Wednesday, 08 January 2014 09:47

Obama to Prevent "Dangerous" People From Owning Guns

Written by 

Once again, President Barack Obama has demonstrated that he considers his will to be the supreme law of the land and he alone will decide who is allowed to buy a gun.

In an executive “Fact Sheet” issued January 3 by the White House, the president purports to establish new guidelines for “keep[ing] Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands.”

What President Obama — a former part-time law professor — seems not to understand is that every time he issues some executive order, presidential finding, or “fact sheet,” he is exceeding the constitutional limits on his power and thereby violating his oath of office.

First, Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants federal lawmaking power exclusively to the Congress. Regardless of the word he uses to describe it, any time the president “tweaks” a law or issues an executive order covering something other than the narrow limits allowed to such directives, he is making law. He is uniting in his hands all the power of the executive and the legislative branches, thus becoming our Founders’ very definition of a tyrant.

Next, there is the particular usurpation on display in this latest edict.

As is the custom of the federal government, President Obama sets up his eradication of rights as a last resort effort to protect the people of the United States from themselves. He writes: “Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

There are several serious constitutional problems in this first sentence. First, there is the separation of powers issue described above. That is, the president is not constitutionally authorized to take “executive actions” that encroach upon rights protected by the Constitution — in this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment could not be clearer as to the limit on the power of any branch or agency of the federal government when it comes to reducing the scope of that most fundamental right. The Second Amendment reads in relevant part: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

"Shall not be infringed." Not "should not be infringed" or "shall not be infringed except." The mandate is clear: The right to possess and use firearms is a right whose enjoyment may not be restricted by the federal government.

On January 20, 2009 and again on January 21, 2013, Barack Hussein Obama swore an oath to God that he would do the very thing he almost never does — adhere to the Constitution.

This situation regarding this latest despotic decree is worse than he would make it appear. For example, he purports in this “Fact Sheet” to be taking aim at the obtaining of guns by the mentally ill:

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. 

Remarkably, even for one as adept at double-speak as President Obama, the attempt to deprive the “mentally ill” of their rights is wrapped in the comforting blankets regularly handed out by the nanny state.

President Obama not only assumes the right to determine who is and is not “mentally ill,” but he simultaneously robs those very people of their independence, placing them involuntarily under the protection of the government that robbed them of their rights to begin with.

The most egregious violation of the Constitution comes in a single sentence appearing a few paragraphs down in the “Fact Sheet.” The president declares,

At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun.

There again, President Obama has marched right over the Rubicon, declaring war on the Constitution and the timeless liberties it protects.

In two sentences, the president has given himself not only the power to declare a citizen “mentally ill" (and thus ineligible for the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms), but also the authority to withhold that same right from anyone he deems dangerous.

One can only imagine how President Obama would exercise such immense power, particularly when he covers that iron fist with the velvet glove of protecting the innocent.

Fortunately, one need not imagine how the president would wield his presumed authority over the possession of firearms. On April 26, soon after Governor Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) signed a law preventing enforcement within his state of several federal firearms restrictions, Attorney General Eric Holder sent the governor a letter, warning him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.

In that light, it seems easy to predict how the president (or any of his armed agents of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI, etc.) would react to anyone branded as a danger who dares attempt to refuse to be denied his constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Then, in another open attack on the Constitution in his "Fact Sheet," President Obama orders the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “help address” state failures to administer effective background checks aimed at weeding out the whackos from owning weapons. 

In the first directive, the feds will require state agencies to provide additional data to D.C. on those who submit to background checks prior to purchasing a gun. In fact, the edict empowers Justice and HHS to determine “what information should be made accessible” by the state licensing agencies to the federal government.

As part of this first order to the states, President Obama grants HHS the right to redefine the federal statute setting out the meaning of “committed to a mental institution.” To no one’s surprise, the definition will now be expanded to include “involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments.”

