Guns and Law

[Manicsleep]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/couchincrisis/content/article/10168/1836635#article-comments

Saw this article in the psychiatric times.
Seems the NRA is trying to ban the asking of questions regarding guns as well as putting such informations in the medical charts. Luckily the Florida Medical Association was able to stop it but at the cost of a pretty significant compromise that puts physicians in Jeopardy of lawsuit. It seems to be a lose-lose proposition now.

Wonder what my Psychiatry colleagues think about this.
I am actually curious to see if there are any NRA members who are psychiatrists. I have a few of them in my family but none are psychiatrists or physicians for that matter.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smq123]

Wow.

Not a psychiatrist (I'm a 2nd year FM resident), but this is appalling. A good part of preventative care, whether you're an FP, a pediatrician, an internist, or a psychiatrist, is evaluating how safe patients are in their own home. That involves asking about domestic violence, presence of functioning smoke alarms, and the presence of weapons.

The NRA always makes the claim that they do their part to teach about gun safety, etc. Well, this latest bit of political lobbying does a lot to cancel that claim out, at least for me. Wow.

 

[whopper]

I got a guy right now who when off of meds is violent and extremely psychotic. He's on a lay-away plan to buy a Desert Eagle pistol and told me he wants me dead.

Geez, like not knowing about the gun is not important. I'll make these people a deal. If it's not important, then I get the right to direct people like the above guy to go to the homes of people who don't think it's a big deal armed and dangerous. And this is coming from a guy who's thinking about buying a gun.

I'm not a part of the NRA, but I do think the organization does do some gun things for responsible gun owners. I can't judge the organization as a whole because I haven't researched them, but some things they do do raise concern like the above.

 

[Majesty]

Let me start off by saying that this is a terrible law and I am not a member of the NRA. Even if I was, I would quit after this idiocy.

On the other hand, you could make a point that this is karma coming abck to bite physicians (and probably other health professionals).
Certain societies, associations, particularly the AAP (pediatricians not academic psychiatrists), the AMA and the APA have had strong views on things where perhaps they shouldn't have a position at all.

That said, karma keeps going round and round. This thing may come back to bite the NRA big time.

 

[235750]

May someone clarify something for me?

The bill was going to block just asking about gun ownership as that is a protected right. But we have other constitutional rights, like freedom of religion, so should physicians not be able to ask about that either? Physicians ask pretty intrusive questions in the name of improved outcomes. What makes gun ownership special?

From reading their website, the NRA seems to deny that owning a gun is a risk factor for self-injury (among other things). "A suicidal person could kill themselves with a knife, a gun makes no difference", etc. Add to that their constant paranoia and I can understand why they would do something like this. I mean, they're wrong, but I get it.

I'm sure there are rational people in the NRA, but it's legislative efforts here seem nonsensical.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Let me start off by saying that this is a terrible law and I am not a member of the NRA. Even if I was, I would quit after this idiocy.

That said, karma keeps going round and round. This thing may come back to bite the NRA big time.

Sometimes the NRA does "crazy things" like this to make a point. After all, we do remove patients' from their guns for their own well being.

In Texas, I feel like asking about guns is stupid. I assume everyone has access to a gun, and in doing so, I am correct 99.9999% of the time. Even if I didn't have at least five guns in my house at any one time , I could get one from Academy in about 10 minutes (done it before). Maybe it is different up there in liberalville.

Anyways, the NRA is there to protect the nation's right to own guns. What better way to express that than to make a gesture like this? It is only a gesture that will die in the state senate.

 

[loveoforganic]

I could get one from Academy in about 10 minutes (done it before). Maybe it is different up there in liberalville.

Pretty sure you need to apply to buy long guns/shotguns in NY, if that gives some idea

I'm pretty pro-gun, but this is a weak bill.

 

[whopper]

Mentioned this is in another thread but the only good thing for physicians in this bill is if the patient kills him or herself by the use of a gun, it does add a layer of protection in a malpractice case.

But we're supposed to be out for our patients, not ourselves.

