No where in these statements does it mention "gun registration." If we start yelling and screaming about gun registration out of this set of proposals, all it will do is make us look like we're reactionary, and that will turn the average person against us because they will not want to side with reactionaries. Sure, we can argue that his proposal is reactionary, but it's a lost argument on the average person.
4. If a doc. asks me if I have a gun in my house, my answer to him is that I make it a point not to tell anyone anything I have in my home.
5. This could have been a whole lot worse. I think the NRA and us gunowners should focus on the issue of doctors trying to teach gun control and asking about it. Also push on what is meant by doing checks on weapons seized before they are returned. Make the president spend his political capital on these issues and he won't have enough for pushing gun control through the house and senate.
On a side note: Check your state laws before getting all up in arms about a traffic stop equaling losing your weapon for a year. That's fallacious at best and could very well be illegal for that to happen. For instance, in my state, it is mandated by law that the weapon cannot be taken from a person except during a stop, and must be returned at the end of the stop.
Let's be LOGICAL and engage reason here before we react, or we will end up looking just as silly as those who are reactionary and want to ban all guns.
All in one spot:
- Preventing Gun Violence, at whitehouse.gov: Now is the time to do something about gun violence.
- which includes a PDF document of the plan: Now Is The Time -- The President's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence, Jan 16 2013 (wh.gov/now-is-the-time).
- List of executive actions planned as part of push (though no specific executive actions are identified beyond the intended plan to take these steps): List of Exec Actions Obama Plans to Take.
The minute we let others, especially politicians, decide that we do not need things that we have a right to, we lose.
These EO's attack freedom and overshadow the Second Amendment.
There are other expansive government actions under the category of, "Know-what's-best-for-you" down to the state level where the feds already encroach.
Several orders involve what a free society calls, "doctors", but what are increasingly slaves by the socialist name of, "health care provider" with attempts to define ACA with a view toward the current agenda. I want to see doctors stand up for freedom and not be accolytes of gun control. We need more Ron Pauls.
Lastly, there seems to be some consideration of criminalizing the owner of record of a lost or stolen gun.
A lot of these are creepy and possible only with the relatively new mass storage technology. Does every market revolution precipitate socialist and expansive government as did the Industrial Revolution? I say, "Hell no!".
Last edited by Pistology; January 16th, 2013 at 08:19 PM. Reason: DOJ didn't _allow_ sales of guns - they ordered them.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
I apologize in advance for not reading every post in this thread before replying so if I'm beating a dead horse, forgive me. But...
I read several comments stating something to the effect of, "Well, that's not too bad". To that I say yea, it's much worse than that.
"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."
doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will. Exactly who is the esteemed AG going to deem "dangerous" and thereby prohibit from having guns?
NRA Endowment Member
GOA Life Member