There are a couple of constitutional problems with this paragraph, as well. First, what the president calls “clarifying” a statute is in reality rewriting a law. Whether it is ObamaCare or the Second Amendment, the president seems not to understand that when one rewrites a law he makes a new law and that, again, is not an executive prerogative. Second, and perhaps most chilling, is the fact that now, the federal government will categorize as crazy, thus ineligible for gun ownership, anyone who is forcibly admitted to an inpatient or outpatient mental health facility or treatment program.

And, any state wishing to retain the federal funding that keeps all of them afloat will be required to submit personal data on these persons to HHS and the Justice Department, thereby giving the feds the evidence they need to mark an applicant as one of “the wrong people.”

Given the recent attacks by the IRS on conservative organizations, there is little wonder which people will be on the “wrong” side of the president’s new guidelines.

In the second command, the president revokes the right to privacy, ordering states to disregard statutory health information privacy restrictions (HIPAA, specifically) when it comes to collecting and sharing the medical history of those who apply to purchase a firearm. Again, the order reaffirms the president’s determination to disarm undesirables (i.e., “dangerous” people), saying that HHS:

is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. [Emphasis added.]

Next, it is critical to note that this new directive covers not just the suspected “mentally ill” who undergo a background check, but anyone who submits to this unconstitutional federal requirement of a background check.

Finally, amid all the unconstitutional, oath-violating provisions of this new executive assault on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, there is this last one: “While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act,” the "Fact Sheet" reads.

There is nothing — nothing legal, nothing constitutional — that the president, vice-president, or Congress can do to infringe upon the irreplaceable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 

Unless We, the People, and our elected representatives on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures begin erecting “barriers against the encroachments of the national authority,” we will find ourselves robbed of our liberty — involuntarily locked up in a mental hospital for being “dangerous” — our property, and all our rights, including the right to be armed.


Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


  • Comment Link wayne Sunday, 12 January 2014 20:36 posted by wayne

    people who are convicted as a felon cant own a gun by fedral law so if they have a family to protect they cant do that and not all mental illness is the same some of the meds they put you on make your mental illness even worse then it was to start with i don't see how they can say we cant own a gun felon or mental illness or not.

  • Comment Link Ian Wednesday, 08 January 2014 23:31 posted by Ian

    What exactly does it TAKE to arrest and impeach an openly criminal Administration, anyway?? Obama is a compulsive, serial liar, he's clearly owned and operated by the "blood-line elites" who openly state their intent to annihilate 90% of the world's population. He doesn't seem to be able to get through a day without committing High Treason, and he thinks he's a dictator who has no need but to declare something to BE law in order to create a new law. His agenda is openly anti-American, anti-Christian, pro-Islamic and radical Islam at that - he's pro-sharia. He says he hates white people (a quote from his book), and he seems to have set out to prove it. "Laws", or travesties thereof, like... aw, hell - draw up your own lists. There's no room here. The supremacy of the Federal government is treated as a given, and ALL of the LE and Intel agencies ignore any inconvenient laws, while making laws or interpretations up as they go along. America is almost down for the count, folks! "Barry", or whatever his name is, is backed by the deadliest of the Cabal. Inconvenient people from his past have been dropping like flies, including those who did favors for him. How many of THOSE "coincidences" have to happen before someone makes an accusation? Inconvenient witnesses to everything from 9-11 to falsely signing an official paper for the Prez can be a death sentence apparently, especially if anyone in the Press (such as it is) expresses an interest in that person. There have been far too many lies, too much open criminality, too many small plane crashes, heart attacks, overdoses, whatever... Don Obama MUST GO. Someone must have the power. WHO? It'd better be soon, regardless! At the same time the illegal but ultimate and near-invulnerable power of "The Owners" needs to be disconnected from all political power as well. Money has no morals or conscience, and neither does Obama or any of his operators. We the People must act, SOON, or we will lose that power forever, along with our own lives and those of all of our loved ones, and all that we revere and treasure.