Aside from the case above, I also know of a case where the ownership of a gun as highly important in the physician's own safety. In that case, someone I know, who is a Suboxone prescriber, was being given ambiguous threats by a patient who made comments to the effect of "You know doctor, I was an expert sniper. It's not a good idea for people to cross me." The patient was also not a good Suboxone patient, and the doctor terminated his treatment after using other drugs. The first few days after the termination, the patient called and gave more ambiguous threats. The doctor called the police, who then refused to do anything about it because they stated the nature of the threats were too ambiguous.

In that particular case, the doctor's knowledge of the patient owning a gun played a large part in the doctor's own safety.

 

[235750]

In Texas, I feel like asking about guns is stupid. I assume everyone has access to a gun

If you were talking to a pt who contemplates suicide, and has recently started started playing with the hammer of his loaded gun whilst thinking about offing himself, don't you think the gun element is relevant? Everyone may have a gun where you live, but where you keep it, how's it's treated, etc, all seem very relevant to this line of work.

 

[Sneezing]

I'm a member of the NRA.

This only adds a layer of protection to a physician as whopper pointed out.

We can never eliminate all forms of risk to suicide. We do what we can, and try to treat the underlying etiology when possible.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Since there's no such thing as impulsivity, and since people are always rational and behave according to their self-interest and the interest of those around them, I have to agree. Guns are no more dangerous that spoons, because you can kill yourself with a spoon if you dig hard enough, even though it would take a tremendous amount of effort to do so. The dirty liberals should obviously be trying to regulate spoons as well, but we know that Big Spoon funds Planned Parenthood and is owned by China.

Besides, I don't want to be held liable when the gun carrying tea party member with early FTD that just walked out of my clinic shoots somebody at a town hall meeting. It's fine if people get killed, as long as I am free of blame! Because I believe in personal responsibility, as long as I'm not personally responsible.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm a member of the NRA.

This only adds a layer of protection to a physician as whopper pointed out.

True. As you and whopper pointed out, being prohibited from asking a patient if they have a gun at home does add a level of legal protection if they commit suicide.

In fact, an even better level of protection would be if we were prohibited from asking if they had any suicidal ideation or plans at all. Talk about protection. Score!

But as whopper also pointed out, we are supposed to be working to help our patients. Being prohibited to asking if patients have access to guns (or access to other lethal tools of suicide that can be quickly and easily removed) hurts psychiatrists in their ability to do their job.

Asking a mentally ill patient if they have access to firearms at home in no way infringes on their second amendment rights. Silly and potentially harmful legislation from an organization that used to stand for something but lost their way many years ago. I turned in my membership back in the late 80's along with so many in law enforcement after the NRA decided to take the stance to legalize teflon-coated bullets whose only purpose was to penetrate kevlar vests. Ugh.

 

[Majesty]

I think you are allowed to ask now but you just aren't allowed to 'harass' which is my issue with the whole thing.

I don't think that it is protection at all. It makes it worse, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[TexasPhysician]

If you were talking to a pt who contemplates suicide, and has recently started started playing with the hammer of his loaded gun whilst thinking about offing himself, don't you think the gun element is relevant? Everyone may have a gun where you live, but where you keep it, how's it's treated, etc, all seem very relevant to this line of work.

You are assuming it is a hammer fired gun, and that someone would play with the hammer before attempting suicide. The scenario might be as rare as asking a patient if they plan to jump in front of a red camaro (what about every other car/truck?). I "play" with my hammer (the one on my gun) routinely when I am at the shooting range. I also have many guns without a hammer. I also routinely have my gun out for target practice (loaded), cleaning it, etc. Doesn't mean I want to hurt myself or others.

An easy way to get around this new proposed law -
Me: How do you plan to hurt yourself?
Patient: With a gun.
Me: Can you explain the scenario to me? Have you thought about it?
Patient: I have a loaded gun that I have been playing with, and I might actually do it tonight.

I don't understand why everyone here is so upset. Do you routinely ask all suicidal patients a list of ways to kill themselves? Do you have a gun? Do you have access to plenty of illegal drugs to OD on? Do you have access to a knife? Do you have access to a cliff to jump off of? Come on. These are useless questions.

