Obama's 23 Executive Gun Control Actions

Tyler Durden's picture

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

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 it widely 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 effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative 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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
seek's picture

Fortunately there are many pro-2nd doctors in my area. Permitting them to ask Qs and requiring them to ask Qs are two totally different options.

And seriously, the amount of networking gun owners do puts linkedin to shame, if you're in an area where there are anti docs and pro docs, the pro docs are going to have waiting lists for new patients.

Frozen IcQb's picture

Can someone please explain #16 ???

glenlloyd's picture

There's a section in ACA that I believe Reid agreed to so the NRA wouldn't object to ACA that prohibits the collection of gun ownership information via the healthcare system.

I haven't read it but I've heard about it.

Zer0head's picture

exactly, and who enforces health care - 16,000 newly deputized federal agents

CommunityStandard's picture

Essentially, if a doctor is concerned about the mental health of a patient, they can try to find out if the patient is a current gun owner.  This info can then be reported to authorities to sieze the weapon, since you are not allowed to have a gun if you are diagnosed with mental health problems.

mr1963's picture

Big brother is watching. Wonder what will happen if you say "No" and the real answer is "Yes?"

css1971's picture

Where Poor Mental Health = Not Doing What You're Told and conforming to the majority opinion.

Moe Howard's picture

This is how they will disarm the new combat veterans. They will say they have PTSD or be diagnosed as having it, and therefore, no arms for the veteran. 


BIG Sis is worried about the discharged "War on Terror" soldiers, they are unAmerican I guess.

MachoMan's picture

Nope...  the government will have to specifically articulate which mental illnesses are at risk for violent behavior...  and, even then, will need a court order (one practitioner's diagnosis doesn't mean shit...  it can be laughably off base).

live free's picture

The mental condition is the back door for all of us.  The newly release health definitions book has a definition for EVERYTHING including a disobediance type disorder.... and POOF... there it is. 

It's been planne from the get go on the healthcare bill.

I keep telling people that the only thing that makes sense why they are doing what they do is when you understand that the assumption being they want more power and control over the populace.  You think some group of people with power and money living in lala land under their own special laws (Washington DC) give two sh*ts about our safety and well being?



MachoMan's picture

This is incorrect.  Mental health practitioners already have a legally imposed "duty to warn".  This duty arises when a client reveals certain information to the practitioner, e.g. mental state+motive+plan+means+an identifiable target.  This is simply the case of politicians proposing things that are already on the books or that the civil side has already taken care of (as well as ethical constraints and licensing boards).

There is NO duty to try and trick a client into divulging the client's plan to kill or harm someone...  and the only way it can be divulged without breaking confidentiality is through "informed consent"...  which, practically speaking, means telling the client that there are certain situations where what they tell you MUST be reported and getting them to sign a document stating they understand...

As a result?  Clients rarely screw up and spill the beans...  but, when they do, you bet your ass the practitioner is absolutely screaming from the mountain tops about it...  otherwise, a failure to warn means liability...  [whereas this responsibility is generally protected through the patient/client privilege].

Further, YOU MAY HAVE A GUN WHEN YOU HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS (how fucking vague is that?)...  you are not stripped of your gun rights until there has been an adjudication of your mental incompetence...  in other words, a trial on the merits.  Do you people understand what fundamental rights are and the protections that surround them? 

Tango in the Blight's picture

As happened to that Doomsday Prepper guy who had all his guns seized.

Fedaykinx's picture

he's had them back for quite a while now

dobermangang's picture

Short squeeze!


Their earnings will be stunning.

ChanceIs's picture

Nah.  No short squeeze.

Just Jamie and Lloyd frontrunning with more of our QEIII dollars.

Hey!!!!  Sooner or later it all trickles down.

Say What Again's picture



I found a typo

"11. Nominate an ATF director."

This shoud read as follows

"11. Nominate a WTF director."

otto skorzeny's picture

how bout an NWO director-oh wait-Hillary is already it

batz's picture

Sounds like Canada. Nobody will be happy with these, which suggests he's done the right thing. 


Who gets access to the centralized background check system and the sort of info it contains will be an interesting privacy problem.


trav777's picture

there are manifold people inside the gov't who make information sharing impossible due to the fact that it's illegal and they aren't big enough fish to not go to jail over it.

the disco 3-letters do their own thing, often people look the other way because those fish ARE big enough.  But mundane little criminal stuff?  No way.  Not important enough.  If taspo wants to "collect" data that they have no ability to get via a legal sharing agreement to keep "nukes" from crossing the border, well, just don't get caught.  And when these avenues get found, they get closed off.

Nobody at a low level, aka the people actually DOING this stuff, wants to be in a position of lack of CYA.  So you have to run these things up email chains and there has to be formal records of managers signing off.  But no low-level program office manager is going to sign off on this stuff...has to go up to the director level.  And it makes a huge paper trail.

Matt's picture

Hey, do you guys ever have problems with all your SSA records being left on a USB key chain at Starbucks, or do you ever have one of the Secretary's (Defense, State, etc) ever just leave a dossier at a girlfriend's house?

TotalCarp's picture

Very interesting this is not about guns is it?? This is about info and patern analysis on population by govt agencies. This is a domestic spying bill! Wow i have to give it to this guy he is much more of a snake then most nra types assume he is!

NotApplicable's picture

How many times do I have to state that HE'S A PUPPET!

He is not a snake, but rather a snake-oil salesman.

Why oh why does ANYONE believe these are his ideas?

His one and only function is to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple who believe in his magic power.

From your testimony, it appears he is wildly successful.

Cathartes Aura's picture

peoples love to take sides, and vote (apparently) - so when the currently "voted in" figurehead isn't doing what they like/want/need, then it's important to hate on him, and eventually convince yourself that YOUR voted in figurehead would be doing a much better job supplying your wish list.

it's a voting thing, the need to take sides & hate on the other side. . . y'know, like sports teams. . .

gawd forbid folks realise the whole system sucketh - no moar sports???!!

Missiondweller's picture

And don't post your gun photo on FaceBook. They're the new Stassi.

MachoMan's picture

Yes.  The goal is to create a universal medical database and give the government access to it for purposes of background checks for guns.

Overfed's picture

He gave us all the ol' rope-a-dope and we all fell for it. Dammit.

Martin Silenus's picture

Address, develop, review, propose....lol, sounds like community improvement verbs.

Uncle Zuzu's picture

23 because they don't want to piss off any law enforcement agencies by leaving them out.  Note how each one mentions a different agency.  "what about me, where is my funding?"

otto skorzeny's picture

got to keep the cops-aka praetorian guard aka speeding ticket writers happy. maybe an MRAP for every town in the US.

lolmao500's picture

- Universal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun.

- A national gun registry

- Assault Weapon Ban

- 10 round limit.

- Ban ``maximum damage bullets`` (whatever that means)

DosZap's picture

- Ban ``maximum damage bullets`` (whatever that means)

Anything except BALL ammunition, NO expanding hollow points, IOW's, only allow Ball Ammo, the MOST lethal to as many bystanders as the PERPS.

Many LE/PD's USED to be required to use only Ball ammo.............they over penetrate and kill innocents.

This would protect the PERPS not the public.

Legislated because of STUPIDITY.

Citxmech's picture

Does that mean I have to hunt with SMKs in my M14 now?

Racer's picture

Regarding no 12, what they going to do? Throw the book at them?

Missiondweller's picture

How would any of these have prevented any of the shootings?

dobermangang's picture

They won't.  It's all a diversion so you forget about the Government borrowing $50,000 a second to pay it's bills due to it's insane, reckless spending.

NotApplicable's picture

Well, it also reinforces the facade of government "action in service of the populace."

otto skorzeny's picture

I know what could have prevented it- keeping track of all Mossad sleeper agents in this country

MachoMan's picture

This is exactly the question everyone should be asking.  If you steal guns from a law abiding citizen, then what would a background check have helped?

The fact that no one articulates how the proposals are actually related to and remedy the most recently publicized shootings is very telling of motive...  instead, it's basically proposed as a "given" that "the majority of americans agree with" that background checks would allow folks to "have birthdays and anniversaries" if only there had been a background check and prohibition against p2p sales.  This is THE issue...

I believe that if the government is going to tinker with and limit a fundamental right, then it had best articulate an incredibly well reasoned and scientifically rooted position...  The persons in charge of proposing these measures have done nothing of the sort...  and, specifically, have never actually connected the dots as to how these proposals would actually help what they're purported to help.  Instead, the presentation is that their proposal is above scrutiny because "it's just common sense".  Actually, it's just paper thin and complete bullshit from a bullshit artist.

laomei's picture

Mental health screenings primarily.

Zer0head's picture

some fluff but a clear thread of isolate and control using Obamacare as an enabler, smart dude the Pres is, smart


Oquities's picture

better use up your hollow points at the range

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Didn't the Nazi regime use mental health 'professionals' to coral and punish dissidents?

<Aren't they positioning gun owners as dissidents?>

lolmao500's picture

The soviets did too. Any dictatorship worth it's weight did so.

Say What Again's picture

22. Commit to finalizing mental health party regulations. 

Its about time!!!!

Terrorist's picture

That war on drugs is sure working out. Let's do some more prohibition!

BTW did we learn anything from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, or Susan Lindauer?

thedrickster's picture

So they are going the Soviet route, deploying the psychiatric/public health mafia to assualt unalienable rights via assertions of mental illness.

It will go something like this:

Hi Doc

Hello Bill, do you have a gun in your home?

Why yes Doc

Do you hunt?

No Doc, I keep a gun as the last line of defense against tyrrany

I'm sorry Bill, you are obviously insane. See it says so right here in the DSM-IV, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". I am taking notes of our conversation and at somepoint some bureaucrat in HHS will enter you into NCIC as suspected mental illness, you will be denied further gun purchases. There is no due process, no appeal available, you need only convince public health officials that you aren't crazy. 

Stay safe Bill.

gnomon's picture

It will be like the "no fly" list.  Once you are on the "no buy" list you will never be able to get off of it or know how you got on it.  And many people will be denied the right to buy a firearm simply because of a computer glitch.

Quinvarius's picture

Porkfest.  How disappointing to the gungrabbers that Obama was forced to back down upon threat of armed insurrection.  50 Wacos averted this month.  At least no one else has to die for the gungrabbers.  Just kids in no gun zones remain targets.

PLira's picture

cue solitary tear in  3. 2. 1.