Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-03-2012, 3:57 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,800
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default Miami federal judge sides with ‘Docs’ over ‘Glocks’ in Fla. gun rights case Read mor

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/0...ides-with.html


A federal judge has blocked the state of Florida from enforcing a new law pushed by firearm advocates that banned thousands of doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-03-2012, 6:34 AM
alfred1222's Avatar
alfred1222 alfred1222 is offline
NOT BANNED..yet
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Auburn, Alabama
Posts: 7,098
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Isn't this a first amendment issue??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
This guy is a complete and total idiot.
/thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Biden is only there so nobody assassinates Obama. He's like a bullet proof vest that drinks too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
It's right next to the part that says gays can get married and sluts get free birth control.
ΦΑ
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:07 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,800
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfred1222 View Post
Isn't this a first amendment issue??

yes. and 2nd.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:13 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"The Republican-controlled state Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act in 2011 after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor asked them about guns and they refused to answer. The physician refused to see them anymore."


Sorry kids, but that's his right as a physician. If he doesn't like guns in the household its his right to feel that way, and to structure his private business accordingly.Im all for expanding the RKBA, but forcing acceptance at the point of a tort suit does our case no favors. Just like gun laws don't stop crooks from packing, a law mandating a physician not discuss gun ownership won't stop antis from believing guns are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:17 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 6,605
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

That's unfortunate. I'm all for that bill passing. It sounds awful but it'll get the country a taste of having your basic rights taken away and have them join our fight. We'll never get other states on board if their freedom and liberty are not infringed.
__________________
w210838 is the barrel guy don't forget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopetonBrown View Post
The average Calgunner is afraid to scratch his gun; so I don't see the point to these torture tests.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:24 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post
That's unfortunate. I'm all for that bill passing. It sounds awful but it'll get the country a taste of having your basic rights taken away and have them join our fight. We'll never get other states on board if their freedom and liberty are not infringed.
You're kidding right?

Your plan for more support by the rest of the nation is to hope we all join you in the 10 round Gulag? Good luck with that plan.

There's right infringement going on, but not in our direction. The doctor has the 1st Amendment right to ask if you own guns. You, the patient, also have the right to lie in his face-if you care to answer the question to begin with. Problem resolved with no issues regarding laws or tort.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-03-2012, 7:41 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 6,605
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You're kidding right?

Your plan for more support by the rest of the nation is to hope we all join you in the 10 round Gulag? Good luck with that plan.

There's right infringement going on, but not in our direction. The doctor has the 1st Amendment right to ask if you own guns. You, the patient, also have the right to lie in his face-if you care to answer the question to begin with. Problem resolved with no issues regarding laws or tort.
I am not kidding. Why would those states join our fight when their freedom are not at risk? You look at all the other forums Cali has been written off. They treat it like it is none of their business and you know what, rightfully so. They have no incentive to join the fight unless they have a stake in it.

I completely agree with you on the 1st AMD stands. That was not my point.
__________________
w210838 is the barrel guy don't forget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopetonBrown View Post
The average Calgunner is afraid to scratch his gun; so I don't see the point to these torture tests.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-03-2012, 8:03 AM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You're kidding right?

Your plan for more support by the rest of the nation is to hope we all join you in the 10 round Gulag? Good luck with that plan.

There's right infringement going on, but not in our direction. The doctor has the 1st Amendment right to ask if you own guns. You, the patient, also have the right to lie in his face-if you care to answer the question to begin with. Problem resolved with no issues regarding laws or tort.
Wow. I agree that the 1st amendment shouldn't have restrictions on it, for an indevidual. However when someone you pay to worry about your health is asking you irrelevant questions about your belongings, you should have the right to tell them to shove it. He should not have a right to ask you questions, in an official capacity, about your personal belongings that have no bearing on your health.
I would be a bit worried if my doc started ask questions about my gun ownership. It's none of his business.