There are plenty of ways to get the patient to bring up "guns" or whatever else without specifically asking about them. If any patient tells me they are thinking about shooting themselves and they believe they could do it tonight, I admit them. Who cares if they have a gun at home, at a friends house, or have to wait 10 minutes at Academy?

 

[235750]

An easy way to get around this new proposed law -
Me: How do you plan to hurt yourself?
Patient: With a gun.
Me: Can you explain the scenario to me? Have you thought about it?
Patient: I have a loaded gun that I have been playing with, and I might actually do it tonight.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. You are right, that would seem like a great way to get around the restriction of straight up asking them about gun ownership, but the NRA thought of that. From reading the bill, I understood it to mean that physicians would be forbidden from documenting anything related togun ownership, so you couldn't write that conversation down (not without redacting key parts).

You are assuming it is a hammer fired gun, and that someone would play with the hammer before attempting suicide.

Yes, I made up that scenario. I was just demonstrating that documenting his gun ownership would seem to be important.

The scenario might be as rare as asking a patient if they plan to jump in front of a red camaro (what about every other car/truck?).

A suicidal patient playing with a gun and fantasizing about killing himself is rare? Maybe I should play the lotto then because I've seen that a few times just by shadowing in my 1st & 2nd years of med school.

I "play" with my hammer (the one on my gun) routinely when I am at the shooting range. I also have many guns without a hammer.

Lol I guess the hammer was distracting! I didn't mean to imply that a gun with a hammer is more dangerous, I was merely trying to tell a story, ie the patient looks as though he's moved on from the planning phase and is high risk.

I also routinely have my gun out for target practice (loaded), cleaning it, etc. Doesn't mean I want to hurt myself or others.

You're not suicidal (I hope!), so I don't think we'd be concerned with your hobby.

Remember, we're talking about interviewing psychiatric patients. So the fact that I ate an entire box of girl scout biscuits the other day isn't a big deal to me, as compared to a bulimia pt which might set off some red flags.

I don't understand why everyone here is so upset.

I am upset because it is an unnecessary restriction on physician practices that could lead to incomplete encounters that would then lead to pt deaths that could have been avoided.

Psychiatrists are not out to take away the rights of law abiding citizens who are not ill. Where is the evidence that this bill is necessary? Are we to believe that doctors are confiscating guns? I am mad because this bill seems to have no basis.

And I disagree that it's a straightforward way for physicians to get off the hook. That 'regents of california' case demonstrated that doctors have to intervene when lives are at stake. If a psychopath tells you about his upcoming killfest with guns in your office, which law do you follow? Sure you could report it, but don't you think you should warn the florida police about his arsenal so they can plan appropriately? But if you mention his gun stockpile, you'd be breaking the law. This is arguable, but the fact that this isn't addressed in the bill means you have to interpret it which leaves room for getting making sued.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Remember, we're talking about interviewing psychiatric patients. So the fact that I ate an entire box of girl scout biscuits the other day isn't a big deal to me, as compared to a bulimia pt which might set off some red flags.
.

It is not fair to strategically place girl scout biscuits/cookies in a debate.

Now I'm hungry for those addictive mint chocolate cookies.

 

[kugel]

An easy way to get around this new proposed law -
Me: How do you plan to hurt yourself?
Patient: With a gun.
Me: Can you explain the scenario to me? Have you thought about it?
Patient: I have a loaded gun that I have been playing with, and I might actually do it tonight.

Well, this proposed law still wouldn't allow you to write it in the chart....
"A public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person may not enter any intentionally, accidentally, or inadvertently disclosed information concerning firearms into any record, whether written or electronic, or disclose such information to any other source."

And don't go thinking you would get away with ignoring the law and explaining the greater good....
"(2)(a) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable, except as provided in paragraph
(b), as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
A person who violates this section may be assessed a
fine of not more than $5 million if the court determines that the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was unlawful."

No hospital will back you in the commission of a felony and they won't risk a $5mil fine against the hospital if you try to say that you were following hospital policy - and the hospital cannot lawfully have a policy or standard which constitutes felony behavior.

