PDA

View Full Version : Shooting with someone you dont know is prohibited.


Bobula
07-15-2011, 11:37 PM
A friend of mine was out shooting with his new girlfriend a few days ago. He was on private property surrounded by blm land. From his side of the story LEO's from two different agencies contacted him and his girlfriend about trespassing. He provided written permission to be there and he and his girlfriend both provided ID. The two Leo's left but then returned 20 minutes later. One of them pulled my friend to the side and advised him his girlfriend was prohibited for life for a 5250, but they were going to do him a huge favor and have him unload and secure everything rather then seize his guns. My friend complied, but was wondering if it was legal for them to seize his guns in this situation?

negolien
07-15-2011, 11:40 PM
Shooting and owning are separate issues. There's a little fud here I think. No law states you can't let someone you know shoot a weapon you own on private property not sure about other places but assume same same.

Bobula
07-15-2011, 11:42 PM
Shooting and owning are separate issues. There's a little fud here I think. No law states you can't let someone you know shoot a weapon you own on private property not sure about other places but assume same same.

There are laws that prohibit persons from possessing, not just owning.

Tripper
07-15-2011, 11:48 PM
I dont think they could seize, but upon informing you, it seems reasonable for them to secure the firearms, to ensure the criminal act does not continue
its further surprising they did not charge her, which leads me to a very wild guess
is 5250/5150 info protected under hippa? if so they just release hippa protected information. if i recall, 5250/5150 is a medical situation, and as such should be protected by hippa laws.
next guess, they can tell him that she's prohibited maybe, but he's not committing a crime if he simply doesnt know, he wasnt at court that day, she was (if its true), its her responsibility, no one elses.
if it wasnt true, they just defamed her, and they should be in trouble.

/me not a lawyer, just a personal opinion
/it seems we shouldnt have a need for disclaimers

CenterX
07-15-2011, 11:54 PM
"If you have been placed on a 14-day hold (5250), you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years under California law and for life under federal law. (California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 8100 - 8108)" This info is available to law enforcement.

Seems a bit much - if they took them then it would be to ensure that the friend had no further access to the firearms. In the current atmosphere, I can see a shift supervisor erring on the "safe" side and suggesting that they take possession. Your friend could go to the office and retrieve them - provided the offender wasn't with him or living with him.

As the saying goes - "Just never really know who your friends are."
I hope folks don't start running background checks on each other.

Then again, I can be accused of asking all of the questions related to prohibited persons during about the first hour I meet someone. My wife and kids get all in a knot about it. But, I have too little time and a lot to lose messing with a bad situation that can be avoided.

Poor girl probably had a rough patch and is okay - but the law doesn't forgive too much these days. I hope he finds a new squeeze!

Scott Connors
07-16-2011, 12:02 AM
I dont think they could seize, but upon informing you, it seems reasonable for them to secure the firearms, to ensure the criminal act does not continue
its further surprising they did not charge her, which leads me to a very wild guess
is 5250/5150 info protected under hippa? if so they just release hippa protected information. if i recall, 5250/5150 is a medical situation, and as such should be protected by hippa laws.
next guess, they can tell him that she's prohibited maybe, but he's not committing a crime if he simply doesnt know, he wasnt at court that day, she was (if its true), its her responsibility, no one elses.
if it wasnt true, they just defamed her, and they should be in trouble.

/me not a lawyer, just a personal opinion
/it seems we shouldnt have a need for disclaimers

Releasing 5150/5250 information is indeed a HIPPA violation, and a damn serious one. For someone working in the mental health system it's a firing offense, and IIRC there are criminal sanctions as well.

DannyInSoCal
07-16-2011, 12:10 AM
She sounds hotttt

Bobula
07-16-2011, 12:12 AM
Most HIPPA violations are punishable by firing/civil/criminal issues. I'm looking far more for the 2A perspective here

CenterX
07-16-2011, 12:26 AM
So, did he ask her if she had a 5250 hold once upon a time?
Maybe the cops were pulling a fast one just to clear them out.

The law is clear that a person can have their firearms taken into custody if a felon is living in the same house in which the owner and firearms are located. I think Leelaw posted something about this a few years ago.

So, I'd expect the same could apply to a 5250 situation. Additionally, HIPPA violations are enacted when information is released by a worker, but once it is entered into the public domain of the US courts and legal system HIPPA does not apply.

