![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Morning all... I watched the very interesting gun law interview on Meet the Press this morning (Bloomberg vs LaPierre) and the discussion following. There was a passing mention of HIPPA law (the privacy law which prevents medical practioneers from giving out information) with respect to background checks.
It raises and interesting question... If the mentally ill (at least those known to be mentally ill via diagnosis by a Psychologist or other MD) are protected by these HIPPA laws, how can that information be provided to DOJ's or the Fed's for use in a background check? This was 'glossed over' on MTP.... BTW, the NRA via LaPierre ate Bloomberg for breakfast! |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Because the new law mandating those checks will supercede HIPPA
__________________
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."--Spider Robinson. "It is a ghastly but tenable proposition that the world is now ruled by the insane, whose increasing plurality will, in a few more generations, make probable the incarceration of all sane people born among them."--Clark Ashton Smith "Every time a pro-terrorist Tranzi hangs, an angel gets his wings."--Tom Kratman |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That's HIPAA - Health Information Protection and Accountability Act - and such a law would have to be made to conform, or HIPAA modified.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm assuming that they would make it a mandate to report patients with known mental illness that are gun owners or will be gun owners. Same as with the 5150 patients, even though it violates HIPPA, practitioners are mandated to report persons/patients that are a harm to themselves or others...
__________________
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty;now we bleat like sheep for security." ~ Norman Vincent Peale |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You can expect major push back from medical/mental community on this. One reason being it would likely result in significant number of people will not seek treatment or talk to a therapist , out of the fear their name would end up in some Federal database prohibiting them from every owning a firearm. Currently there are over 300 different psychiatric disorders listed in the DSM-IV. Next they will want to know the medical history for any family members living with you if you are buying a gun. What is being lost in these discussions is the concept of knowing right from wrong and being held accountable. How many of these mass killers knew they were doing something wrong? My guess is the all most all of them did.
Last edited by sakosf; 03-24-2013 at 6:31 PM.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Many docs are leaving/retiring early due to obamacare.
Many top students are going in other directions then medicine. I don't imagine there will be any uproar in HIPPA changes. It will just happen as a matter of fact, end of story.
__________________
NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986 ![]() ![]() |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The effort should be to keep the database of prohibited persons current/up to date. Loss of rights, that very well could be a lifetime, should not be without due process. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Executive order #2:
"Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's how it works if you want a pilot medical or need a commercial DOT license in most states.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Your point being? You honestly think the fact that the right to bear arms being a constitutional right would have any effect on their decision making process?
And I don't at all agree with your assertion that the medical community would push back. I don't think there will be THAT many people that would avoid treatment for fear of being prohibited, especially considering that, in many instances, we're not talking about voluntary treatment. I also don't think the medical community (for the most part) cares enough about your 2A rights as to act to protect it.
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
the medical "community" generally supports any and all anti gun legislation. not as individuals mind you, but every major medical association. same as l.e..it'll be interesting to see if they favor sacrificing patient privacy to further gun control. my guess is they'll see no problem with it.
__________________
![]() |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i dont know. privacy is a pretty big issue in medicine because it is an issue of trust. if a patient doesnt trust their doctor they will not seek the treatment/help they need which will only lead to bigger health problems down the road. there are only very few outstanding instances were privacy can be breached and those are all required by law (child abuse, aids, intent to harm others etc). its not whether the medical community cares about guns or not (doctors dont really make the rules when it comes to these stuff) but whether the law mandates it or if they can get sued and lose for not doing something. in fact im pretty sure for every mandatory case that must be reported there probably was a court case that a doctor got sued and lost before that became the rule.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Isn't privacy a right in the CA constitution? How does that square with police currently raiding peoples homes and confiscating firearms for issues associated with treatment by psychiatrists? Wasn't the information about the patient protected by the privacy rule in the constitution?
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
There is no constitutional right to pilot a plane or drive a truck. Requiring someone to waive the right to privacy in order to exercise a constitutional protected and enumerated right would simply not fly with the Supremes. Heck, I would bet that the 9th Circuit would knock this down!
__________________
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."--Spider Robinson. "It is a ghastly but tenable proposition that the world is now ruled by the insane, whose increasing plurality will, in a few more generations, make probable the incarceration of all sane people born among them."--Clark Ashton Smith "Every time a pro-terrorist Tranzi hangs, an angel gets his wings."--Tom Kratman |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting,
I wonder what impact the controversial 1967 right to privacy ruling would have on the constitutionality of universal background checks. IANAL but IMO, I would give in to the background checks if it made it unconstitutional to kill your baby.