 

[Shikima]

Mentioned this is in another thread but the only good thing for physicians in this bill is if the patient kills him or herself by the use of a gun, it does add a layer of protection in a malpractice case.

But we're supposed to be out for our patients, not ourselves.

Aside from the case above, I also know of a case where the ownership of a gun as highly important in the physician's own safety. In that case, someone I know, who is a Suboxone prescriber, was being given ambiguous threats by a patient who made comments to the effect of "You know doctor, I was an expert sniper. It's not a good idea for people to cross me." The patient was also not a good Suboxone patient, and the doctor terminated his treatment after using other drugs. The first few days after the termination, the patient called and gave more ambiguous threats. The doctor called the police, who then refused to do anything about it because they stated the nature of the threats were too ambiguous.

In that particular case, the doctor's knowledge of the patient owning a gun played a large part in the doctor's own safety.

This is why I have my CCW. My safety first....

 

[whopper]

In the case of the doctor I mentioned, him having a gun IMHO wouldn't have done anything to protect him. Remember, the other guy was a sniper. It's not like if the doctor was armed he would've been able to find a sniper in an urban area with plenty of buildings.

The nature of the ambiguous threats were to the effect where he tried to have the doctor believe he would be targeted from a distance.

I am upset because it is an unnecessary restriction on physician practices that could lead to incomplete encounters that would then lead to pt deaths that could have been avoided.

I think 2 philosophical points that proponents of this bill push is a Libertarian belief that if someone wants to commit suicide they should be able to do so. If that's the case fine, but that's not what we are trained nor told to do. Actually, in my own opinion, I do think suicide should be an allowable option under extreme circumstances, but the law will never match my own opinions because the issue it too hot and controversial. I do what I'm supposed to legally do.

The other point is certain people in special interests tend to develop belief systems based on group-think. E.g. a bunch of psychiatrists hang out together and all start to mutually bash psychologists as a whole. Proponents of gun rights are no different and people in the crowd have developed a belief that guns play no factor in suicide whatsoever, despite it going against the medical science. IF you try to debate them, they'll either have no logical argument to stand on and continue their argument, but then do tactics that are out-of-line for proper debate (such as reiterate the same thing but now in a louder tone of voice) or pull in some data from a biased side that is not accurate or not intellectually accurate (e.g. the data is only based factors statistically irrelevant such as case testimony.) Just once in awhile, and it's rare, you'll be able to have a logical argument with someone in group-think mode, but usually those that are open-minded enough to have such an argument will not have gotten into group-think to begin with.

I personally have nothing against gun owners or people that advocate for gun laws that enhance the ability of a law-abiding and responsible citizen to own a gun. The NRA has a rep for doing the above, but also not doing the above. They are a lobbying special interest group funded by business. They are not some type of charitable organization and it's organization's members such as it's head were making well over $500K a year (at least from a 2004 report, it's probably higher now).

In short, they are political players, willing to play the game.

 

[Ibid]

Guns are no more dangerous that spoons, because you can kill yourself with a spoon if you dig hard enough, even though it would take a tremendous amount of effort to do so. The dirty liberals should obviously be trying to regulate spoons as well, but we know that Big Spoon funds Planned Parenthood and is owned by China.

Speaking as a dirty liberal anti-gun anti-spoon person, it goes deeper than big spoon. The whole kitchen utensil industry is rotten and don’t get me started on condiments.

Disclosure: I started on spoons as a child but I’ve moved on to the hard stuff now. “Butter knives”... 17th Century mostly, earlier if my supplier can get them, started small and thought I could handle it but now I’m a total butter head with one of the finest collections in private hands. Check out this bad boy At 17.5 centimetres and 56g of Solid Sterling Silver fully loaded it can take a blob of butter the size of a basketball. Imagine the breakfast table carnage if it fell into the wrong hands. What if a child got hold of one of these, thinking it was a simple cheese scoop? It’s an easy mistake to make but I can tell you it has a blade that goes through butter like a knife through butter.