Ya know that Abe Lincoln could not run for office under current laws regarding mental treatment and depression. He also couldn't own a firearm to defend himself against the likes of JW Booth. Very screwy times.

I hope your friend is okay. Hey send a PM to Librarian or Gene.

Bobula
07-16-2011, 12:38 AM
CenterX, the information was correct. It was 4.5 years ago after the death of her child.

My buddy is fine, just torn. He likes guns, but he likes this woman also.

Shotgun Man
07-16-2011, 1:53 AM
A lot of police would have arrested both of them.

bwiese
07-16-2011, 2:08 AM
Regardless of private property, you're not supposed to let prohibited persons possess (which includes use-under-supervision) firearms. It's fairly akin to letting a felon shoot your guns.

Bobula
07-16-2011, 2:16 AM
Regardless of private property, you're not supposed to let prohibited persons possess (which includes use-under-supervision) firearms. It's fairly akin to letting a felon shoot your guns.

I'm worried about where the line is. Do I need to start making everyone who handles a firearm I'm near sign a waiver or show me a valid COE?

I open carry
07-16-2011, 9:01 AM
in the above situation,
1) private property, shooting is allowed.
2) land owner did not call LEO
3) Leo might be able to approach to ask if you have permission to be on land and shooting
4) they do not have the Right to demand ID,

How did the LEO's find out who they were? they told them. The best advice is to tell the officers that you have permission from the land owner to be there, then STFU

Make the officers find the land owner, and follow up on that end if they so desire. Save the written permission until charged with a crime.

Shellshocker66
07-16-2011, 9:53 AM
"If you have been placed on a 14-day hold (5250), you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years under California law and for life under federal law. (California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 8100 - 8108)" This info is available to law enforcement.

Seems a bit much - if they took them then it would be to ensure that the friend had no further access to the firearms. In the current atmosphere, I can see a shift supervisor erring on the "safe" side and suggesting that they take possession. Your friend could go to the office and retrieve them - provided the offender wasn't with him or living with him.

As the saying goes - "Just never really know who your friends are."
I hope folks don't start running background checks on each other.

Then again, I can be accused of asking all of the questions related to prohibited persons during about the first hour I meet someone. My wife and kids get all in a knot about it. But, I have too little time and a lot to lose messing with a bad situation that can be avoided.

Poor girl probably had a rough patch and is okay - but the law doesn't forgive too much these days. I hope he finds a new squeeze!

I thought 5250 was a life time ban? 5150 is the 5 year ban? 5250 I thought was the only one sent to the federal level?

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 10:30 AM
I'm worried about where the line is. Do I need to start making everyone who handles a firearm I'm near sign a waiver or show me a valid COE?The test is "know or have reason to believe." If you don't know or have reason to believe the other person is a prohibited person, you're okay. Whether one knows or has reason to believe is a question of fact and will depend on all the circumstances. Of course once the cops told your friend, he knew or had reason to believe.

DisgruntledReaper
07-16-2011, 10:50 AM
I have to ask this--
'"If you have been placed on a 14-day hold (5250), you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years under California law and for life under federal law. '

How the EFF does this work?? 5 yr ban in Kommiefornia....LIFETIME ban FED????? How the hell does this work? Kali is more 'lib' so you can own in the state but if go out of state you violate fed....kind of like pot smoking in Kali huh?

Sooooo ..you get a psych eval for over 72hrs .you are ok(?) but if held for 14 days you are deemed a pyscho and banned for LIFE for what may be a minor offense??? I admit i dont know this part of the code(thank god) but still look for enlightenment...

jaymz
07-16-2011, 1:03 PM
I would venture to guess that they would have absolutely no reason to take the guns. If they wanted to ensure that the prohibited person does not continue to posses firearms, they should arrest said person. They were committing a crime after all. While it does sound as if a HIPPA violation may have occured, I'd say the leo's acted professionally by letting them pack up and call it a day.

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 1:31 PM
...While it does sound as if a HIPPA violation may have occured, ...Let's drive a stake through the heart of this "HIPAA violation" business. HIPAA governs disclosures of Protected Heath Information only by Covered Entities as those terms are defined in the HIPAA regulations (45 CFR, Parts 160, 162 and 164). The definitions are set out at 45 CFR 160.103. A Covered Entity is defined as follows:

"Covered entity means:
(1) A health plan.
(2) A health care clearinghouse.
(3) A health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter."