Last edited by Dantedamean; 07-03-2012 at 8:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-03-2012, 8:06 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 6,605
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantedamean View Post
Wow. I agree that the 1st amendment should have restrictions on it, for an indevidual. However when someone you pay to worry about your health is asking you irrelevant questions about your belongings, you should have the right to tell them to shove it. He should not have a right to ask you questions, in an official capacity, about your personal belongings that have no bearing on your health.
I would be a bit worried if my doc started ask questions about my gun ownership. It's none of his business.
Unless I go to the emergency room with a hole in my leg I don't see why my Doc would ask me about my guns. I mean none of us will be snorting gun power or mixing it up with salt and pepper for our stake. There has got to be a medical relevance to the question.
__________________
w210838 is the barrel guy don't forget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopetonBrown View Post
The average Calgunner is afraid to scratch his gun; so I don't see the point to these torture tests.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:04 AM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So how does this work if a person is in a company provided healthplan? I'm all for the doctor being able to ask. I'm all for the patient saying "thanks for asking, none of your business" under the theory that if either wants to stop dealing with the other they move on. But isn't that option out the door on a work provided plan?

And some people are in unions, the CBA dictates the health care provider - same situation.

I don't care about the asking or answer provided, but it does seem there are consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:11 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,838
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
"The Republican-controlled state Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act in 2011 after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor asked them about guns and they refused to answer. The physician refused to see them anymore."


Sorry kids, but that's his right as a physician. If he doesn't like guns in the household its his right to feel that way, and to structure his private business accordingly.Im all for expanding the RKBA, but forcing acceptance at the point of a tort suit does our case no favors. Just like gun laws don't stop crooks from packing, a law mandating a physician not discuss gun ownership won't stop antis from believing guns are wrong.
You are quite correct. A physician has no legal responsibility to see any patient that they don't want to see. There are specific laws about "dumping" (not allowing adequate time for an established patient to find a new physician, etc.) not refusing to see based upon race/religion, etc., but there is no requirement for a physician to see you.

There is also no requirement for you to see a physician with a bias. The better idea would have been to walk away. Vote with your money if any business wants to descriminate against you.

I WOULD suggest that any gun owner avoid such physicians. The entire purpose behind the push to mandate electronic health records is to allow the government full and easy access to medical records. You really don't want your firearm ownership documented in a database to which the government has unlimited access. You never know how that information will be used.

Fortunately I don't have this problem, at least not after the boating accident...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:28 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
"The Republican-controlled state Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act in 2011 after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor asked them about guns and they refused to answer. The physician refused to see them anymore."


Sorry kids, but that's his right as a physician. If he doesn't like guns in the household its his right to feel that way, and to structure his private business accordingly.Im all for expanding the RKBA, but forcing acceptance at the point of a tort suit does our case no favors. Just like gun laws don't stop crooks from packing, a law mandating a physician not discuss gun ownership won't stop antis from believing guns are wrong.
It would have been a better idea to add it to already existing state anti discrimination law.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-03-2012, 9:50 AM
jdoane9724 jdoane9724 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default so, an alternative....

How about some kind of list containing PRO-2A doctors, dentists, etc.?

I'd MUICH rather spend money there.....

NRA no help, they said they were "too busy" to create or research such a list. Note that those wanting to opt-out can, if circumstances change....

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:46 AM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

There is no medical ailment that is originated by gun ownership.

There are many objects that can cause injury if not handled with caution; knives, pencils, skewers, chemicals, gasoline, among others.

Nowhere on a medical history form are potentially injurious items asked to be listed - other than guns, specifically.

I'm sorry, this is purely political - it serves no relevance on any history form for any differential diagnosis.

It serves no diagnostic value - none.
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:52 AM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,910
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Let the doctors ask, you don't have to answer, or you can make stuff up, or not, or whatever.

"Wow doc, I didn't know you were a gunsmith [roll eyes here], but seriously, why don't we just stick with the medical stuff doc."
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:54 AM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All of that info will end up in an electronic medical record, which will be (and in many cases already is) accessible by the .gov.

The new health care bill mandates electronic medical records be in use by 2014 or docs will start getting pay cuts from medicare.

Get diagnosed with depression? Anxiety? There go your firearms rights.

Get it?

Consider very carefully what you tell your doctors.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:56 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
All of that info will end up in an electronic medical record, which will be (and in many cases already is) accessible by the .gov.

