kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594 
|
Post by kent on Jan 3, 2014 16:55:49 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914 
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 3, 2014 17:00:17 GMT -5
Bully for the lame duck. Whatever. Like what he says about anything matters to aNyone anymore. Most people are just trying to survive until someone comes in and fixes the mess.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 3, 2014 17:56:36 GMT -5
I've always wondered how mental health exclusions for fire arms gets around HIPPA law.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 3, 2014 17:58:13 GMT -5
I'll let you know.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 3, 2014 18:33:34 GMT -5
... Paragraph three is more troublesome. "More leeway," "Limited information" and "potentially dangerous" by whose standards? The bit about this not impacting those that have sought or received treatment isn't as definitive as I'd like to see. ... You are looking at a press release. Here is the link to the proposed actions: s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf Looks like it has much more details information. |
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Jan 3, 2014 19:25:54 GMT -5
... Paragraph three is more troublesome. "More leeway," "Limited information" and "potentially dangerous" by whose standards? The bit about this not impacting those that have sought or received treatment isn't as definitive as I'd like to see. ... You are looking at a press release. Here is the link to the proposed actions: s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf Looks like it has much more details information. Thanks for digging that up Bill  I gave it a relative quick read and it seems pretty reasonable after all but it's 49 pages long and signed by Kathleen Sebelius so.....hmmmm....  |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 3, 2014 20:16:34 GMT -5
The NRA is not going to like this.....
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 3, 2014 20:18:00 GMT -5
The NRA doesn't like anything. Somehow life goes on.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Jan 3, 2014 20:45:51 GMT -5
I am actually glad if they more clearly state that if you have been committed to a mental institution you can't own guns and how that should be reported. I own legal fire arms, my oldest brother does, my dad does. My middle brother is mentally unstable and we all fear him getting a gun some how and hurting himself or others and for me I worried a lot about my parents where he often lived. All guns are appropriately secured but he knows we have them, I was never so worried about our weapons but what he might pick up on the streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 3, 2014 22:55:01 GMT -5
...anybody whose ever been involuntary committed, ever? that would include those committed for observation and then later released... ...I don't like that...  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 3, 2014 23:06:07 GMT -5
...anybody whose ever been involuntary committed, ever? that would include those committed for observation and then later released... ...I don't like that... 2The regulation, at 27 CFR 478.11, defines “Committed to a mental institution” as: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Note that DOJ has proposed clarifications to this regulatory language, which are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (emphasis added)(footnote 2, page 5, s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf) |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 3, 2014 23:07:55 GMT -5
...anybody whose ever been involuntary committed, ever? that would include those committed for observation and then later released... ...I don't like that... I don't believe that's true, BTDT. A 72-hour observational hold is not a true commitment. If the person is deemed to require in-patient care and, thereby, made an inpatient, that patient would be considered committed. If released, the individual was found not to require commitment. At least, that's how it would seem logical for it to work. I'd have to read more thoroughly to see how it's addressed (and IF it's addressed). Because of a lack of available placement for patients who are mentally ill, we've had to hold patients in our acute care hospital for the 72-hour hold. Psychiatrists visited daily to assess. If the patient was released from our ER (where they were held), they would not have been committed to a psychiatric facility. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2014 23:09:14 GMT -5
...anybody whose ever been involuntary committed, ever? that would include those committed for observation and then later released... ...I don't like that... neither does Obama, apparently. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 3, 2014 23:09:22 GMT -5
Ahh! Thanks, billisonboard. I don't have to go searching for an answer now. They did cover it.  |
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by mollyanna58 on Jan 3, 2014 23:42:32 GMT -5
So, since Congress did not pass any laws, the Executive branch can just issue regulations that have the same impact as an actual law? Doesn't that take the balance out of "checks and balances"? |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 3, 2014 23:53:10 GMT -5
It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order, so it carries no real legal weight. Actually, either of the two can be reversed by either congress, or the courts. The Executive Action just carries even less weight. It's more like a suggestion.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2014 0:00:21 GMT -5
So, since Congress did not pass any laws, the Executive branch can just issue regulations that have the same impact as an actual law? Doesn't that take the balance out of "checks and balances"? The executive action (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf) spells out the laws that are being "clarified". It is a tradition that George Washington started. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 4, 2014 0:06:41 GMT -5
2The regulation, at 27 CFR 478.11, defines “Committed to a mental institution” as: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Note that DOJ has proposed clarifications to this regulatory language, which are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (emphasis added)(footnote 2, page 5, s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf)
....hmm... so if a maniacal pschyopath voluntarily commits themselves, then they're golden? hmm...
