Sensible Gun Safety

[MDlaxfan76]

One Of Trump’s First Actions Reversed An Obama Rule On Guns And Mental Impairment

A Whole.

Deceptive headline, contradicted in the text of the article :

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term.

I'm confused. Is the headline 'deceptive' because it was Republicans in Congress who overturned the regulation not Trump himself?

If that's the case, surely we all know that if Trump wanted it the other way, he'd have been in the same position as Obama? Same GOP controlled House and Senate at that point, right? Change the POTUS, change the reg.

But maybe I'm not following correctly.
BTW, HuffPost deserves the same degree of skepticism as lots of sites on the right. Watch out for headlines!

[old salt]

One Of Trump’s First Actions Reversed An Obama Rule On Guns And Mental Impairment

A Whole.

Deceptive headline, contradicted in the text of the article :

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term.

I'm confused. Is the headline 'deceptive' because it was Republicans in Congress who overturned the regulation not Trump himself?

If that's the case, surely we all know that if Trump wanted it the other way, he'd have been in the same position as Obama? Same GOP controlled House and Senate at that point, right? Change the POTUS, change the reg.

But maybe I'm not following correctly.
BTW, HuffPost deserves the same degree of skepticism as lots of sites on the right. Watch out for headlines!

The rule only took effect 2 days before Trump took office. It was part of the slew of rules that Obama couldn't get through Congress, so he threw them up against the wall on his way out of office, forcing the new Congress or Trump to void them, so they could later be blamed for doing so, ...just as this HuffPost piece does. It was a sore loser political PR stunt.

[Oldbarndog]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions ... index.html

Something to think about.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions ... index.html

Something to think about.

It works for me....

[DMac]

Good luck wif dat. So everyone is going to join the reserves so they can shoot their guns and become marksmen. You might be surprised by how many people in the military never pick up a gun and shoot it. This guy is really reaching with this idea unless all reservists are going to be infantrymen.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good luck wif dat. So everyone is going to join the reserves so they can shoot their guns and become marksmen. You might be surprised by how many people in the military never pick up a gun and shoot it. This guy is really reaching with this idea unless all reservists are going to be infantrymen.

Add that too!

[a fan]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions ... index.html

Something to think about.

That's a clever idea. Follow the Constitution.

[DMac]

Sorry fellas, but this aint gonna work. You gonna train the Boatswain's mate how to shoot a gun or how to rig a boatswain's chair (if you're getting in that chair you're really hoping he knows what he's doing)? The Dental Technician gonna get weapons training, the Yeoman, supply people, jet mechanics, air traffic controllers, sonar guys, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
20% of Army guys are infantrymen....what percent of Navy and Air Force personell do you figure shoot guns?

[MDlaxfan76]

One Of Trump’s First Actions Reversed An Obama Rule On Guns And Mental Impairment

A Whole.

Deceptive headline, contradicted in the text of the article :

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term.

I'm confused. Is the headline 'deceptive' because it was Republicans in Congress who overturned the regulation not Trump himself?

If that's the case, surely we all know that if Trump wanted it the other way, he'd have been in the same position as Obama? Same GOP controlled House and Senate at that point, right? Change the POTUS, change the reg.

But maybe I'm not following correctly.
BTW, HuffPost deserves the same degree of skepticism as lots of sites on the right. Watch out for headlines!

The rule only took effect 2 days before Trump took office. It was part of the slew of rules that Obama couldn't get through Congress, so he threw them up against the wall on his way out of office, forcing the new Congress or Trump to void them, so they could later be blamed for doing so, ...just as this HuffPost piece does. It was a sore loser political PR stunt.

Just to be clear, Obama's executive action was taken in 2012, just after Sandy Hook. The rule-making process grinds, but the order was more than 3 years earlier not right at the end of his term. Am I correct?

But I do agree to watch out for slanting of headlines!

[MDlaxfan76]

Sorry fellas, but this aint gonna work. You gonna train the Boatswain's mate how to shoot a gun or how to rig a boatswain's chair (if you're getting in that chair you're really hoping he knows what he's doing)? The Dental Technician gonna get weapons training, the Yeoman, supply people, jet mechanics, air traffic controllers, sonar guys, etc, etc, etc, etc.....
20% of Army guys are infantrymen....what percent of Navy and Air Force personell do you figure shoot guns?

Ahhh, you're throwing ice water (reality) on an otherwise appealing notion, DMac.
Of course, you're right...too bad reality sometimes gets in the way!