The new health care bill mandates electronic medical records be in use by 2014 or docs will start getting pay cuts from medicare.

Get diagnosed with depression? Anxiety? There go your firearms rights.

Get it?

Consider very carefully what you tell your doctors.
Please advise me where in the federal statute where a depression & anxiety diagnosis is a prohibitive category.....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:01 AM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh it's not...yet.

The brady types are playing a chess game and this health care bill is their biggest move to date.

Did you tell your doc you smoked a joint ten years ago?

see where that goes?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:12 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
Oh it's not...yet.

The brady types are playing a chess game and this health care bill is their biggest move to date.

Did you tell your doc you smoked a joint ten years ago?

see where that goes?
Stop with this BS & drivel. Cite the statute that says a depression/anxiety diagnosis is a prohibiting category.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:14 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
It would have been a better idea to add it to already existing state anti discrimination law.
This is exactly the point. When it comes to doctors' 1A rights, it's up to them to make a decision until it hits on the discrimination against a protected group (based on prohibited categories).

We need to have firearms, arms in general and gun ownership elevated to the protected category so there can be no institutional discrimination. Now that the 2A is recognized as a fundamental, individual, human right, it's time to make sure we can be out of the closet in CA and other gun-hating states without fear of persecution.

There is no justification in allowing systematic discrimination against a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Don't confuse this with the right of people to hate - that's as protected as KKK; the protection is only at the institutional level, and doctors would fall into that category.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:19 AM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'll type it again because you missed it the first time...

It's not...yet.

So far your firearms rights are only taken away if you are adjudicated mentally incompetent (and that includes an awful lot of people).

It's just a hop skip and jump to include things like bipolar, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder and every other disorder listed in the DSM-4.

That is why your doctors are asking about your firearms. They have been told to. It's part of all of the primary care medical record keeping software, part of the mandated record keeping outlined by the new health care bill. All of that collected information is going to one big database....

Ask yourself why?

Let me type it again because you probably missed it the first time.

Consider carefully what you tell your doctors.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:23 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
It would have been a better idea to add it to already existing state anti discrimination law.
^^^Bingo^^^

While I don't see a probing, personal interest question by a doctor to a patient on a non-health matter as falling into the bucket of protected speech, if said doctor is taking any form of state or federal funding related to patient care then his refusal to treat based purely on political grounds is clearly discriminatory. And actionable.

At least that's the way I feel about it.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:26 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
I'll type it again because you missed it the first time...

It's not...yet.

So far your firearms rights are only taken away if you are adjudicated mentally incompetent (and that includes an awful lot of people).
Since when? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed by a court?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:39 AM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Since when? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed by a court?
I've seen it happen a thousand times and I've signed the forms myself. That was in CA by the way, at a county hospital.



Yes I might have an idea.

It is incredibly easy.

You know the difference is, in the past the paperwork was not communicated to the feds, starting in 2014 it will be.

how far fetched would it be to have a congressman introduce a bill that says if you have ever attempted suicide, or cut yourself as a teen you should not have firearms?

Next step...diagnosed and treated for depression...next step. That is their game.

30 years ago if I would have told you you would be fighting for your bullet buttons would you have believed me?

Last edited by Dave22; 07-03-2012 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:50 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post
I am not kidding. Why would those states join our fight when their freedom are not at risk? You look at all the other forums Cali has been written off. They treat it like it is none of their business and you know what, rightfully so. They have no incentive to join the fight unless they have a stake in it.

I completely agree with you on the 1st AMD stands. That was not my point.

Why should they?
This is our fight and noone else’s.
We are a union of states that are supposed to be sovereign and therefore have the right to control our destinies independent of the others.
Of course I am not advocating what is going on in this state but once again why should anyone else come to our aid?

And by the same token why would you wish ill upon the other states for not jumping in to a fight that is not of their making?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantedamean View Post
Wow. I agree that the 1st amendment shouldn't have restrictions on it, for an indevidual. However when someone you pay to worry about your health is asking you irrelevant questions about your belongings, you should have the right to tell them to shove it. He should not have a right to ask you questions, in an official capacity, about your personal belongings that have no bearing on your health.
I would be a bit worried if my doc started ask questions about my gun ownership. It's none of his business.