__________________
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You've confounded someone's loss of rights due to a criminal record and their right to privacy. I'm not arguing whether a felon received due process; I'm pointing out that they also benefit from *some* privacy protections for that criminal record, privacy protections the court seems more than willing to throw out the window. Why are they so willing to throw these protections right out the window? Presumably, to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals. If the court decides that someone with mental issues is also too dangerous to own a firearm, I'm not at all convinced that the court is going to distinguish between a perceived dangerous felon who has received due process and a perceived dangerous mental patient who hasn't.
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is only one way the founding fathers allowed for removal of civil rights. That is through due process, the right to face your accuser and the right to trial by jury. I am against any one person (your doctor,) or act (seeking mental health or taking a drug) to remove your 2nd amendment right. Your doctor should be able to submit you for review, in which case you get to get another doctor and defend yourself in front of a jury of peers. Only then would I be for restricting a person's 2nd amendment right.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Also note I said denies anyone. Many places the Constitution denotes who is restricted. For example, "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." possibly does not limit the States. The 2nd amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." By who? By anyone. The State, the Feds, the UN, the "majority." Shall not be infringed. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would apply to individuals considered by an adjudicative body, such as a federal court, to be: * An imminent danger to themselves or others * Found guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case * Found not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity or mental disease or defect * Found incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case * Found not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility under the Uniform Code of Military Justice * Required involuntary inpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital * Required involuntary outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital based on a finding that the person is an imminent danger to himself or to others * Required involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital for any reason including drug use" Last edited by sakosf; 03-26-2013 at 7:53 AM.. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My understanding is this: whether a mental illness bars someone from ownership is not tied to diagnosis but behavior and court ruling. For example: someone who had ADHD or other mental diagnosis would not be disqualified from owning a firearm simply because of the diagnosis; they would require a court ruling or a determination from a physician they are a danger to themselves or others.
Without creating a list of specific illnesses you cannot bar someone based upon looking at health records. And then there are expost facto issues too. How do you handle productive law abiding members of society with no history of any issues who have a diagnosis now deemed prohibited? It was lawful for them to purchase the firearm and it was also lawful for them to possess the firearm... Does that mean a federal confiscation program needs to be mandated to remove firearms from possession from those the government now doesn't want to have them? This is a pretty big can of works to open. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not gonna lie this is going to prevent a lot of vets from getting the help they need, most don't want to go see mental health anyway and now with these new laws they'd become second class citizens who don't rate the rights they swore to defend
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://allpsych.com/disorders/ http://allpsych.com/disorders/disorders_dsmIVcodes.html Last edited by sakosf; 03-26-2013 at 11:18 AM.. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And talking about exact science there are also extremities in each DSM... I looked at Bipolar in the DSM link and those individuals vary from Bipolar I patients who require hospitalization all the way to Bipolar II diagnosis which is such a mild disorder it states its "easy to misdiagnose". Not exactly a very scientific manner to determine someone's rights in my opinion.
I fully support the NICS as written and it should be mandatory for all states to report individuals who are a threat to themselves or society and those adjudicated to be incompetent. But HIPPA based checks leave too much room for error and also leave too much power to a group (doctors and physicians organizations) who have publicly stated on many occasions they are against ownership of firearms. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson ![]() |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HIPAA has TWO A's.................
__________________
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"the medical "community" generally supports any and all anti gun legislation. not as individuals mind you, but every major medical association. same as l.e..it'll be interesting to see if they favor sacrificing patient privacy to further gun control. my guess is they'll see no problem with it. "
Are you aware that only about 17% of physicians belong to the AMA. The AMA loves to offer their left wing opinions, but they don't speak for many doctors, a fact the mainstream press neglects to mention. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
FYI, HIPAA regulations were made to allow patients access to their medical records and to restrict access to authorized entities. It is not an absolute right to privacy. There are many conditions that require disclosure of medical information. Some may be serious, i.e. potential suicide or murder, others relatively innocuous. For example, if you have rotator cuff surgery your doc may deem that you are unfit to drive, report this to the DMV and suddenly you have a restricted license.
From: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...s-chapter8.pdf "Mandatory medical reporting Yes, physicians are required to report all patients diagnosed with ‘disorders characterized by lapses of consciousness’. Law specifies that this definition includes Alzheimer’s ‘and those related disorders that are severe enough to be likely to impair a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.’ Physician reporting laws Physicians are not required to report unsafe drivers. However, they are authorized to report, given their good faith judgment that it’s in the public interest. Immunity Yes, if condition is required to be reported. (A physician who has failed to report such a patient may be held liable for damages.) A physician has immunity from reporting a condition, even if it not required, if in good faith, the physician believes it will serve the public interest. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Let's say that I am worried that I think I may be going crazy, but I know that if I go talk to a doc about it I will lose my guns. Do you think I will talk to the doc about it?
Unintended consequences.
__________________
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |