No AW Ban
- Thread starter fng
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
eradicater
Well-Known Member
I was speaking to my father tonight who has been a physician for the last 57 years in Louisiana. He thinks this exact thing. He read over the EO's and thinks its mainly about obamacare. His concern is with the rate that children are diagnosed with adhd or are put on any medications that this will eventually be a problem. He does think that there needs to be some sort of way to keep guns out of crazy hands but what was given today is not the answer.
charliepapa
Clandestine Sciuridae
Yup. It's not like they're going to be swearing you in when you're paying your co-pay at the front desk.
hunter5567
Monolithic Mentor
When Doctors ask this question--just say NO and instruct your children to do likewise if its at school or the doctor's or anywhere else for that matter. People should keep silent about what they have at home anyways unless among trusted friends. You never know when a burglar is eavesdropping.
And keep a few airsoft guns lying around just in case....
as Obama stated he would fully support an AWB. I also believe that he has shown that he has made it clear that if he wants something done, he will stop at nothing to get it done..IE; obamacare, economy, etc. That being said, i believe his pet project/ main agenda is obamacare and if he wanted to invoke an AWB we would have seen it happen today. yes, many will say that he didn't do it out of fear of impeachment, lawsuits, etc., etc., etc., however that didn't stop him from doing all of the other controversial **** he has done. As far as congress is concerned, I believe they have way too much on their plate to digress into something that will could cost many of them re-election. Someone stated earlier that at this point and time, many of them would not dare waste political capital on an AWB attempt that many of them already said would go nowhere.
that would help !
About as calm as a whore in church.
Not EO related but if they "close the gun show loophole" (all private transfers) that would include children, gifting and the like. Some people have messed up kids who shouldn't have guns (criminals have parents too) so there wouldn't be an exemption made for that I would bet.
Well, if your name is on the 4473 (for a gun purchased post ban) and it ends up in the hands of Jim who gets busted for something and they run the number it would be on you. Now if the gun is purchased pre-ban you could claim that the transfer was done before the law went into effect. Now if Jim wants to roll on you to reduce his sentence then good luck with that. Or if Jim down the street decides to set you up because your dog crapped on his lawn, or if he wants to get some good will with the cops for some other bad thing he did, that could be trouble too. You would do well not to rely on the "they'll never find out" theory. It's not about them knowing, it's about them finding out.
Okay, have to chime in at this point. I teach at Tulane and am a psychotherapist on the side. (Private practice isn't all it's cracked up to be.) There are already laws in place about duty to warn if a patient is homicidal/suicidal, threat to others (mostly for protection of the elderly and children). If I find a person to meet any of these conditions I must report and refer the person for a second opinion from an independent practitioner. I have read proposed legislation regarding reporting of a person who I believe is not stable enough to own firearms. I have seen nothing stating that this in a must report, just that I would have the option to report. Furthermore, any practitioner reporting a person would be held at no fault. Basically, if I report a person they have no recourse against me legally. (They can't sue me or claim that I broke the law in any manner.) Having said this I can guarantee you that I would never report a person for having firearms; I would stick to the same routine as always with regards to folks that are dangerous in my opinion. These proposed laws are treading on a very sensitive subject called protected healthcare information (PHI). You have the right to not have your medical status revealed to the world and I have a duty to protect your PHI from being breached. I have spoken with several other practitioners and they agree that they would never make use of reporting firearms. That being said, some folks I know really like the option of reporting gun owners. (Yes, they are douchebags.) My suggestion is that you ask your doc what their stance is on 2A issues. If they are anti, well you are free to choose another person to see. As a consumer of services, this is your right. And as for people taking antidepressants, that is not what is being legislated here. You would be surprised at how many are on mood stabilizing meds. But you must remain vigilant about one very real possibility. If there is a mandate that anyone referred for a PEC or OPC (medical commitment) be reported, then rights will begin being seriously violated. Many folks referred for PEC are never committed, that's why there is always a second opinion. And of the folks who are committed, many never go to general sanity hearings (judicial commitments of periods over 2 weeks) and are not legally considered mentally imbalanced enough to be held for an extended treatment duration (or seen as judicially committed as far as the ATF and gun ownership laws are concerned.)
Hope this helps those who take psych meds understand things a bit more.
Hope this helps those who take psych meds understand things a bit more.
I can appreciate your opinion and your stand.
I wonder what happens to the vast majority, who will have half or more of their income derived from the Gov't funded Affordable Health Care Act. When they tie services to information. What will happen? How many will stand on principle, and possibly go broke, and how many will give in?
Oh, and lets not forget. Relaxing the Hippa(sp?) restraints was mentioned yesterday.
I couldn't blame a person, after all, they do have to provide for their family.
It is just a thought. But I can easily see Gov't funded healthcare being the primary payments with in a few years.
HIPAA (Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is what binds us to ethically appropriate information access and storage rules. It is an Act of Congress and as such it will be quite difficult to change it so reporting gun owners is allowed. And remember, HIPAA was really intended so insurance companies would have regulations in place that were standardized for all healthcare providers. And those companies loathe change and have deep lobbying pockets. In other words, don't expect HIPAA to change any time soon. I can see massive class-action lawsuits against insurers (since providers would be indemnified by new reporting standards) for breach of confidentiality. They definitely can see it too...
As an aside, even if healthcare gets socialized I would not be more pressured to report a gun owner. Hell, I have even had people carry during sessions with me. If they are conscientious lawful concealed carriers I have no issue with that. One thing providers have is a flexibility when charting notes. They are a legal document and it is up to the discretion of the provider what exactly goes in them. I know some folks I have seen have firearms and I have only documented that fact when I felt imminent harm could come to a themselves or others as a result of a plan of action stated by the patient. (In other words, if someone told me, "I am going to kill my wife when I get home this evening with my firearm.") But that is a mandatory reporting issue anyway and you can bet I have already informed the police and the wife (if I know how to reach her) of such a plan by the time they leave my office. My preferred reporting technique is to talk to the person about their plan to harm another and either have them call the police themselves or to agree to a voluntary stay in the hospital to sort things out for themselves. Voluntary commitments work far better than involuntary ones; they show the person that I do care about their health and safety and that they can trust me with those things. I have also assisted people with coming up with reasonable safety plans for their firearms- like having a family member hold them or placing them in an inaccessible location until things are cleared up and reason is restored. Mental health is a constantly evolving entity; things most of the time do get better after a person invests in looking a bit further into the whys and wherefores of their thinking. But yes, we can skirt such issues quite easily and not be at fault.
Mayonnaise
Not in the fridge
Nope. He's also not legally required to ask. I always thought it was legal for them to ask in the first place, so I'm not sure why the EO was signed. I guess it means that question is no protected by HIPPA?
You are never legally required to tell the truth but if you feel like you have to lie it is likely best that you find another provider you can trust with such information. But in all honesty I have only asked about gun ownership when health and safety issues arise that I feel are imminent, such as potential homicide/suicide.
I only ask what I need to know in order to help the person, but I am free to ask anything I want to. There are no boundaries which is good in a sense that I can get all the information I need in order to help but bad in the sense that there are a lot of shitty therapists out there who may ask compromising questions for no real purpose. Yes, I said it, some therapists I wouldn't allow to flip my burger at McD's much less ask my innermost thoughts. Like anything else, if you are a consumer of mental healthcare you need to choose a person you trust, respect and who you feel good about talking to.
