ONTD Political

The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President

5:05 pm - 01/17/2013

President Obama has signed 23 executive orders designed to address the problem of gun violence in America. The following are the items addressed:

Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. 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.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.


natyanayaki 18th-Jan-2013 03:05 am (UTC)
Question, don't state laws trump Federal law? So will these executive orders effect anything in states that just refuse to comply?
schexyschteve 18th-Jan-2013 03:10 am (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure federal laws > state laws
layweed 18th-Jan-2013 03:17 am (UTC)
natyanayaki 18th-Jan-2013 05:51 am (UTC)
If it involves inter-state sales and is thus under Federal jurisdiction, if not then State law might trump Federal law/the Feds might not have the authority to enforce the law. Though that too might just have been a result of certain loopholes? (For instance, previously -this might have changed after Obama's new executive order- Federal law prohibited felons from carrying guns, while certain states allowed felons to do so often after a certain amount of time. As long as those felons remained within the state, they weren't breaking the law.) Perhaps it depends on who the agent who sees the gun works for, but I always get confused when a Federal agent has the jurisdiction to act, technically only if something involves multiple states, right?
fauxparadiso 18th-Jan-2013 03:12 am (UTC)
Er, pretty sure it's the other way around. Ex. Even though states have begun legalizing pot/gay marriage, it's not recognized on a federal level and feds have no obligation to follow those laws.
natyanayaki 18th-Jan-2013 06:01 am (UTC)
The Feds don't have to follow state law, but can they (legally) act/arrest/prosecute unless multiple states are involved? Fed vs State jurisdiction always confuses me, and at least according to the Printz v. United States case (if I understand it correctly), State and local officers can't be forced to comply with Federal laws requiring background checks (unfortunately). I'm curious as to when the Feds can legally get involved.
layweed 18th-Jan-2013 11:28 am (UTC)
If the whole Federal vs State Controlled Substances thing is any indication, they'll get involved if it's a srs shit type thing? But hopefully with the push by Executive Order and it being such a hot button topic, they'll proactively get involved (somehow, idk, not enough manpower) and make sure local/state are doing what they should be to comply.
natyanayaki 19th-Jan-2013 12:44 am (UTC)
Yeah, it probably depends on how serious the issue is and if multiple states are involved. Regarding it hopefully being forced because it's such a hot issue, I don't know. I want gun control, it's extremely important and I've read enough studies/analysis indicating that state by state gun violence depends heavily upon state law, but I'm also torn, for instance I like that the definition of marriage based upon DOMA doesn't have to be recognized, that marijuana is allowed in some states among other things. I just...however the Feds decide to enforce these thing, I just want it to be based upon a reading of the laws, not just because the public wants enforcement regardless of the technicalities. You know?
kaelstra 18th-Jan-2013 03:24 am (UTC)
I've seen some pretty humorous articles about local law enforcement saying they wouldn't enforce any new gun laws passed. Someone else came in and pointed out it's not up to your local sheriff to enforce those laws; it'd be the feds doing it.
sio 18th-Jan-2013 04:30 am (UTC)
yea conservatives are passing around a letter from some dumbass small town sheriff in Oregon addressed to Obama stating he won't and doesn't have to follow anything he considers unconstitutional.

uh yea--pretty sure it doesn't work that way, genius.
muppetfromhell 18th-Jan-2013 05:18 am (UTC)
Yeah, nullification hasn't traditionally worked out well...
natyanayaki 18th-Jan-2013 06:34 am (UTC)
According to the Printz v. United States decision, State and local law enforcers don't have to comply with Federal laws requiring background checks for gun laws so I wonder when the Feds have the authority to involve themselves (for instance, when inter-state commerce isn't involved). These State vs Fed jurisdiction things always confuse, it often just seems to depend on who the law enforcement agent who *caught* you works for (if the State Fed gov't have contradicting laws), but at what point can the Feds legally act? I want stricter gun laws, but I want them across the board. I can't find the links, but I read several articles that indicated that much gun violence rates were dependent upon the strictness of state laws, and that in some cases the state laws weren't as strict as Federal laws and the Feds could only enforce Federal laws when interstate commerce was involved.
wanderinghope 19th-Jan-2013 01:57 am (UTC)
lol my hometown's sheriff is saying exactly that: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/16/pine-county-sheriff-vows-to-ignore-new-gun-restrictions/

"Cole wrote that he would view any such mandate illegal and refuse to carry it out. He says he believes it is a “moral sin” to erode freedom through administrative rules."

l o l
This page was loaded Dec 17th 2017, 3:36 pm GMT.