But you DO have a right to tell him to shove it but no matter how you feel about it he then has the right to kick you out.

All of this may be a moot point once we all are forced into govment healthcare because then you will have nowhere to run and the rights of the state will trump individual rights.





Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
So how does this work if a person is in a company provided healthplan? I'm all for the doctor being able to ask. I'm all for the patient saying "thanks for asking, none of your business" under the theory that if either wants to stop dealing with the other they move on. But isn't that option out the door on a work provided plan?

And some people are in unions, the CBA dictates the health care provider - same situation.

I don't care about the asking or answer provided, but it does seem there are consequences.


Everything you describe, company health care plan, union plan, etc, are all entered into under agreement between parties, any of which have the right to move on at any time.

You don’t like it you can always move on to another doctor in the plan.
If this is not possible then why not lie to the offending doctor.
If it is not any of their business and they are asking for nefarious reasons then lying should not be a problem.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-03-2012, 12:21 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
I've seen it happen a thousand times and I've signed the forms myself. That was in CA by the way, at a county hospital.

Yes I might have an idea.

It is incredibly easy.
California has a unique system of denying rights without due process, formulated before Heller & McDonald, a system currently unchallenged because the current focus is carry.

See United States v. Rehlander in the 1st Circuit for why such a law is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All it takes is two doctors signatures.

At least that's the way it was up to 1997 when I left the state. Has that changed?

None of what I have written applies just to CA. This medical database will be nation wide.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2012, 12:50 PM
ICONIC's Avatar
ICONIC ICONIC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Posts: 1,219
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

There is no law saying you to tell the truth to your doctors.
__________________
I am only here for the milk and cookies
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2012, 2:03 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
All it takes is two doctors signatures.

At least that's the way it was up to 1997 when I left the state. Has that changed?

None of what I have written applies just to CA. This medical database will be nation wide.
Ahem,

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...N=10-1812P.01A

What are you talking about?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2012, 2:34 PM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So that was challenged in 2012 in Miami?

Sounds like they left the door cracked a bit

_

"If Rehlander is now mentally ill and dangerous, his commitment may be sought under section 3864 which, if successful, will create a presumptively valid section 922 ban; Small is already subject to such a ban as to future gun possession. See note 5 above. As for the broader problem of those hospitalized under section 3863 alone, Congress might well be able to impose a temporary ban on firearms possession or perhaps even a permanent one..."

_


Well I guess if you have no concerns tell your doctor all about your gun collection and let it wind up in the federal data base.

It's OK with me.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-03-2012, 2:55 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave22 View Post
So that was challenged in 2012 in Miami?

Sounds like they left the door cracked a bit

_

"If Rehlander is now mentally ill and dangerous, his commitment may be sought under section 3864 which, if successful, will create a presumptively valid section 922 ban; Small is already subject to such a ban as to future gun possession. See note 5 above. As for the broader problem of those hospitalized under section 3863 alone, Congress might well be able to impose a temporary ban on firearms possession or perhaps even a permanent one..."

_


Well I guess if you have no concerns tell your doctor all about your gun collection and let it wind up in the federal data base.

It's OK with me.
Your statement was basically to avoid telling doctors any issues that would cause a depression or anxiety diagnosis, or the Brady Campaign (who are the real power behind the ACA in your conspiracy theory) will pass a future law banning gun rights to folks who are just diagnosed with these or other similar diagnosnes?

Do you understand how dangerously stupid that mentality is, especially to victims of sexual violence?

I made no comment about the gun possession aspect or reporting. US v. Alvarez says you can lie about having a Congressional Medal & be protected under the 1A. You can lie, or refuse comment.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-03-2012, 3:04 PM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Feel free to tell your doctor anything you want. I don't remember mentioning any sexual abuse...you lost me there. Dangerously stupid....well that's not the way I feel about the powers that be using medical diagnosis against the population to promote more intrusion into their lives.

Know that there may be unforeseen repercussions from the information you give your doctor once the health care bill is put into effect, and this EMR data base is on line.