  • Comment Link Rocky Wednesday, 08 January 2014 22:20 posted by Rocky

    What Obama is saying is that anyone who does not agree with him is dangerous.
    We have a Obama controlled Senate (for the most part) and far to many RINOs in Congress. I have been expecting a military coup but that hasn't happened either. We have politicians in BOTH political parties who have sold their soul and their country for money, power and votes. Apathy rules for many in what's left of America and the worst is yet to come.

  • Comment Link Old Mullet Wednesday, 08 January 2014 22:18 posted by Old Mullet

    Just think, when he gets the Congress to turn Tango Uniform on his current actions, he will move to automobiles (3000 lb. blunt objects) as weapons. He will mandate who, when, and where to the American citizens will be allowed a limited "driving" permit. All possessions will be cataloged that "could" be weapons against the state and random home invasions (oops make that inspections) will ferret out the abusers for relocation. This move will escalate to include those holding office that may have access to information he deems critical to his (oops, our) best interest. It is coming. He may not be the "president" when it is fulfilled, but he will be part of the People's Democratic Republic of America when it is. So, eat, drink, and be merry America. This is not a Hollywood adventure film but get your popcorn while you have a stove that works. Oh, did I mention utility rationing (for the good of the planet and the children).

  • Comment Link Tionico Wednesday, 08 January 2014 20:27 posted by Tionico

    So, if the kinyun rages on unchecked, that will mean that a man, falsely accused by a supervisor, and "detained for evaluation" by Oregon State Police and Jackson COunty sheriffs, which evaluation occurred un a mental institution, that man will be permanenly debarred the use of arms on the basis of that "involuntary commitment as an outpatient" despite the fact he was released three house later as "normal". Is THIS something we will tolerate? He could end up, one by one, running each of us in for "evaluation" by involuntary commitment as an outpatient to a mental institution.

    And yes, I do believe states have the authority to set standards appicable wihtin that state for such things. Consider the various other laws on firearms ownership, storage, transport, etc. FecGov have NO place to make such determinations, but if they were to attempt it, it could only come through our elected representatives in COngress. The executive clown needs to be turned out into the cold....... unarmed. And unguarded.

  • Comment Link Tom Fiedler Wednesday, 08 January 2014 19:34 posted by Tom Fiedler

    "What President Obama — a former part-time law professor — seems not to understand is that every time he issues some executive order, presidential finding, or “fact sheet,” he is exceeding the constitutional limits on his power and thereby violating his oath of office."

    Obama fully understands he exceeds constitutional limits on his power. That is precisely why he does what he does, knowing that he is the Victim in chief - in the present culture victims with power are not to be challenged. This man is culturally a third world Marxist intent on "fundamentally transforming" Western Civilization into a soviet society.

  • Comment Link Mike Wednesday, 08 January 2014 18:16 posted by Mike

    Obama has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he considers the Constitution to not be worth the paper that it's written on. His hypocrisy is almost beyond belief.

  • Comment Link Patriot57 Wednesday, 08 January 2014 18:01 posted by Patriot57

    Congress is going to become complicit in this Obamanation's treasonous activities if they don't speak up and do something about this maniac. Obama and his cohorts are probably the most dangerous people in America right now. We need to restrict THEM!

    Guy: You either missed the point or are deliberately pretending to have missed it. If a state legislature has a full debate and decides to restrict the right to bear arms of convicted criminals or truly dangerous people, that is one thing. Dictator Obama usurping the power to legislate-and legislate against one of the fundamental human rights guaranteed in the constitution no less-cannot be tolerated.

  • Comment Link Guy Garofano Wednesday, 08 January 2014 14:30 posted by Guy Garofano

    What about State & local authorities. Can they restrict access to firearms in any way? Or can anyone with any criminal background or any type of mental illness purchase a firearm? Perhaps those are risks we have to accept to be true to our right to bear arms - but will the majority of Americans accept that now or in the future? I think not.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in