[a fan]

Sorry fellas, but this aint gonna work.

How does it work with the current National Guard?

[DMac]

It's essentially no different.

[a fan]

Meaning: the National Guard doesn't work well?

Or the National Guard doesn't train someone to shoot a gun?

[DMac]

No, I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying there's only a percent who are infantrymen and those are the guys who shoot guns (they all get some weapons training), supply guys, mechanics, etc aren't really infantrymen unless we're in real trouble and they're the last men standing (they all can put barbed wire up along a border though).

"Hey, Bosun, rig me up, I'm goin' over."
"Think I remember how to do that, Chief, been workin' on hittin' that bullseye lately"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sMT_sV9Ino

[old salt]

One Of Trump’s First Actions Reversed An Obama Rule On Guns And Mental Impairment

A Whole.

Deceptive headline, contradicted in the text of the article :

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term.

I'm confused. Is the headline 'deceptive' because it was Republicans in Congress who overturned the regulation not Trump himself?

If that's the case, surely we all know that if Trump wanted it the other way, he'd have been in the same position as Obama? Same GOP controlled House and Senate at that point, right? Change the POTUS, change the reg.

But maybe I'm not following correctly.
BTW, HuffPost deserves the same degree of skepticism as lots of sites on the right. Watch out for headlines!

The rule only took effect 2 days before Trump took office. It was part of the slew of rules that Obama couldn't get through Congress, so he threw them up against the wall on his way out of office, forcing the new Congress or Trump to void them, so they could later be blamed for doing so, ...just as this HuffPost piece does. It was a sore loser political PR stunt.

Just to be clear, Obama's executive action was taken in 2012, just after Sandy Hook. The rule-making process grinds, but the order was more than 3 years earlier not right at the end of his term. Am I correct?

But I do agree to watch out for slanting of headlines!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ct-of-2007
On May 5, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register

This final rule will be effective on January 18, 2017. However, compliance is not required until December 19, 2017.

[a fan]

No, I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying there's only a percent who are infantrymen and those are the guys who shoot guns (they all get some weapons training), supply guys, mechanics, etc aren't really infantrymen unless we're in real trouble and they're the last men standing (they all can put barbed wire up along a border though).

Got it. Thank you!

"Hey, Bosun, rig me up, I'm goin' over."
"Think I remember how to do that, Chief, been workin' on hittin' that bullseye lately"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sMT_sV9Ino

Gee-zus! Did you do that yourself?? That's just crazy.

[DMac]

Not a chance, brotha, but I've had a ring side seat and watched a guy go over.
Was thinkin' to myself, why the hell don't you go over in a helo (was on a carrier fer krissakes) and drop down on a rope rather than do that.

[MDlaxfan76]

One Of Trump’s First Actions Reversed An Obama Rule On Guns And Mental Impairment

A Whole.

Deceptive headline, contradicted in the text of the article :

Because Obama pursued the policy involving the SSA through regulation, however, Congress had an easy time overturning it once Trump assumed the White House. Thanks to a special legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act, Republicans undid more than a dozen regulations that had been finalized late in Obama’s second term.

I'm confused. Is the headline 'deceptive' because it was Republicans in Congress who overturned the regulation not Trump himself?

If that's the case, surely we all know that if Trump wanted it the other way, he'd have been in the same position as Obama? Same GOP controlled House and Senate at that point, right? Change the POTUS, change the reg.

But maybe I'm not following correctly.
BTW, HuffPost deserves the same degree of skepticism as lots of sites on the right. Watch out for headlines!

The rule only took effect 2 days before Trump took office. It was part of the slew of rules that Obama couldn't get through Congress, so he threw them up against the wall on his way out of office, forcing the new Congress or Trump to void them, so they could later be blamed for doing so, ...just as this HuffPost piece does. It was a sore loser political PR stunt.

Just to be clear, Obama's executive action was taken in 2012, just after Sandy Hook. The rule-making process grinds, but the order was more than 3 years earlier not right at the end of his term. Am I correct?

But I do agree to watch out for slanting of headlines!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ct-of-2007
On May 5, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register

This final rule will be effective on January 18, 2017. However, compliance is not required until December 19, 2017.

I see, so it took 3 years to get to a proposed rule? Then 7+ months of public comment and then further process before it went into effect.
Boy, that first 3 years sounds like a long time. Makes sense that it would take some months of public comment and then a delay etc before going into effect.

EDIT: Here's the executive order from 2012:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13625
It appears to be directed at veterans and service members, not this issue.

I don't see any executive orders about guns throughout, including 2016. Looks like it was entirely through regulatory authority, not executive orders.

Here's the GOP Congress' overturning of the mental impairment-background check rule.
Gun Control, Mental Incompetency, and Social Security Administration Final Rule
February 2, 2017 – April 19, 2017 R44752

On February 2, 2017, the House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution (H.J.Res. 40) to overturn a final rule promulgated by the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding implementation of firearms restrictions for certain persons. On February 16, 2017, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 40 without any amendments. On February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed this resolution into law (P.L. 115-8). This enacted joint resolution vacates the SSA final rule. It also bars the SSA from promulgating any future rule that would be “substantially the same” as the vacated rule unless the agency receives a new statutory authorization to do so.

The vacated SSA final rule was intended to implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; P.L. 110-180) on reporting requirements for any federal agency holding records on persons prohibited from possessing firearms. NIAA mandates that agencies must share those records with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for inclusion in a computer index accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). As described in this report, some of these prohibiting records are based upon findings of “mental incompetency” made during certain federal benefit claims processes administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) since 1998 and to be administered by the SSA beginning in December 2017.

Activated by the FBI, NICS is a national computer network that allows federally licensed gun dealers to initiate a background check through either the FBI or a state or local authority, before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed, private person. Under federal law, persons who are “adjudicated as a mental defective” are ineligible to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives promulgated a rule that defined this term to include any individual that a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has made a determination that—as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease—he or she is a person who

is a danger to himself or others;

lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs;

is found insane by a court in a criminal case; or

is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of moral responsibility.

Since 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs has referred the name of any beneficiary determined to be incompetent—because he or she lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs due to injury or disease—to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS index pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 (Brady Act; P.L. 103-159). Under NIAA, since 2007, the VA must inform any benefits claimant that such determinations could lead to a loss of his or her firearms rights and privileges. But, NIAA also requires any federal authority that provides prohibiting mental health records to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS index to establish an administrative process, by which mentally incompetent, prohibited beneficiaries may petition to have those rights and privileges restored.

Pursuant to both the Brady Act and NIAA, the SSA final rule specified conditions under which individuals would have been reported for inclusion in the NICS index as Social Security or SSI disability beneficiaries who would have been deemed too mentally incompetent to be trusted with firearms or ammunition. The rule also outlined SSA’s process for notifying affected individuals as well as an administrative appeals process under which such individuals may request relief from the federal firearms prohibitions. The vacated rule was to have become effective on January 18, 2017; however, compliance would not have been required until December 19, 2017.

Since the release of this report, the House has passed a bill (H.R. 1181) that would clarify the conditions under which veterans and survivors who are beneficiaries of programs administered by the VA may be treated as “adjudicated as a mental defective.” For further information, see CRS Report R44818, Gun Control, Veterans Benefits, and Mental Incompetency Determinations.

[wahoomurf]

No need to panic boys and girls. Mitch Mac is going to look into these ALLEGED mass shootings. But 'ya gotta wait. The overworked, underpaid SENATORS deserve a break. When the U.S. Senate reconvenes in September, poor ole Mitch will prioritize the stack fn bills on his desk. Job 1 is clearly to develop a new Blocking and Protection schemes for DD-K. Hell, it's football season.Every "team" has to review what worked or didn't work in the past.Why not TEAM TRUMP?

[LandM]

Lemons idea is stupid, sorry to be offensive. One weekend a month; 2 weeks per year; plus retirement - now who is gonna pay for that? Free college; free healthcare; increased min wage; and let's throw in a living wage even if no one is working- did I miss something? Tax the rich, NOPE, just create more LLC's.

DMac, rolled out of seat on person going over deck. Freshman (Doolie) year at AFA - 10 meter tower, jump, boots off, pants become a flotation device, hang around for 30 minutes then dive under walking deck and home free, thankfully no sharks - had to do it a few times, because I might be on a carrier, seriously I am going to be an AF fighter pilot when would I ever be on a deck . Flight school - high blood pressure; Sunnyvale and Blue Cube - Challenger blows, payload blows, sitting on hands for 6 months; change AFSC as I have an obligation to pay the taxpayer back - can jump out of planes not fly them and would you not know, a couple of years later, 2 nights on a carrier . Chopper in and out. Still chuckle on that one. BTW, chow was pretty good and far superior to the MRE