The police officer telling the person about the other person's 5250 was not a HIPAA violation because the police officer is not a Covered Entity and therefore not subject to the HIPAA privacy regulations.

duggan
07-16-2011, 1:47 PM
LEO's can and will ask for ID even if you're on private property shooting. I've been hit up by F&G, asked for and showed my Hunting License which led to having to show my ID, and then the written permission. If you show them written permission they will ask for ID to verify it matches. IDK about if the private property is your own, I'm not fortunate enough to have that much land lol.

paul0660
07-16-2011, 1:52 PM
The test is "know or have reason to believe."

For transfers. Is that the standard for handing a person a gun at the range? I don't recall that, and think it is up to the prohibited person to avoid contact with firearms.

Bobula
07-16-2011, 1:53 PM
To give you guys a slightly better Idea. They were in 500+ acres of private land surrounded by 4000+ acres of BLM/National Forrest. They were also about 30 minutes from cell reception. The LEO's do not have radio reception in the valley my buddy was in.

Old_Bald_Guy
07-16-2011, 1:53 PM
Ya know that Abe Lincoln could not run for office under current laws regarding mental treatment and depression.
I'm not aware that Abe Lincoln was ever "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution." No, I'm sure of it. He never was. He suffered from what we now call clinical depression (and possibly from a phobia or two, depending on which accounts you put more stock in), which in and of itself (absent adjudication or committal) is not a prohibiting factor. We can speculate as to whether Lincoln, were he one of our contemporaries, would be institutionalized at some point for his depression, but there are plenty of people who receive outpatient treatment for the disorder and therefore don't meet the criterion for prohibition simply as a consequence of their depression.

Small bone to pick, like one of the little tiny ribs of a bluegill, but them little ribs are sharp as hell and they irritate the gums if you fail to remove 'em before eating the fish. WTF was that? A clumsy-*** analogy if I ever heard one! Anyway, it's those details I tend to obsess on--whether or not they're all that germane to the larger discussion--so there you go.http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z385/old_bald_guy916/radsmily.gif


.

I open carry
07-16-2011, 2:02 PM
F&G will ask if you are in a hunting area, during season. If not in season, and it is clear you are target practicing, then most will not bother.
keep the permit alone until needed, which is after a detention/arrest.
before hand it is up to the LEO to say and prove that you are in the wrong place wrong time.
In the 40+ years I have hunted in CA and 17 other states, I have been asked to show my hunting lic a few times. never asked to show other form of ID, once the lic was shown to be current.
I have never been asked to show Id while target practicing on BLM or Nat forest. They just come by and talk a few minutes and make sure that I am not drunk, or doing anything else wrong, and them it's 'have a nice day'.

if they want to say I need permission to shoot on private property, it is up to them to prove I do not have it. When asked, just say, " yea, John has giving me his ok to be up here, why don't you cal and find out"

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 2:06 PM
For transfers. Is that the standard for handing a person a gun at the range? ...Handing someone a gun is a transfer. It's a transfer of possession, a loan.

jaymz
07-16-2011, 2:09 PM
if they want to say I need permission to shoot on private property, it is up to them to prove I do not have it. When asked, just say, " yea, John has giving me his ok to be up here, why don't you cal and find out"

If you can't produce written permission, it would be reasonable to assume that you don't have it. Telling the cops to "call John" isn't going to cut it. Don't be a dick, if you have written permission, show it.

paul0660
07-16-2011, 2:13 PM
Handing someone a gun is a transfer. It's a transfer of possession, a loan.

So, "carry this to the car" would be a loan too.

I have to get something done outside, but I am still ruminating this.

paul0660
07-16-2011, 2:15 PM
If you can't produce written permission, it would be reasonable to assume that you don't have it. Telling the cops to "call John" isn't going to cut it. Don't be a dick, if you have written permission, show it.

Why are the cops there unless John complained?

I open carry
07-16-2011, 2:20 PM
Paul, you got it. They are running a bluff on you if you know you have permission to be there. John would not have called.
we are innocent until guilty, not the other way around. Make them prove it.