 

[loveoforganic]

Actually, in my own opinion, I do think suicide should be an allowable option under extreme circumstances, but the law will never match my own opinions because the issue it too hot and controversial.

Not to derail the thread too much... But do you mean in cases of life circumstances that create psychological pain? I'm a proponent of suicide being an option for certain terminally ill patients, but I'm not sure I could be for something less immutable.

 

[Manicsleep]

Derail away. I think the derailing happens between post 10 and 20 anyways. I wonder if this has been studied formally.

For my part in derailment, I am just sick of what is being done to the moderates in the country. It seems like extremists on both sides are just taking over the country.

Not sure if you guys are aware but the birthers passed their bill in AZ. Anyday I feel like Uncle Sam is going to walk into my office saying "I feel a little bipolar today..."

 

[TexasPhysician]

Well, this proposed law still wouldn't allow you to write it in the chart....
"A public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person may not enter any intentionally, accidentally, or inadvertently disclosed information concerning firearms into any record, whether written or electronic, or disclose such information to any other source."

And don't go thinking you would get away with ignoring the law and explaining the greater good....
"(2)(a) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable, except as provided in paragraph
(b), as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
A person who violates this section may be assessed a
fine of not more than $5 million if the court determines that the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was unlawful."

No hospital will back you in the commission of a felony and they won't risk a $5mil fine against the hospital if you try to say that you were following hospital policy - and the hospital cannot lawfully have a policy or standard which constitutes felony behavior.

Does it just say we can't document firearms? So we could document that the person has access to lethal weopons? Lethal weopons afterall could be a spear or a rope. Just don't say the patient has a Glock 19 stashed under the bed.

 

[loveoforganic]

Texas, would you agree that suicide by firearm discharge to the head seems like a considerably "better" death than strangulation by rope or exsanguination by spear?

I'm not suicidal and don't have the clinical experience to say with confidence, but let's say there's a range of "quality of death" from pressing a button and dying painlessly, instantaneously, and without damage to your body on one extreme to being eaten alive by fire ants over the course of several hours on the other extreme. Do you think a suicidal patient is equally likely to follow through on his desires with either one of those methods, assuming it's the only method available to him?

 

[235750]

It is not fair to strategically place girl scout biscuits/cookies in a debate.

Now I'm hungry for those addictive mint chocolate cookies.

At least we can agree on this then!! That flavour is the best

Does it just say we can't document firearms? So we could document that the person has access to lethal weopons? Lethal weopons afterall could be a spear or a rope. Just don't say the patient has a Glock 19 stashed under the bed.

But as you believe that a lethal weapon should include a spoon, and the spoon is no more dangerous than a gun, then that statement doesn't convey much. Maybe that's your point, but again, if I had a choice between arming a homicidal psychopath with a loaded gun verses a spoon, the decision would not be hard to make. My choice would probably be to give him nothing at all, but you know what I mean!

But since you disagree on this, I guess I'll settle for consensus re: girl scout cookies.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

NRA life member here. No plans to change my membership. In fact, becoming a member of GOA this year, and JPFO the next year (google if you're curious).

It helps to know the context of why this bill came into being.

You may or may not know that part of purchasing a firearm is the instant background check, called NICS. This is both a criminal check and a mental health check. If someone has ever been on a hold, or their psychiatrist has reported them to the court for a safety concern (a very informal process), the person is banned from purchasing a firearm in many states.

The concern here is that there is limited to NO appeal ability with regard to the mental health portion of this bill. And, it has been used punitively. By angry spouses or bosses, etc. In addition, someone who once had an episode of MDD requiring hospitalization 20 years ago, cannot own a gun today in some states.

So the concern here is that this right is being taken away with little or no recourse to regain it through the court system.

Dunno if that changes your mind or not. But as far as I know, guns have not actually been shown to be related to risk of suicide. Japan being a classic example of a place with low gun ownership and high suicide rates. A gun used in suicide attempt is more likely to lead to a completed suicide attempt, but that is an entirely different thing.

 

[whopper]

I'm a proponent of suicide being an option for certain terminally ill patients, but I'm not sure I could be for something less immutable.

