Draft Gun Ban For Elderly

T

Three 44s

New member
So just when you really NEED A GUN .......

GUNBANOBAMMA ..... says ......... NO?


http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/guns-to-be-banned-for-elderly.html


Guns to Be Banned for Elderly
Staff Reports
Washington

NOTE: this is NOT an actual UPI article

Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.

An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."

While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.

"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."

The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.

An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.

"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."

"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."

The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.

It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.

The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."

***************************************************


This was first referenced as a UPI story ..... but I really scoured their site and either it's a fiction or they killed it.

Three 44s
 
Last edited:
This is from the Gun Owners of America website:


“Pork” Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns for Millions of Americans


“HR 1 is about more than just pork. Millions of gun owners stand to lose their gun rights without any due process.” Larry Pratt, GOA Executive Director

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone has an opportunity to read it.

The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The only thing that matters is the “bigness.” And, by shipping a bill of nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren, the package is really, really big –- bigger, in fact, than the budget of our entire government for the first 170 years of our country’s existence.

But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of Washington, Gun Owners -– and a lot of other analysts -– are beginning to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology –- tasked with, among other things, “providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”

It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your medical care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -– including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.

Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that you are a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer’s... or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.

The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.

This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy.

But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government –- not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.

So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.

ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database against your will without you getting your day in court.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

- Prewritten Letter -

Dear Senator:

I am particularly concerned about sections 13101 through 13434 of the new bailout bill (HR 1). These sections would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database, including psychiatric records.


It is scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence my doctor’s decisions with respect to my medical care.


But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment.

Last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” codified ATF’s attempts to make a person a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that he is a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.

Now, this new government-coordinated database threatens the gun rights of people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... seniors with Alzheimer’s... police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... and many other law-abiding Americans.

Please vote against cloture on HR 1 until this provision is removed.

Sincerely,

© 2008 by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 - Phone: 703-321-8585 - Fax: 703-321-8408
The information contained herein may be disseminated for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given to GOA.
 
OK,

I found this "Eldery Gun Ban" claim on another forum.

I searched extensively on UPI and figured it was either a hoax ...... or they pulled the story to cover Obamma's back side until ?????

But I don't know about it's authenticity .......

...... so take it at face value.

THIS I know:

IN my bones ...... I figured Obamma for some back door Executive Order gun restrictions if he got frustrated and with his cadre of clowns he's assembling ..........

Well, anyway: Cling to your guns and pray you don't have to "use them"!

Three 44s
 
"....increasing senility for those over 60". That has to be the dumbest thing I have read. But then, what do you expect. Maybe that idiot thinks we need to euthanize all those over 60. That way the world will be populated with smart people.
 
You are right greg,the dumbest thing about it is....hmmm....wait,I need to read it again. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Quote:
"....increasing senility for those over 60". That has to be the dumbest thing I have read. But then, what do you expect. Maybe that idiot thinks we need to euthanize all those over 60. That way the world will be populated with smart people.




Lets start with all the old liberals. Ted Kennedy, YOOOOOUUUURRR NEXT!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
This is the second time around for this here in about a month. I think it's a hoax. Executive orders are not binding on the population, only on the executive branch of gov't as far as I know. Also the quote about the second amendment banning Congress specifically from infringing on gun rights is bogus.
 
Quote:
This is the second time around for this here in about a month. I think it's a hoax. Executive orders are not binding on the population, only on the executive branch of gov't as far as I know. Also the quote about the second amendment banning Congress specifically from infringing on gun rights is bogus.



I am not arguing about "hoax" or not ......

But if Executive Orders only pertained to the Executive branch .....

WHY did one BAN off shore drilling?????

Three 44s
 
Last edited:
Obama could never do this even if he wanted to. All exective orders have to follow laws already in place. The drilling order was after congress already passed theres. As of right now even Obama can't renew it until congress reinstates it. Always remeber the guys that wrote the constution planed on these fools tring to abuse there power. So I guess we just need to do what the ACLU does start sueing. If you file a federal case over civil liberties the goverment will pay the legal exspense. It is time we just start using the Left's game against them.
 
I'm not so sure about that RutRoe.The following is from Wikipedia:


Legal conflicts
To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[3] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[4]
 
Quote:
Obama could never do this even if he wanted to. All exective orders have to follow laws already in place. The drilling order was after congress already passed theres. As of right now even Obama can't renew it until congress reinstates it. Always remeber the guys that wrote the constution planed on these fools tring to abuse there power. So I guess we just need to do what the ACLU does start sueing. If you file a federal case over civil liberties the goverment will pay the legal exspense. It is time we just start using the Left's game against them.




OH?

An Executive Order must be in sync with existing Congressional shennanigans?

So what about Bush withdrawing the Off Shore Drilling Ban before Congress allowed it to lapse?

How about Nixon signing orders creating Cabinent posts into being ......... sans Congress .....?

Three 44s
 
Executive orders have to do with the executive branch (presidential administration) of the gov't. This includes Cabinet offices which are part of the executive branch, over which the president's office has control.

As for offshore drilling, I believe that companies require some sort of lease or permit from the federal gov't. If you stop and think about it, the Dept. of Interior, EPA, etc, are all part of the executive branch, not the legislative or judicial branches, and fall under the president's purview. Executive orders control how all these departments operate and what kind of rules they write. If the Pres says 'no more permits' out of Interior or whatever, that's that. Which is why we don't want our guns licensed under some Cabinet department of the Fed. gov't.

Executive orders are not binding on citizen's behavior like legislation is.
 
Quote:
Executive orders have to do with the executive branch (presidential administration) of the gov't.

...........................................

Executive orders are not binding on citizen's behavior like legislation is.




HOGWASH!

Three 44s
 
Umm, that was to ban imports of certain guns and parts from foreign countries. Import and export law (Customs) is a function of the federal gov't, probably under the Dept. of Treasury (not sure but I think they are in charge of Customs etc.). So, an executive order can change the way these federal departments operate.

You will note that Bush's executive order did not ban the buying or possession of those guns/parts that were already in the country. The office of President cannot boss us around as individuals. However it does control how most of the fed. gov't. works, which is why we want them to have as little control over everything as possible!
 
Back
Top