Obama uses mental health issue
as weapon to take away guns
New plan to trample Second Amendment launched
TeaParty.org Exclusive. January 10th, 2014
Article Source
(Tea Party) – Politicians have a sneaky way of getting information overlooked. They do an end-of-week public information dump, which is why this new initiative may have been lost if not for some keep watchdogs. This week, President Obama launched yet another attack to crack down on gun owners only using mental health diagnoses as an excuse to strip people of their right to carry.
Already our military veterans, those who support third-party candidate and those who are pro-life have been the victims of an attack by the Department of Homeland Security who has labeled them "right-wing extremists." The groups are added to the list of targets which includes the conservative organizations who were targeted by the IRS.
FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Don't Let The Government Take Your Guns! Protect Your Second Amendment Rights!
Warning flags have been flying by critics of the Obama administration over what's coming next — and it seems that day has arrived.
Obama announced last Friday that the Justice Department proposing a rule change that makes receiving nebulous "outpatient" services from a professional such as a psychiatrist would be a red flag under gun ownership rules. According to the proposed rule change being treated as an outpatient will be akin to being committed to a mental institution.
As it appears, privacy has just been blown out the window. President Obama claims that his Health and Human Services agency is issuing the rule in order to get past the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It would allow "express permission" for "entities" to hand over select records to the federal government or "information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands."
Six months ago red flags were raised and alarms sounded regarding this specific issue by various groups. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) warned then that the administration was widening the definition of "mental deficiency." They were seeking ways to send people to mental institutions for "mental defectiveness or mental illness" or "for other reasons."
Reported EPIC: "The phrase 'for other reasons' is overly broad and vague."
"Although the DOJ has illustrated that drug use is an example of 'commitments for other reasons,' the nebulous language would grant the DOJ sweeping authority to prohibit individuals from possessing firearms, a constitutionally protected right," said EPIC.
Privacy advocates were quick to warn: "Until the DOJ clearly defines and enumerates the types of formal commitments that can bar gun ownership, HHS should not amend its regulations to release sensitive mental health information to the DOJ."
After the Sandy Hook shootings in Newtown, Connecticut Obama and his administration kicked their gun control agenda into high-gear. They began pressing for "closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands," a ban on "military-style" weapons and some ammunition magazines, in addition to "making schools safer" and improving mental health services.
Unfortunately, there has been a fair share of ambiguities and vague generalities which has caused serious concern among Second Amendment supporters and privacy advocates.
The Hidden Agenda
When Obama made his announcement last Friday about executive actions to "keep guns out of the wrong hands" he said:
"Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence." "While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide."
He claims that is why there is a need for the DOJ rule "to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm" and further, that the HHS rule change is "to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information … to the federal background check system."
According to his statements, however, Obama has already instructed federal agencies to hand over criminal records and other such information on those who would be prohibited from having a gun "for mental health reasons."
He spent a whopping $20 million to "improve incentives for states" so that the states would just hand over background check information to the federal government. This year he's proposed to spend $50 million on the effort.
Washington Times commentator Michael E. Hammond weighed in, saying: "The real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans, even if the result is to discourage people from seeking counseling."
Hammond pressed: "Do you really think a hunter or gun owner feels somehow less violated when, as a result of sharing his deepest secrets in confidence, his name is turned over to government as either a dangerous or incompetent person and – as has happened – a SWAT team is sent to his house to seize his guns?"
One year ago Obama churned out 23 executive actions on gun control — executive actions intended to curb gun rights. Fortunately Congress handed Obama a sprawling defeat as lawmakers refused to agree to more stringent and far-reaching plans to suppress gun ownership.
Already the federal government has banned multiple groups from owning guns including those involuntary committed to a mental institution, those not competent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of insanity and those who have been determined through an adjudication process to have a severe mental condition. The federal government admits that is has already done this.
Snooping into personal records
Now, in an extreme invasion of privacy, the federal government wants to get their hands on mental health records from health care providers. Currently those mental health records come from the judiciary system.
