GOA-Obama trying to grab guns through EO

[swinokur]

From GOA:

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gun Owners of America[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obama Administration Trying to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Grab Guns Through Executive Order[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]​

Tell HHS their new regs are crazy​

“Gun Owners of America [has] spent the months since Newtown doing tremendous damage, insisting that expanded background checks will lead to a gun registry.” - New York Times, April 4, 2013
It’s quite a complement when the New York Times thinks that you are doing “tremendous damage.” But you can be sure that the other side is not going to go away quietly.
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 one’s 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.

You may submit your comments at www.regulations.gov​

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.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
Please forward this e-mail to friends and family[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]703-321-8585
www.gunowners.org
Contact Form[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[john_bud]

It's only unconstitutional if you fail to give the constitution a "modern interpretation".

 

[randian]

What law gives Sebelius the authority to waive HIPPA?

 

[Fox123]

Its not a law, it's a royal decree....

 

[swinokur]

What law gives Sebelius the authority to waive HIPPA?

who says these criminals care about laws?

 

[OnTarget]

I would expect Dr. teratos' to supply comments on this shortly.

 

[HiballHiside]

What law gives Sebelius the authority to waive HIPPA?

MOM did it in 2007 in Maryland. You have to sign a mental health release for regulated firearms in MD.

 

[gmhowell]

What law gives Sebelius the authority to waive HIPPA?

Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka Kenyacare.

 

[shootin the breeze]

The IPAB or independent physician advisory board is due to come online in 2015. It's supposed to have a certain number of doctors on it (can't remember how many). The problem is they won't get any because they have to quit practice and divest of any other practice related income. If they can't recruit the board by the date then Sebelius runs it solo. By federal law she can make decrees which have the effect of law. She is accountable to no one. Hear that: NO ONE. Not the president. Not SCOTUS either. There's lots more related to the amount of money she's supposed to reduce in health care spending that can only come from private practice docs and not hospitals or pharma until 2020 due to back room deals but that's another story. What is fact here is she effectively makes law by decree. She can do whatever she wants. Did you know before she was picked by obowelmovement she was an industry insider (can't remember whatever it was pharma out hospital) who helped write this monstrosity?

 

[MaxVO2]

The IPAB or independent physician advisory board is due to come online in 2015. It's supposed to have a certain number of doctors on it (can't remember how many). The problem is they won't get any because they have to quit practice and divest of any other practice related income. If they can't recruit the board by the date then Sebelius runs it solo. By federal law she can make decrees which have the effect of law. She is accountable to no one. Hear that: NO ONE. Not the president. Not SCOTUS either. There's lots more related to the amount of money she's supposed to reduce in health care spending that can only come from private practice docs and not hospitals or pharma until 2020 due to back room deals but that's another story. What is fact here is she effectively makes law by decree. She can do whatever she wants. Did you know before she was picked by obowelmovement she was an industry insider (can't remember whatever it was pharma out hospital) who helped write this monstrosity?

****The IPAB is going to be 15 voting members and 2-3 non-voting members , including the HHS secretary. They are all I think subject to senate confirmation and will serve staggered terms of 1, 3, and 6 years for the initial batch so their terms don't all end up finishing the same year. They do have to give up their practice for the length of their term but get paid like 170k a year or so as they would be considered high *executive* branch officials.

I respectfully disagree with the above poster and think they will have NO problem getting MD's on that board. Plenty of MD's in this town work for the government in advisory roles, teaching in schools, etc.. that would LOVE to be on the IPAB board and don't have an active practice, or are semi-retired, serve on other government boards already, etc.. It would be a big resume enhancer for someone with future aspirations in the private sector (insurance companies...pharma, etc..) with their knowledge of how the IPAB works on the inside... etc..

As far as I know, Sebelius was the insurance commissioner in Kansas but never worked in pharma. She has no medical training but has degrees in public administration and I think law. She lives in the area now and one of my neighbors (who is an MD) is one of her medical advisors on biomedical devices, and briefs her on that subject when she has to testify before congress, etc..

The above poster is correct though in that she has incredible power to influence all of our lives as she has tremendous influence on health care policy in this country and no doubt plays a big part in selecting candidates for the IPAB that are totally on board with the administrations views.

 

[shootin the breeze]

You are correct. I remember now reading your post. She was insurance commissioner for Kansas. My info was pulled out of the back of my brain and typed on my phone at a playground while watching my kids play and then trying to stop them from killing each other, lol. It comes from a doc website from a doc who is an expert on this. He's spent a lot of time reading the entire 2700 page bill. So far they haven't gotten anyone and I should have been more clear. They will not be able to get anyone from the trenches, ie clinical medicine. Why do you think going to the doctor is often so unsatisfying? Those in power don't want our opinion and run regulations down our throats. Very similar to what just happened to the 2A. I am not good at arguing a point. I get emotional and my facts disappear. Even on a forum. I wish I had the aforementioned person's skill so I could do this topic justice.

 

[Dklo]

I would expect Dr. teratos' to supply comments on this shortly.

I'm not interested in what he has to say.........His hair on the other hand........

 

[defygravity]

Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka Kenyacare.

That's probably not true.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[K31]

It's a good way to ensure that people with problems don't get the help they need. Who's going to go in and reveal something to a Doctor that's going to ensure their property gets seized?

Once again proof that all of the hand-wringing proclamations that all the new gun grabbing laws are "for the children", are crap. It's about confiscation.

 

[squirrels]

This should come as no surprise to anyone.

"Only military and police should have guns!"
"Citizens have a right to be armed!"
"OK...but...you agree we have to keep them out of the hands of the crazy people??"
"Yeah, I guess so."

And then all they have to do is change the definition of "crazy" to encompass as many civilians as possible, especially any and all groups that disagree with the ruling party's agenda. I see it now all the time...these legislators calling each other "crazy" and accusing each other of being "dangerous".

Sooner or later, just WANTING to own a gun will be classified as a mental illness, because "no sane person could want to own something that kills". Catch-22.

Persecution of the mentally ill is one of the biggest threats to 2A in this day and age, and a bunch of scared, ignorant people are willing to accept it because they can't see past the ends of their noses.

Do you REALLY want a government bureaucracy defining "crazy"??