We are not in a "stop and ID state". Until they prove I need to ID myself, they do not get it.

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 2:21 PM
CenterX, the information was correct. It was 4.5 years ago after the death of her child.

My buddy is fine, just torn. He likes guns, but he likes this woman also.

I could not imagine how horrible it would be to loose a child. I do know that if someone didn't need some help or show serious emotional scars after the death of their child, something is wrong with them.

Did she hurt an innocent person? What ever anyone here does, don't bring the government into a family situation.

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 2:22 PM
So, "carry this to the car" would be a loan too. ....Probably, at least for the purposes of giving a prohibited person a gun.

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 2:30 PM
Why are the cops there unless John complained?

Exactly.

Tripper
07-16-2011, 2:35 PM
It's incumbent upon a prohibited person not to take possession

As to Leo not being under hippa le is bound by hippa, and is a misdo crime to release some criminal information, I'm just not sure if 5150/5250 is under hippo or not, I will find out Monday for personal knowledge

BlackRain17
07-16-2011, 2:39 PM
She sounds hotttt

LOL... Don't know what 5250 is but you mean crazy hot?

vincewarde
07-16-2011, 2:42 PM
I have to ask this--
'"If you have been placed on a 14-day hold (5250), you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years under California law and for life under federal law. '

Definitely something I will do from now on as an instructor.

I have to say that the cops did act reasonably. The can ask for ID - and if you want to, you can refuse. Once they knew that the lady was a prohibited person, they had to do something. Advising the gun owner an then allowing him to secure the firearms was the bare minimum - and definitely was an extension of trust. Many cops would have seized the firearms and possibly made an arrest of the lady (who was definitely advised of her prohibited status at the time of her release - unless the hospital screwed up big time).

As far as HIPPA is concerned, I am positive that there is an exception for firearms prohibitions - especially after Virginia Tech.

I open carry
07-16-2011, 2:55 PM
All my comments are for info only.
do not think I believe the officers acted wrong, they did not do a thing wrong from the info in the op's post.

I am just letting people know that you do not need to cow-tow to them just because they ask.

Know your Rights, They will always ask. do not give any info w/o RAS, just because they ask, does not mean they have a right to know.

Tripper
07-16-2011, 3:00 PM
I'm a hunter education instructor and have a form that addresses those things, I can prob scan it for ya. It was made by Dfg

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 3:04 PM
...As to Leo not being under hippa le is bound by hippa, ...And exactly how is LE bound by HIPAA. The basic privacy rule set out at 45 CFR 164.502 (emphasis added):§ 164.502 Uses and disclosures of protected health information: general rules.

(a) Standard. A covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required by this subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter.....A LE agency or LEO is not a covered entity. So where in HIPAA does it say anything about a person or entity that is not a covered entity being prohibited from disclosing information?

vantec08
07-16-2011, 3:06 PM
All my comments are for info only.
do not think I believe the officers acted wrong, they did not do a thing wrong from the info in the op's post.

I am just letting people know that you do not need to cow-tow to them just because they ask.

Know your Rights, They will always ask. do not give any info w/o RAS, just because they ask, does not mean they have a right to know.

LEOs will always err on the side of State Authority. period.

Tripper
07-16-2011, 3:22 PM
I disagree about that fiddle, I can't say factual at this time as I do not have a reference to give, i will say I'm confident I cannot release medical information that I obtain in the course of my duties
It's off topic though
I do think the leo were being awful nice though, by not arresting her, it seems they could have, maybe they thought she deserved a break it's so close to her prohibition expiring
Or they just didn't want the report hassle of the whole thing

Anchors
07-16-2011, 3:26 PM
Sucks that she lost her right to self-defense because she was emotionally distressed during a time when she lost her child.
A lot of "normal" parents would probably flip their s-h-- over that too and maybe say some very emotional things (threaten suicide, etc etc).

LEO's can and will ask for ID even if you're on private property shooting. I've been hit up by F&G, asked for and showed my Hunting License which led to having to show volunteering my ID, and then the written permission. If you show them written permission they will ask for ID to verify it matches. IDK about if the private property is your own, I'm not fortunate enough to have that much land lol.