According to EPIC the best plan of action would be to leave the consumer protections in place under the HIPAA Privacy Rules. Those rules do not allow discussions of diagnoses or treatment. If changes are made, said EPIC, clear protections must be made.
"HHS should assign liability to states that disclose excess mental health data for NICS purposes," the comments said. "HHS should mandate states notify NICS as soon as possible but no [later] than 10 business days of an incorrect or outdated mental illness record."
"There are not enough adequate privacy protections in place, under state law or otherwise, for data collected by state entities for reporting to the NICS. … Many states do not have privacy laws that explicitly address privacy protection of mental health records and availability to the NICS," said Epic.
Still, there is another anti-gun strategy which may explain why the Obama administration has not taken legal action against two states that legalized marijuana use even though federal law does not allow it.
It has been speculated that Washington may like the idea of legalizing marijuana — an idea that may have sprung from a report titled "State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues," released by the Congressional Research Service.
In that report attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote: "The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that 'growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.'"
Attorneys Garvey and Yeh say that what is more certain is that federal firearms regulators will be more aggressive about banning those who use marijuana from purchasing or possessing a weapon.
"With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions," the attorneys wrote.
According to the attorneys, the ATF has specifically stated "any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition."
"These individuals are to answer 'yes' when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance," wrote Garvey and Yeh.
Zeroing in on Veterans
In another shocking move, the government is using its interaction with veterans to ban tens of thousands of military vets from having guns by deeming them incapable of handling their own financial affairs.
The Veterans Administration is being hit with a lawsuit filed by the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) for taking away the gun rights of veterans without "due process" or factual or legal basis."
Veterans returning from duty are being deprived of their Second Amendment rights based on arbitrary VA decisions, not on a court-based adjudication process.
There is a distinct problem that comes into play when a fiduciary needs to be appointed by the VA — someone to assist the veteran in handling and managing select government benefits.
As a matter of routine, the government notifies the FBI's NICS system. NICS is a federally maintained list containing the identities of those whose competency has been challenged. What that means is that the veteran can no longer purchase a firearm and they may not keep any firearms they have.
The lawsuit is designed to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act, says Michael Connelly the executive director of the USJF.
"The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making 'determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,'" explained the legal team. Furthermore, they said:
"The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition," said Connelly. "This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis."
Recently, Jeff Knox, a columnist for new media outlet WND, warned the public about Obama's new strategy. Said Knox, "The strategy is to use the wide acceptance of the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms as a front for prohibiting a broad array of 'normal' people from possessing guns or ammunition. As with most things, the devil is in the details. What is mental illness? Who is mentally ill? How mentally ill must one be to warrant revocation of a fundamental human right? Who makes that determination? Who is 'normal,' and how 'normal' do they have to be to own guns? We all know people who have dealt with some mental health issues or who people consider a bit odd, but who are also fully functional, completely rational, good people who would never harm anyone. The new anti-rights strategy is to cast doubts on those people and deny them their rights to own guns and ammunition."
Knox's sources confirmed that "emergency" legislation would be used to "pass draconian bills with no hearings, no committee votes and no public input" in an effort to further "control" firearms.
Wrote Knox, "While this anti-rights sneak attack is just getting under way, you can be sure it is well-planned and well-funded, so expect to see a flood of bills dealing with mental health in general and firearms access by the mentally ill in particular introduced in Congress and state legislatures nationwide in the coming months."
"These bills will be promoted as 'common sense,' but they will contain definitions so broad that hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of regular folks who have been or are being successfully treated for common, minor, mental and emotional issues will be denied their right to arms as 'mental defectives.' People suffering from mild depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, even women treated for PMS, could be lumped in with violent schizophrenics and the criminally insane."
The bottom line: Anyone that has even the smallest mental health issue will be banned from owning or carrying a firearm. Hold onto your holster. This is just the beginning.
