Did Sen. Shumer ever get it to where MEPS records could be used against someone?

MLeake said:
Aside from the easy possibility of abuse, the other issue that comes up with mental health is that knowing such things might be used against them, people who could benefit from counseling or therapy might choose not to get it. They won't want a paper trail.
Click to expand...

The fear stated here is real. There are several people I know personally who have dealt with issues of on-duty trauma, loss of family members, divorce, depression, etc. that have not sought counseling because of the possible implications upon not only military careers, but upon the ability to freely exercise 2ndA rights.

Let's face it, despite HIPPA, military members' medical records are not kept strictly between corpsman/Dr./PA/etc... There are too many people working in military clinics. They have and will discuss members' medical issues, most likely with no malicious intention. But then one person slips up and says the wrong thing while the wrong person may overhear, then your medical problems are all over the spouses network which exists at every installation.

The possibilities for information about military members' health records to be innocently or maliciously "leaked" are endless. I have experienced it and witnessed it more times than I care to count. I understand the reluctance to seek medical counseling for just that reason.
 
If you privacy is violated under HIPPA report it. I can guarantee you that if the party is not located it will put some heat in the right place so people will not gossip about medical records. MTF Commanders are not fond of catching one of those complaints.
 
Just a question here, after reading all the intense debate you guys have just had.

Wouldn't it be easier to make every firearm license applicant to undergo a psych examination prior to obtaining his license?. This, of course, at least in those States that require a permit to carry a firearm. I don't wanna make it sound as if I'm setting an example, but it's the way it's done here. You need to provide a clean criminal record and undergo a medical test.

My thought is that -almost- everyone deserves a second chance in life. What I mean by this is that people who has had a disorderly behaviour during some period of their life may, sometimes, and a lot of times do, correct themselves and follow a straighter path in their lives afterwards. The one that was a pothead teenager may become a graduate in Mech. Engineering and end up working for a multinational. And this is just a case I witnessed personally. With this in mind, what matters IMO is the actual and current state of mind of the person who applies for a permit, and unless there are criminal records involved, I don't think someone's old medical records and/or minor misbehaviours should preclude him or her to obtain a firearm permit, provided that the applicant can prove he/she is an honourable citizen in his sound mind in the present day.
 
Nordeste, we have a Constitution that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think you'll find too many of us who want to give the government any leeway to impose more restrictions on firearm ownership.

We generally favor the philosophy of holding people accountable for what they actually do, as opposed to what we fear they might do.

The standard for denying somebody a right has to be set extremely high; the burden is on the government to prove why they need to impose any restriction. There are many things that citizens of EU nations might find normal, that Americans would never accept from our government. Although a lot of Americans have been trending toward dependency on the state, in the last many years...

You've seen how well dependence on the state has worked in Greece. I fear their problems are going to spread through a large portion of the EU in the near future. I hope we can reverse our own trend before it really bites us.
 
The standard is that adjudication/due process shall take place before you are deprived of your 2nd Amendment rights. An examination does not meet that standard.
 
Nordeste, we have a Constitution that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think you'll find too many of us who want to give the government any leeway to impose more restrictions on firearm ownership.

We generally favor the philosophy of holding people accountable for what they actually do, as opposed to what we fear they might do.

The standard for denying somebody a right has to be set extremely high; the burden is on the government to prove why they need to impose any restriction. There are many things that citizens of EU nations might find normal, that Americans would never accept from our government. Although a lot of Americans have been trending toward dependency on the state, in the last many years...

You've seen how well dependence on the state has worked in Greece. I fear their problems are going to spread through a large portion of the EU in the near future. I hope we can reverse our own trend before it really bites us.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that, and please believe me if I tell you that I agree with a lot of your points of view. I've shared my time working alongside American cops on peacekeeping ops and I'm one of those -rare- Europeans that attracts weird looks when I defend your stands towards firearms ownership over here :rolleyes:, and that I'd want the same rights for us. However, undergoing a medical test, under my point of view, it's not a limitation to a right, but perhaps a requirement to exercise that right given that someone else's rights might be affected.

However, what I can't fully understand is how a person can be denied a firearms permit based on an failed military entrance test or something similar, which I think it's what debated here, hence my surprise and suggestion.

Greece's problems, IMO, have been more related to the fact that they lied to enter the Euro zone and have been spending more money that they actually had for quite a long time, plus endemic corruption. Similar problems, though not as serious, affect other countries (including us) in the EU, and we have a few hard years of adjustments to come.
 
Nordeste, the idea is accessing records of people refused entry to the military for psychological reasons, or requiring DOD to make those records public for firearms restriction purposes.

Knee-jerk reaction to the Giffords shooting.
 
They have cars that won't function if the operator is drunk.

I am going to invent a gun that won't fire if the person holding it is Coo-Coo for Cocoa Puffs.
 
However, undergoing a medical test, under my point of view, it's not a limitation to a right, but perhaps a requirement to exercise that right given that someone else's rights might be affected.
Click to expand...

One again the constitutional standard here is that to lose rights you must be adjudicated mentally defective. A medical exam in not an adjudication process. I deal with medical readiness issues for the military as a civilian employee. I have seen many false positives come through the interview process. The doctor/medical interviewer asks some questions. A positive answer only indicates that you need to see a professional mental health person for further tests. These tests may not be right even. The medical proffesional could even be predjudiced against you because they beleive in gun control.

Which is why adjudication through an adversarial process is the best way to guarantee your rights and is the standard in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top