Yeah, they can ask.
California is NOT a "Stop and ID" state. You do not have to provide ID to anyone unless you are being cited/arrested. Simple detention does NOT require you to ID.
In fact, you can choose not to ID during a citation, but it will lead to them taking you to jail until they can determine your ID. But you certainly don't have to ID unless you are being cited with a crime.

This is why UOCer don't have to provide ID during a 12031 (e) check.

Side-note:**You must provide a driver license while driving upon request, not because you have to ID, but because you have to prove that you are legally eligible to drive. Your license just happens to also be an ID**

duggan
07-16-2011, 3:27 PM
Just from my experience so don't get all crazy on me. A place I used to have written permission to hunt was bordered by an oil lease, the property I was allowed to hunt on also had some oilfield equipment (pumping units, water tanks etc.). I was dove and quail hunting when an oilfield worker came driving up to me and told me I can't hunt there, I told him I had permission from the land owner. He asked me for proof and I told him to basically pound sand. About 20 minutes later I had 3 Sheriff patrol cars, a DFG Warden and a CHP officer pull up. I was in a position to see them approach so I had already unloaded my shotgun and set it down on my vest. They approached me and asked where my weapon was that and I told them, then asked if I had any other weapons on me, I responded with "I do have a pocket knife". They didn't come at me with guns drawn or have me prone out, they were really professional about the whole thing truth be told. The ranking deputy asked me about the property and I said I have written permission, he asked to see it and I showed it to him, he then asked me for ID and I showed that to him as well. The DFG warden asked me for my Hunting License, what I was hunting and if I had any animals. Showed him what he was asking for. He asked the Deputy for my ID to verify my info. The DFG warden then checked my shotgun to see if I had my plug in. The whole deal took less than 20 minutes and as I said they were very professional, and in my view did nothing to overstep their authority. The story I got from the responders was that I was out shooting at/towards the equipment and that the worker felt threatened when I told him to pound sand (what I told him was actually a little more harsh when he wouldn't take the hint). I'm not at all saying you should just bow down to someone with a badge, but on the same note if you are asked to provide proof of your identity to accompany another document it's best to comply. It really is no different than showing them license, insurance and registration on a traffic stop.

Anchors
07-16-2011, 3:33 PM
It is different because the law requires that you show license, registration, and insurance while operating a motor vehicle.

That said, I probably would give my ID in your situation too. As long as they didn't run you for warrants/etc I think they were within reason.
I would never blame an officer for ASKING for ID, but I also would exercise my right to refuse it if the situation called for it.

I am not one of these people that thinks you should crack the window one inch on every traffic stop and invoke the fifth even if the officer just asked how your night going lol

fiddletown
07-16-2011, 3:38 PM
I disagree about that fiddle, I can't say factual at this time as I do not have a reference to give, i will say I'm confident I cannot release medical information that I obtain in the course of my duties...I'm sorry, and yes it's off topic. But maybe we need to be clear on what HIPAA is, because the topic comes up from time to time.

And your lack of a reference pretty much takes you out of the discussion. HIPAA actually falls within my area of legal expertise. For a period of approximately three years, I was the lawyer primarily responsible for providing the legal advice in connection with the efforts of a major health plan's development and implementation of policies and procedures to comply with HIPAA.

What information you can or can not release is another matter. There are other privacy laws beside HIPAA, and there might also be department rules on the subject.

So I have no idea what you can. or can not, disclose to whom or under what circumstances, but unless you are a health care provider, a health plan or a health care clearing house, HIPAA has nothing to do with it.

Tripper
07-16-2011, 3:45 PM
Pm'd

CenterX
07-16-2011, 7:59 PM
CenterX, the information was correct. It was 4.5 years ago after the death of her child.

My buddy is fine, just torn. He likes guns, but he likes this woman also.

I'd say he is in a tough spot - I wish him and her the best.

He may find a local club that rents lock-up space for his toys. Me I'd risk it and tell the agents to bugger off if they came a knocking.

She lost a child and was tagged 5250 - that is just wrong! Where is the compassion?

I'd advise her to get a new evaluation, pay the $$$, see a judge and lock up the old record. This can be done - provided she is now stable and respected doctors provide documentation.

Loosing a child is right up there with the most tormenting aspects of life.

Too many laws and not enough soul in the country these days.

CenterX
07-16-2011, 8:06 PM
I thought 5250 was a life time ban? 5150 is the 5 year ban? 5250 I thought was the only one sent to the federal level?

Check this wordy document at the following link -

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/8100.php

CenterX
07-16-2011, 8:21 PM
I'm not aware that Abe Lincoln was ever "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution." No, I'm sure of it. He never was. He suffered from what we now call clinical depression (and possibly from a phobia or two, depending on which accounts you put more stock in), which in and of itself (absent adjudication or committal) is not a prohibiting factor. We can speculate as to whether Lincoln, were he one of our contemporaries, would be institutionalized at some point for his depression, but there are plenty of people who receive outpatient treatment for the disorder and therefore don't meet the criterion for prohibition simply as a consequence of their depression.

Small bone to pick, like one of the little tiny ribs of a bluegill, but them little ribs are sharp as hell and they irritate the gums if you fail to remove 'em before eating the fish. WTF was that? A clumsy-*** analogy if I ever heard one! Anyway, it's those details I tend to obsess on--whether or not they're all that germane to the larger discussion--so there you go.http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z385/old_bald_guy916/radsmily.gif


.


Yep - I took license to escalate the situation to the extreme - just like was done to the poor lady in the OPs post, folks get tagged when they are just doing every day living behaviors. I'd bet a political opponent in today's venue would have used Honest Abe's deep thinking moral behavior over grave concerns as a reason to have him adjudicated and labeled as unfit to lead.

My point was that even a famous person can get tagged and not truly deserve the consequences of this new norm of soulless and un-compassionate society. Way to general as statement - hope you get the point. I like sharp bones in fish - they remind me I'm alive.

Back to the issue of the OP. I sure feel for this guy and his gal. Hope they can grow through these times.

Falconis
07-16-2011, 8:34 PM
I feel for this lady too. hope your friend's friend has recovered since.

I wonder, for all you people who are saying i would refuse to show ID because I can and it's my constitutional right blah blah blah, how many of you guys also give the officer flak when he doesn't show discretion in a certain situation. I actually don't care if someone refuses when they have the right to. What makes me shake my head is that the people here who are moaning and groaning (not for the good reasons) also ***** like a mofo when they get a ticket, car towed, or escorted to jail. I also don't wonder why at this point.

Just venting here and giving those who need it a head's up. If you hope for a break here and there, doesn't hurt to give a little leeway yourself.

Falconis
07-16-2011, 8:36 PM
Ohhh and for what it's worth, I actually do ask new friends (on the rare occasion I make them) if they are prohibited in any way before I take them shooting when it is brought up. There are just certain situations I just don't want to be caught up in. It's probably my age at this point or just my intolerance for BS these days.

I know people can lie, but I have found out in the above situations, people have been honest with me.

chiselchst
07-16-2011, 8:46 PM
Great discussion, very educational, in several ways. Thanks to all for the constructive discussion!

My condolences to the woman that lost a child. I wish her well...

frankrizzo
07-17-2011, 8:27 PM
I'd advise her to get a new evaluation, pay the $$$, see a judge and lock up the old record. This can be done - provided she is now stable and respected doctors provide documentation.


No, it cannot be done. A 5250 is a lifetime prohibition. Period. There is no way to reverse it, seal it, or anything else under current CA and Federal law.

Wherryj
07-18-2011, 8:44 AM
Releasing 5150/5250 information is indeed a HIPPA violation, and a damn serious one. For someone working in the mental health system it's a firing offense, and IIRC there are criminal sanctions as well.

This was my first thought as well. If she was shooting, the officers should have pulled her aside and explained it to her, not bringing the boyfriend into the discussion until first getting her permission.

Our office has had many instances where a court sends a subpena for information that is too broad for their case. It is considered OUR responsibility to NOT comply with the request to release information that it too broad, even though it is presented in a very threatening manner-with all sorts of threats of penalties for failure to release.

If I just follow a request for release of information from a lawyer/court, I face the HIPPA violations and lawsuits from the patient.

fiddletown
07-18-2011, 8:48 AM
...If I just follow a request for release of information from a lawyer/court, I face the HIPPA violations and lawsuits from the patient.You are a physician (according to your profile) and therefore a Covered Entity under HIPAA. An LEO is not a Covered Entity and thus not subject to HIPAA, although he may be subject to other confidentiality laws.

