Obama considering reaching for that Pen on gun control

No sooner had I read that Hillary Clinton: “I am going to get those guns out of people’s hands” from over at America’s Watchtower – by Executive action by golly if required, well good ole Hussein said now isn’t that a swell idea, and started reaching for that Pen and Phone. Hint: Keep your eye on ammo. An easier route.

The White House is considering whether President Obama can take executive action to enforce stronger gun control measures, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest said on Monday.

“The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them,” Earnest said Monday. “That’s something that is ongoing here.”

Earnest was responding to questions from reporters following Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she would consider executive action to expand background checks on gun buyers by closing the so-called gun show loophole.

Clinton’s move marks the second time she has said she will consider going farther than the Obama administration by taking unilateral action on hot-button issues. She has already said that she would expand on Obama’s unilteral actions granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens if Congress fails to pass immigration reform.

Read more: Daily Caller

Guns? So just what is it you are proposing?

This is a different kind of video for a Saturday. The left screeches that something has to be done about guns after the recent violence. This riff done over at MSNBC should bring a chuckle. When pressed on exactly what should be done, the wandering spin begins.

National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke gently makes the same point by pressing Mark Halperin and then Mika Brzezinski to explain their policy ideas when both demand action. The result is the same in both cases — they fume, they growl about Congress, but they have no proposals of their own (via the Free Beacon and Jazz):

A worthwhile read  as well as a tip of the hat goes to  Hot Air

Vet sought treatment for ‘Insomnia’, NY police takes his guns

So you took a Vicodin 15 years ago when you had some surgery? Great news, you could be considered a “Mental defective” by the office of Mental Hygiene in Suffolk County New York. A feel good story to get the New Year off to a great start.

U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other officials after his firearms were reportedly confiscated by police after he sought treatment for insomnia.

Consider Nassau County, a populous suburban county eastof New York City. The Nassau  Department (ncpd) oversees the issuance of handgun licenses which must be renewed every five years. Last year, the ncpd added a new question to the application:

“Have you used or still use [sic]
narcotics, tranquilizers or antidepressant
medication? If yes, record
doctor’s name, address and phone
number, (attach).” A list of all relevant
medications is required.
In reality, these categories of
drugs—narcotics, tranquilizers and
anti-depressants—are so broad that
almost every adult could be identified
as a potentially dangerous drug user
through this question.

Read more here with what is covered and how it works.

Here we go with a prime example of how the Office of Mental Hygiene completes Gun Control.

It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6 and complained about trouble sleeping, the Daily Caller reported. He claimed to have been suffering from insomnia since moving from a different state. Montgomery then returned to the hospital again days later for the same problems, except this time he was diagnosed with “Depression; Insomnia” by hospital staff.

On May 23, Montgomery returned to the hospital yet again with the same symptoms. He reportedly stayed at the hospital for 48 hours voluntarily for treatment.

Under New York’s SAFE Act, mental health professionals are required to report patients who are determined to be threats to themselves or others. Regardless, the lawsuit claims the veteran was cleared.

“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.

Montgomery was said to be “mildly depressed” by hospital officials, but they found “no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms.” The notes also asserted, “Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.”

Still, Montgomery’s records were forwarded to Mental Hygiene Legal Service for further review.

The Daily Caller outlines what happened next:

Four days after leaving the hospital, New York State police sent a letter to the Suffolk County clerk’s office stating “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution” and that he was prohibited from possessing any firearms.

The next day, Montgomery received a call from an officer at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department informing him that his guns would have to be confiscated.

Montgomery says that on May 30, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department showed up to his house and confiscated his pistol license and four handguns — Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.

Keep reading…

So how many poor people have gun control groups fed?

Gun Free Zone brings us this, and asks ths question. Its been a long week so here is something for the war weary.



New York takes guns away from 34,500 without due process

Why should this little reported story concern us? Once again it is about Due Process. Yes, that nasty part of the Constitution that Progressives find so annoying in implementing their agenda. Should guns be kept away from the mentally ill? The standard up to now has been someone who has been committed involuntarily to a mental institution and is a danger to himself or others. Now, all we need is to have someone report you and you can lose your Second Amendment rights with no way out. It is the usual slippery slope that we begin. Hot air has the full screed, but this will get you started.

The NY Times has now released details of a database kept by Empire State law enforcement of people who have had their Second Amendment rights terminated on the basis of being “mentally unstable.” The number of people in this database – created as a result of the odious New York SAFE Act – has swollen in a little over a year to more than 34,000 names.

For the vast majority of the people on this huge list, they have never had a day in court to challenge their accusers as to their fitness to exercise their Second Amendment rights, nor have they been adjudicated as being truly dangerous. In New York you can show up on this list and lose your rights simply because some anonymous “medical professional” (who doesn’t even have to be a doctor) has reported you. A newly created database of New Yorkers deemed too mentally unstable to carry firearms has grown to roughly 34,500 names, a previously undisclosed figure that has raised concerns among some mental health advocates that too many people have been categorized as dangerous.

The database, established in the aftermath of the mass shooting in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and maintained by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, is the result of the Safe Act. It is an expansive package of gun control measures pushed through by the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The law, better known for its ban on assault weapons, compels licensed mental health professionals in New York to report to the authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Andrew Cuomo and the New York Democrat party. Efforts to get this blatantly unconstitutional law overturned in the courts have thus far failed, but this revelation should add new fuel to the fire and inspire people to redouble their efforts.

More over at Hot Air

Update: This may be of interest: Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill? January 6, 2014

Panel recommends denying “unsuitables” from acquiring firearms

Where have we heard the term “unsuitables” before? A nice way of putting it in denying gun rights to Americans. Keep your eye out for this term. Now I remember, the Nazis were keen on this term in defining those who live on our planet. Unsuitables.


Per Boston.com:

More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.

The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.

It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.

This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics:

It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong.

More at  NRO

Gun permits more popular than Obamacare in Illinois

After the dreary post yesterday regarding Obama getting ready Executive orders to limit those who could purchase guns, Obama to tighten Gun Control for those who ever took an anxiety pill?  this is a bit of a pick me up. Take that Zero, and Eric Holder. Does anyone think we can get by this way without a major conflagration over this issue?

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

On the first full day of an online sign-up, more than 4,500 concealed carry applicants gunned it to a state website to register for state permits, the Illinois State Police confirmed Monday.

Authorities have estimated 350,000 to 400,000 people will sign up for permits to carry their handguns in public within the first year of the law’s passing — close to 1,000 people a day.

Illinois is the last state to allow concealed carry. Legislators passed the law last summer after a federal appeals court ruled the state ban unconstitutional.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: