Watch What You Say to Your Doctor

C

Chip Saunders

New member
Because beginning this month, he or she can get you banned:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-control-rule-mental-illness-217340

Now I am the first to say that someone who is genuinely unstable needs to be restricted. The law right now says that you have to have been involuntarily committed or otherwise judged so by a court. Under Mr. Obama's new "rules" you doctor can take away your rights with a phone call.....:eek:

Hopefully, in 90% of the cases, this power will be used cautiously. However I guarantee that there will be those who go on their own personal crusade. and once your name is on that list - God help you trying to get it off.

"Hi Fred, how you feeling these days?"
"Well ok Doc, but I have been feeling a little down.....:

Click......beep,boop,bleep,beep,beep...."hello FBI....."

Ask your Dr. if he is an NRA member......:D
 
Most MDs are not psychiatrists and do not have the ability to diagnose a person as unfit to own a gun. They are little more than a lay person in that regard. In fact, I seriously doubt most psychiatrists can predict when someone would be a danger: certainly not with a high degree of reliability.
 
Would it not be a much better idea. If a person needs some mental health care.
Just give it to them..:eek:

This country is a complete disaster with how we deal with mental health.
Mostly they just get some one stable and kick em out the door until the next time they have an episode.
HELP THEM!! Instead.
 
A lot of folks can use a little help and should not be afraid to ask their doctors for a referral. However, just because someone has trouble with the loss of a loved one, can’t sleep, doesn’t like crowds, etc this doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t own a gun. I guess my concern is how much due diligence will there be before someone loses their Constitutional right.
 
I view this executive "rule" (NOT A LAW) as being implemented specifically for the purpose of abusing it, I'll make a prediction right now that there will be a push by some to put anyone who meets a drastically reduced level of "mentally ill" as not being able to pass a background check to purchase a firearm.

My evidence is already on the books. We already had a complete law on the books to deal with this, the catch was a court had to adjudicate against you before you were banned from buying a gun.
 
My evidence is already on the books. We already had a complete law on the books to deal with this, the catch was a court had to adjudicate against you before you were banned from buying a gun.
Click to expand...

Yep. They call that due process. And if hanging around this forum has done me any good, I'd say due process is supposed to be mandatory.
 
Here is a copy of the actual rule:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-33181.pdf

All it says is that healthcare providers who have the lawful authority to make adjudications or commitment decisions can now report people to NICS directly, IF such people have been "adjudicated mentally defective" (as currently defined) or involuntarily committed. Healthcare providers who do this are not violating HIPAA.

This is completely in line with current law. In some jurisdictions, the process to be "adjudicated mentally defective" does not involve an adversarial hearing or adequate due process protections in my view; which is something to be concerned about. In those jurisdictions, even a temporary observational hold where you are later released can impact your Second Amendment rights.

However, nothing in that rule allows your local doctor or therapist to report you to NICS.
 
So far, no problems....actually, I shoot with my doctor. Guess I need to lookout if I change. Thanks for the heads up.
Dan
 
My doctor has no business even knowing if I own guns or ammunition.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that really matters. If you meet the criteria they can report you to NICS whether you own a gun or not.
 
BR said:
This is completely in line with current law. In some jurisdictions, the process to be "adjudicated mentally defective" does not involve an adversarial hearing or adequate due process protections in my view; which is something to be concerned about. In those jurisdictions, even a temporary observational hold where you are later released can impact your Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Bart, if it is convenient, I would be interested in an expansion of this point. Adjudication without a hearing in which both sides have the opportunity to present evidence and argument sounds oxymoronic.
 
Zukiphile, essentially the issue comes down to the phrase "adjudicated mentally defective." Some Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the First Circuit and Second Circuit, take the position that an involuntary commitment for observation where the patient was examined by two doctors, and a judge signed the order for temporary observational commitment are sufficient to qualify as "adjudicated mentally defective" under 922(g). See: U.S. vs. Chamberlain 159 F.3d 656 (2nd Cir. 1998) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2175874503830044077&q=159+F.3d+656&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44

So they specifically reject the notion that you get "provision of counsel, a full-blown adversary hearing, a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the person suffers from a mental illness, and a judicial order of commitment" before losing your Second Amendment rights.

The NRA has made multiple attempts to fix this; but it has been sunk every time in the Senate. In fact, the last two times the NRA tried to fix it, ignorant gun owners on this forum and others, claimed the NRA was pushing gun control and protested against the NRA's fix. Realistically though, the chances the bill gets through the Senate without unacceptable additional gun control amendments are very low in the current environment.
 
So, it appears once again, the spin being reported does not square with the actual facts. Thank you, Bartholomew!

Shame on Politico, for that, and also for not knowing that it is NOT the 1993 Brady law that creates and defines prohibited persons.
 
I view this executive "rule" (NOT A LAW) as being implemented specifically for the purpose of abusing it, I'll make a prediction right now that there will be a push by some to put anyone who meets a drastically reduced level of "mentally ill" as not being able to pass a background check to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...
agree 100%. I can also see this used against our military coming back from overseas.
 
iraiam said:
I view this executive "rule" (NOT A LAW) as being implemented specifically for the purpose of abusing it, I'll make a prediction right now that there will be a push by some to put anyone who meets a drastically reduced level of "mentally ill" as not being able to pass a background check to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...
I agree. Remember, the AMA is in bed with the CDC to classify "gun violence" as an epidemiological 9i.e. medical) problem rather than deal with it as the psychological problem that it is. Too many doctors are anti-gun, and they will be only too happy to drop a dime on their patients at the slightest pretext.

Which just means that, unless you know your doctor is a shooter, you're going to have to start lying to your doctor. "I feel great except for the ankle. Do you think I sprained it, or is it broken?" End of discussion.
 
44amp said:
So, it appears once again, the spin being reported does not square with the actual facts. Thank you, Bartholomew!
Click to expand...

Yes, like most of the rest of his recently announced executive actions on guns, these appear to be mostly directed at convincing his ignorant supporters that he has done something on gun control; but most of them just restate existing law.

I have to admit, it is weird to see the spin machine directed at his own supporters for a change. It is a surreal experience. The biggest change for gun owners out of all those actions was the elimination of the CLEO sign-off for NFA applications - which is something gun owners have sought for a long time now. And we literally gave up nothing. And then the Republicans piled on him to boot. The whole thing has been pretty funny honestly.
 
Aquila Blanca, one minor point and with all due respect, it is a psycological AND political problem. Especially in light of recent events. Media lumps it all together, but it's two seperate things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top