Wherryj
07-18-2011, 9:06 AM
I'd say he is in a tough spot - I wish him and her the best.

He may find a local club that rents lock-up space for his toys. Me I'd risk it and tell the agents to bugger off if they came a knocking.

She lost a child and was tagged 5250 - that is just wrong! Where is the compassion?

I'd advise her to get a new evaluation, pay the $$$, see a judge and lock up the old record. This can be done - provided she is now stable and respected doctors provide documentation.

Loosing a child is right up there with the most tormenting aspects of life.

Too many laws and not enough soul in the country these days.

I'd agree on the "too many laws and not enough soul" part, but I don't think that plays any role in this situation. These laws that prohibit ownership of firearms are more of an end run around the 2nd amendment. They are used by politicians who fully realize that there are situations under which otherwise normal people may suffer from a temporary issue, yet be permanently banned. They are also fully willing to allow this to happen because it furthers their war against firearm ownership.

gunsmith
07-18-2011, 11:02 AM
Dating crazy girls is a big mistake.

"the odds are good but the goods are odd" old AA saying.

lairdb
07-18-2011, 11:40 AM
[...] unless you are a health care provider, a health plan or a health care clearing house, HIPAA has nothing to do with it.

Or a Business Associate, which can be a pretty wide net (but still doesn't encompass the situation described.)

fiddletown
07-18-2011, 12:40 PM
Or a Business Associate, which can be a pretty wide net (but still doesn't encompass the situation described.)And a Business Associate is basically a vendor or independent contractor which provides various administrative services for a Covered Entity, e. g., claims processing, data analysis, utilization review, quality assurance, billing, practice management, accounting, consulting, financial services, etc., if such services involve the use of protected health information.

sandman21
07-18-2011, 2:06 PM
I feel for this lady too. hope your friend's friend has recovered since.

I wonder, for all you people who are saying i would refuse to show ID because I can and it's my constitutional right blah blah blah, how many of you guys also give the officer flak when he doesn't show discretion in a certain situation. I actually don't care if someone refuses when they have the right to. What makes me shake my head is that the people here who are moaning and groaning (not for the good reasons) also ***** like a mofo when they get a ticket, car towed, or escorted to jail. I also don't wonder why at this point.

Just venting here and giving those who need it a head's up. If you hope for a break here and there, doesn't hurt to give a little leeway yourself.

So it’s perfectly fine to punish someone for exercising there rights? That’s considered discretion? Using judgment regarding the circumstances of the original violation is discretion, punishing people because they refused to ID is not.

The reason people try to reinforce the don’t ID or talk, is because the situation could have easily landed people in jail, and prohibition from owning firearms.

It makes me shake my head when people tell people to ID themselves “be a nice guy”, then when the person gets prohibited or has to spend several thousands of dollars to defend themselves, the person who told them to be a nice guy has lost nothing.

Big Ben
07-19-2011, 9:19 AM
I'm sorry, and yes it's off topic. But maybe we need to be clear on what HIPAA is, because the topic comes up from time to time.

SNIP

unless you are a health care provider, a health plan or a health care clearing house, HIPAA has nothing to do with it.

What about as an employer? My understanding (from our HR manager) is that as an employer, we are subject to HIPAA rules regarding various information we get from our employees related to our health care plans. Is she misinformed, or as an employer providing a health care plan, does that make me a "health care provider?" Based on your previous comments, that doesn't seem to be the case. Can you provide some clarity? Thanks!

fiddletown
07-19-2011, 10:42 AM
What about as an employer? My understanding (from our HR manager) is that as an employer, we are subject to HIPAA rules regarding various information we get from our employees related to our health care plans. ...Man, we are getting very off topic.

An employer, as an employer, is actually not entitled, and should not have in its possession nor should it be using, protected health information. However, when an employer has established an Group Health Plan, as defined in ERISA, the Group Health Plan is a Health Plan for the purposes of HIPAA, and is therefore a Covered Entity.

All of these terms have technical meanings under the various federal laws and regulations, and much of this is highly non-intuitive. So for an employer providing health care benefits for employees, the technical details of assuring compliance with all the related requirements, such as HIPAA, state privacy laws and ERISA, can be daunting.