Occasionally I wonder if someone should be able to commit suicide if not mentally ill. It's rare but it does happen. Or if it's a part of their culture. I can't think of a culture off-hand because seppuku is no longer the norm in Japan. Both of these cases are extremely rare.

 

[Majesty]

Dunno if that changes your mind or not. But as far as I know, guns have not actually been shown to be related to risk of suicide. Japan being a classic example of a place with low gun ownership and high suicide rates. A gun used in suicide attempt is more likely to lead to a completed suicide attempt, but that is an entirely different thing.

You cannot be seriously using Japan as legitimate evidence. Culture plays a big part in suicide. I am not sure if you don't understand that or if you are deliberately ignoring that fact.

RE: the stigmatization of those with mental health illness. If thats what the NRA was really after, it really could have done a better job. I do know the context and thats why I indicated that there may be a component of Karma in this bill. I would argue that its actually bigger than what you indicated. It still doesn't excuse the attempt and it doesn't mean that there was anything other than pure stupidity in this bill.

I can't think of a culture off-hand because seppuku is no longer the norm in Japan. Both of these cases are extremely rare.

Its no longer mainstream as previously but its much more accepted than it would be in a culture where the belief is that commiting suicide condemns you to hell.

 

[235750]

The concern here is that there is limited to NO appeal ability

I think you found a solution then. Instead of restricting physicians, maybe the legal system needs to change.

And I'm curious to see documented cases where gun ownership was withheld from legitimate citizens because of a physician. I don't doubt they exist, but I am curious to see if it's a huge problem. I'm betting it ranks close to the issue of elected officials lying about their place of birth. So, it's a completely made up, non-urgent issue that is wasting time and taxpayer's money (on top of restricting physicians)...

 

[billypilgrim37]

A gun used in suicide attempt is more likely to lead to a completed suicide attempt, but that is an entirely different thing.

Yes, if you bend logic at it's fabric to the point of nearly shattering, it's entirely different.

Come on, Monkey! You leave us for months, and when you come back, this is all you got?

 

[kugel]

Does it just say we can't document firearms? So we could document that the person has access to lethal weopons? Lethal weopons afterall could be a spear or a rope. Just don't say the patient has a Glock 19 stashed under the bed.

Sorry, I should have included the link to the proposed bill, so you can all read for yourselves. I had no intent to be the arbiter of what part of the bill you read.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0432/BillText/Filed/HTML

But I can't resist pointing out the first sentence of the bill:
"A verbal or written inquiry by a public or private
30 physician, nurse, or other medical staff person regarding the
31 ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient
32 or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile
33 of a patient or the family of a patient violates the privacy of
34 the patient or the patient's family members"

I can only conclude that this is
Not Intended as a Factual Statement

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements

 

[kugel]

In CA (the state I know the best on this issue) Every hospital which admits someone to inpatient care on a psychiatric hold (known here as "5150," which is the relevant section of the state Welfare and Institution Code), MUST report that patient to the Dept of Justice and notify the patient that (s)he is precluded from owning, possessing or obtaining ANY firearm for 5 years. There is an avenue for appeal - but only after the DOJ has been notified.

So, yes, hundreds or thousands per day in California are told every day that they are legally prevented from gun ownership.


On a personal note....
I just wanted to point out that I think Texas and Monkey have been successfully using hyperbole and sarcasm (or at least bluntness) to question the arguments - and doing it respectfully and graciously. It would be nice if every thread about a controversial subject stayed this civil.

 

[Majesty]

BTW, I just wanted to say that this thread keeps making me have a thought in my head and I can't hold it in anymore.

I fought the law and the...law won.


Ok, got that out of my system. Go on about your business.

 

[Majesty]

I can only conclude that this is
Not Intended as a Factual Statement

You forgot the # Kugel

 

[Ibid]

Occasionally I wonder if someone should be able to commit suicide if not mentally ill. It's rare but it does happen. Or if it's a part of their culture. I can't think of a culture off-hand because seppuku is no longer the norm in Japan. Both of these cases are extremely rare.