This will be data mining the likes of which has never been seen before.

I take it from your tone that you don't agree with anything I've typed here.

I'm OK with that.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-03-2012, 3:29 PM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Your statement was basically to avoid telling doctors any issues that would cause a depression or anxiety diagnosis, or the Brady Campaign (who are the real power behind the ACA in your conspiracy theory) will pass a future law banning gun rights to folks who are just diagnosed with these or other similar diagnosnes?

Do you understand how dangerously stupid that mentality is, especially to victims of sexual violence?
.
To give some support to his position, there are questions on the San Diego LTC form that will automatically deny you - even if you have never been arrested or charged with anything.

That yes reply will deny you your right to carry (LTC).

In my mind, that is denial of the 2a.

So, is it such a stretch to expand current policies to include their crystal ball predictions to exclusion of "those who are at a higher risk", potentially - of harm (in their eyes)?
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-03-2012, 4:08 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Please advise me where in the federal statute where a depression & anxiety diagnosis is a prohibitive category.....
It's not necessarily prohibitive for RKBA exercise at the moment (such things can change, of course), but it is certainly prohibitive for other kinds of activities, such as general aviation. If you are diagnosed with depression and anxiety, you will be prohibited from flying aircraft.

Dave22's advice is sound, even if not for 2A reasons.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-03-2012, 4:17 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It's not necessarily prohibitive for RKBA exercise at the moment (such things can change, of course), but it is certainly prohibitive for other kinds of activities, such as general aviation. If you are diagnosed with depression and anxiety, you will be prohibited from flying aircraft.

Dave22's advice is sound, even if not for 2A reasons.
My problem isn't the gun issue here. It's his suggestion that one avoid treatment if one wants to keep their RKBA...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-03-2012, 4:20 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 8,416
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Or how about this:

Doc: guns are bad. People get hurt.

Patient: Then I'll try to avoid shooting you for now.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-03-2012, 4:26 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
"The Republican-controlled state Legislature adopted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act in 2011 after an Ocala couple complained that a doctor asked them about guns and they refused to answer. The physician refused to see them anymore."


Sorry kids, but that's his right as a physician. If he doesn't like guns in the household its his right to feel that way, and to structure his private business accordingly.Im all for expanding the RKBA, but forcing acceptance at the point of a tort suit does our case no favors. Just like gun laws don't stop crooks from packing, a law mandating a physician not discuss gun ownership won't stop antis from believing guns are wrong.
This. Florida can't stop physicians from asking patients about their guns any more than Oakland or San Francisco can stop SAF from advertising the Gun Rights Policy Conference on BART. In order to protect our own rights to do what we like, we have to protect the rights of others to do what we dislike.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-03-2012, 5:13 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

My recollection of the genesis of this law wasn't that people were worried about doctors asking them about guns, it was about people worried that doctors were asking their kids about their guns.

Certain doctors and medical schools are desperately trying to frame gun ownership as a "public health" issue. Then they leverage CPS to further their anti-gun agenda.

In previous generations, you could tell your children "tell the doctor everything, you can trust them" now it's not like that.

Honestly most doctors are not as well equipped as me to deal with my health, I only use them to get diagnostic tests and prescription drugs that I don't have access to. The last time I wanted to start a new medication, I knew more about the drug and it's side effects than my doctor and properly suggested a diagnostic test that my doctor didn't even consider.

Doctors are far from infallible and a surprisingly small amount of research can make you more informed about your own health than your average doctor.

My point is that Doctors mostly don't deserve the amount of respect that their title commands and some will abuse every privilege that they can command.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2012, 5:48 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If a doctor can be prohibited from asking about guns, he can similarly be prohibited from inquiring about contraception, interests in risky sporting activities, and all manner of things. This law is stupid.

By the same token, there should be no law mandating that medical professionals inquire about gun ownership.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-03-2012, 6:02 PM
Dave22 Dave22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post

In previous generations, you could tell your children "tell the doctor everything, you can trust them" now it's not like that.
I think some of you are getting it.

The poster that commented on medical schools advocating anti gun policy under the guise of a public health hazard is correct.

...but also know not all docs are anti gun.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.