Holwer's Den called out a couple guys on ARFcom in regards to the negative response that the Executive Orders that President Obama laid out earlier this year.
Here's the rebuttal I posted which may or may not be posted to their site, I have no idea if they actually allow more discussion than other anti-gun sites do. I have been banned from several for being 'a shill for the NRA' or being 'off message'. These are my opinions of the EOs that I have shared on several other forums and FaceBook pages since they were first published.
"1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require
federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal
background check system."
This makes sense to me and falls well
within the purview of the POTUS' abilities; all Executive branch
agencies should work together. This is an internal 'play nice' from
their boss/our Employee the POTUS.
"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."
How is the Federal
government allowing government bodies to violate HIPPA a good thing?
Please, explain this to me. If someone was adjudicated and forcibly
remanded to state mental healthcare, this is a public record so HIPPA
has no bearing. this is what the NICS is interested in. Or is this
going to allow fishing expeditions based upon privileged doctor/patient
"3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
should mean that states that have been conforming (such as Missouri)
the whole time that NICS has been around should be rewarded. Somehow I
don't see that happening and instead I see this as trying to 'slap
around' states who are non-compliant. Considering that the NICS has
been in place for a couple of decades, there has been plenty of time for
states to send representation to the federal level to get this
repealed. "game on" as it were to the non-compliant states.
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."
#4 is rather troubling considering
the continuation of US PATRIOT Act and the failure of indefinite
detention to be removed from NDAA 2011 as well as several other actions
and threats made by the executive branch over the last 12+ years.
'Domestic terrorist' lists similar to the 'no fly' list that has zero
#5 is somewhat ok, I'd rather see a federal database
that is publicly searchable for recovered stolen/seized firearms.
Verification of ownership and access to their Right to Keep and bear
Arms is fine, but looking at the 'List' in #4 this could be troubling if
determination of ownership of a specific type of weapon puts one in a
If #13 includes a recommendation from the DoJ
to NOT allow plea deals in cases where any weapon was used to commit a
crime, I'd be ok with that as long as Castle Doctrine and no duty to
retreat come into effect and DA's are unable to go after defensive gun
use when employed by those who are not barred from using their 2nd
Amendment right to self defense with a firearm.
The EO's in and
of themselves are relatively benign but looking at the direction that we
have been going since the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 they can been
seen in a negative light. The other issue is that even if the current
Administration does nothing to curtail rights, who is to say that future
Oh, if you want to publish my personal information,
feel free. I am the interim Chairman of the Democratic Gun Owners'
Caucus of Missouri, a member of the Blue Steel Democrats and run the
blog at www.armedliberalinmo.blogspot.com so any publicity or additional
memberships you want to send my way, please feel free. ;)
My wife is an immigrant from Canada who is working on her Citizenship so I am not doing anything that would impede her progress.
this is the view of someone who identifies as a Liberal, feels that
Civil Rights are held by no one if anyone's are disrupted and disagrees
that we need as much federal government as we have.
Armed Liberal in MO"
Oh yeah, they did respond. A very polite "Thanks, but we disagree". They seemed intrigued that there are Liberals who tend to vote Democrat yet actually *LIKE* firearms. The shock! ;)
They also posted some personal info on other blog posts of RKBA activists. I'm not sure why they did that, it seems that it would potentially put folks in harm's way but I am not sure if that would be the folks whose family and addresses were printed or those who would seek to do them harm...