I would say it is part of the culture in Switerland. People go there to the dignitas clinic to complete the act of suicide all the time. The tricky bit under UK law is when they can not get there under their own steam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/18/assisted-suicide-dignitas-house

The above article explains the procedure. Its not just a case of turning up on the day and necking some rat poison. Physicians are involved at every step.

 

[billypilgrim37]

I just wanted to point out that I think Texas and Monkey have been successfully using hyperbole and sarcasm (or at least bluntness) to question the arguments - and doing it respectfully and graciously. It would be nice if every thread about a controversial subject stayed this civil.

Agreed. All politics should be discussed with a twinkle in your eye, or otherwise it's just mean.

 

[notdeadyet]

NRA life member here. No plans to change my membership. In fact, becoming a member of GOA this year, and JPFO the next year (google if you're curious).

Unless I'm mistaken, these are the guys that use Hitler in their ads, no? Even as a second amendment supporter, I'd have trouble supporting any groups that use the holocaust for political gain.

You may or may not know that part of purchasing a firearm is the instant background check, called NICS. This is both a criminal check and a mental health check. If someone has ever been on a hold, or their psychiatrist has reported them to the court for a safety concern (a very informal process), the person is banned from purchasing a firearm in many states.

The concern here is that there is limited to NO appeal ability with regard to the mental health portion of this bill.

You're point is extremely valid. I think this aspect of the 5150 hold (in California) could actually disincent folks to seek mental care for their loved ones (if it was better known). But I think the logical course is to work on that actual issue, rather than taking tools away from physicians.

 

[notdeadyet]

Even if the bill passes, there will be workarounds. We can just ask our patients "Do you have access to ammunition at home?" If they answer yes, you have pretty good odds about the patient's access to a firearm.

Guns don't kill people.... Bullets do...

 

[Shikima]

I dunno.... if I were to believe everything from a Berkeley school system, I could have sworn I was told that guns do in fact jump up and bite you out of pure, mean volition.

 

[kugel]

The logic of this bill, if I understand it, is this:

Since you have a right to possess guns, it is therefore a felony invasion of your privacy to ask (and then record your answer) if you possess firearms. If that logic holds, then it should also be a felony for any police officer or agent of the government to ask you (and record your answer) as to whether you possess firearms, esp since that is not held as confidential as a medical record. And if that is true, then mandatory registration of firearms is an invasion of privacy, because mandatory registration means you are asking every citizen whether or not he possesses a firearm.

 

[loveoforganic]

I don't think the people who wrote the proposal up would disagree with you kugel

 

[notdeadyet]

Since you have a right to possess guns, it is therefore a felony invasion of your privacy to ask (and then record your answer) if you possess firearms. If that logic holds, then it should also be a felony for any police officer or agent of the government to ask you (and record your answer) as to whether you possess firearms, esp since that is not held as confidential as a medical record. And if that is true, then mandatory registration of firearms is an invasion of privacy, because mandatory registration means you are asking every citizen whether or not he possesses a firearm.

Sloppy logic (the bill's, kugel, not yours). We also have the right to assembly, but that doesn't mean you don't need a permit to hold a rally.

Of course the reason that this proposal doesn't lay out the language kugel laid out above is that it would fail miserably if folks were voting for the sentiment of unregistered firearms.

 

[whopper]

If that logic holds, then it should also be a felony for any police officer or agent of the government to ask you (and record your answer) as to whether you possess firearms, esp since that is not held as confidential as a medical record. And if that is true, then mandatory registration of firearms is an invasion of privacy, because mandatory registration means you are asking every citizen whether or not he possesses a firearm.

There is no specific Constitutional right to privacy as a right unto itself. There is some mention in the Bill of Rights that does protect privacy in certain respects, but none of them contain anything to protect against declaring if one has a gun.

e.g. a person, under the Bill of Rights has privacy of beliefs, privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers, privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches, and the privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

Someone could try to argue that declaring one has a gun would incriminate them in regards to civil commitment, but the civil commitment is not incrimination. The person is not being held in a jail or prison for punishment. The person is being held in a hospital for treatment.