...still, thanks for posting the info...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2014 0:07:34 GMT -5
It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order, so it carries no real legal weight. Actually, either of the two can be reversed by either congress, or the courts. The Executive Action just carries even less weight. It's more like a suggestion. Interesting. Looks like I have some research to do on the difference between "executive action" and "executive orders" |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 4, 2014 0:10:25 GMT -5
2The regulation, at 27 CFR 478.11, defines “Committed to a mental institution” as: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Note that DOJ has proposed clarifications to this regulatory language, which are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (emphasis added)(footnote 2, page 5, s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf) ....hmm... so if a maniacal pschyopath voluntarily commits themselves, then they're golden? hmm... ...still, thanks for posting the info... LOL! If you hear of, or know of any maniacal psychopath who voluntarily commits him/herself, please let me know! |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 4, 2014 0:13:01 GMT -5
It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order, so it carries no real legal weight. Actually, either of the two can be reversed by either congress, or the courts. The Executive Action just carries even less weight. It's more like a suggestion. Interesting. Looks like I have some research to do on the difference between "executive action" and "executive orders" I'm pretty sure I have them in the right order, billis. Let me know if I don't, please. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2014 0:21:15 GMT -5
2The regulation, at 27 CFR 478.11, defines “Committed to a mental institution” as: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Note that DOJ has proposed clarifications to this regulatory language, which are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (emphasis added)(footnote 2, page 5, s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf) ....hmm... so if a maniacal pschyopath voluntarily commits themselves, then they're golden? hmm... ...still, thanks for posting the info... How do you know that the person is "a maniacal psychopath"? While a person may have entered the facility voluntarily, such a diagnosis would lead to a commitment for mental illness. That would take the shine off that gold. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,448
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2014 0:24:01 GMT -5
Interesting. Looks like I have some research to do on the difference between "executive action" and "executive orders" I'm pretty sure I have them in the right order, billis. Let me know if I don't, please. Not really questioning what you posted but being the detail freak that I am, I just want to understand the differences better. Will let you know if I find something interesting. Might be a couple of days with other goings on here. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 24, 2024 21:12:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 9:16:56 GMT -5
The NRA is not going to like this..... But they will handle it if need be. Their legislative track record is excellent. See mmhmm's post #15 |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2014 11:21:14 GMT -5
It's an Executive Action, not an Executive Order, so it carries no real legal weight. Actually, either of the two can be reversed by either congress, or the courts. The Executive Action just carries even less weight. It's more like a suggestion. it is slightly stronger than that. i would use the word "recommendation". but yes, it carries no legal weight. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2014 11:22:41 GMT -5
2The regulation, at 27 CFR 478.11, defines “Committed to a mental institution” as: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily, commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, as well as commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Note that DOJ has proposed clarifications to this regulatory language, which are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (emphasis added)(footnote 2, page 5, s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-00055.pdf) ....hmm... so if a maniacal pschyopath voluntarily commits themselves, then they're golden? hmm... ...still, thanks for posting the info... LOL! If you hear of, or know of any maniacal psychopath who voluntarily commits him/herself, please let me know! moreover, if a person being observed is a danger to himself or other individuals, i believe he can be held for longer than 72 hours. correct me if i am wrong. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 4, 2014 11:29:58 GMT -5
LOL! If you hear of, or know of any maniacal psychopath who voluntarily commits him/herself, please let me know! moreover, if a person being observed is a danger to himself or other individuals, i believe he can be held for longer than 72 hours. correct me if i am wrong. It depends on the state, dj. In my state, there is a 72 hour hold for evaluation. Should the person be found to be in need of treatment for mental health issues by a qualified psychiatrist during those 72 hours, a court order is obtained for involuntary commitment, either to inpatient or controlled outpatient treatment. Here, it's based on need for treatment rather than being a probable danger to self or others. |
|
mtman
Familiar Member
Banned 01.20.14
Joined: Oct 29, 2011 9:53:04 GMT -5
Posts: 506
|
Post by mtman on Jan 4, 2014 12:55:14 GMT -5
Just barry blowing smoke.....NRA won't pay it much attention....They know barry's nothing to worry about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,710
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2014 12:59:49 GMT -5
Just barry blowing smoke.....NRA won't pay it much attention....They know barry's nothing to worry about. if you mean that the management of the NRA is a lying heap of s*&tsacks, then i agree with you. otherwise, you have THIS to contend with: |
|
mtman
Familiar Member
Banned 01.20.14
Joined: Oct 29, 2011 9:53:04 GMT -5
Posts: 506
|
Post by mtman on Jan 4, 2014 13:12:23 GMT -5
Just barry blowing smoke.....NRA won't pay it much attention....They know barry's nothing to worry about. if you mean that the management of the NRA is a lying heap of s*&tsacks, then i agree with you. otherwise, you have THIS to contend with: In 2012, I do think the Good people of the NRA over estimated barry.....They had no idea what an impotent fool he would be in his second term. |
|
