Using prescription drug database to deny 2a rights: is this possible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the wake of the Heller and McDonald decisions one of the few ways remaining to expand gun control is to broaded the definition of "prohibited person". I predicted two ways that would happen: 1) misdemeanor convictions and 2) diagnoses of certain mental illnesses.

I actually thought #1 would occur first as there is a lot of pressure from the medical community against #2; the concern is that people who truly do need help would not seek it out if they were worried that their gun rights would be stripped away as a result.
 
yeah that doesn't make alot of sense. Why penalize those that actually seek and are getting treatment.

The is no requirement to actually make sense of course but that proposal would do more harm than good. It would actively drive people away from treatment.
 
My only thought would be it might short circuit larger more sweeping changes - since this would "fix" the sandy hook problem, they couldn't then go for an outright ban of all semi autos or the like.

Guess it depends on how well they remember 1994 and 2000 elections.
 
I believe that would violate the Dr/patient confidentiality agreement since prescription drugs have to be ordered by a Dr for a patient. Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.
Click to expand...

Any action here would require new legislation anyways, and new legislation can modify previous legislation or just repeal it. Actual constitutional amendments thankfully aren't as easily worked around, but outside of that existing laws are NEVER protection against new laws.
 
Oh sure, you might be a dangerous person because you are taking drugs prescribed by a Govt. licensed physician, dispensed by a Govt. licensed pharmacist and manufactured by a Govt. licensed and inspected pharmaceutical company and all under the watchful eye of the Drug Enforcement Agency......But none of them are responsible. Oh no. YOU are the problem.:banghead: See how all of this works to protect you? Over prescribing of drugs that can have an completely unknown effect on millions of people for simple monetary profit is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. That and "Ask your doctor about...." direct marketing to consumers who have no idea what they are doing. Now shut up and watch this video of a pretty butterfly flying into your bedroom. It's all about money. Who cares how many people we screw up or how many people they injure? We're getting rich!!!!
 
Last edited:
I could see that back firing IE. law suits since a lot of anti depressant drugs are also used/prescribed for chronic pain such as arthritis and fibromyalgia.
 
mgmorden said:
Quote:

Your healthcare information is protected by the health information portability act.

Any action here would require new legislation anyways, and new legislation can modify previous legislation or just repeal it. Actual constitutional amendments thankfully aren't as easily worked around, but outside of that existing laws are NEVER protection against new laws.
Click to expand...

Just tell ALL of America their healthcare information will no longer be safe and see what the reaction will be. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your visits to the Dr and your prescribed treatment will remain confidential. You're entering a whole new territory with that one.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
I'm sorry, but I thought fed.gov already got their hooks into our private medical information with Obamacare and the old Patriot Act?
As for gun owners refusing treatment due to possible loss of rights, well, look at it from an anti's point of view. This means that more "gun violence" will occur, which will prove gun owners aren't getting the treatment they need, which may lead to a diagnosis of gun ownership as a mental aberration, (there was a study once that labeled coffee drinkers as suffering from a mental disorder), or simply the crocodile teared plea, "we KNOW they need help, and the only way to make them get it is to take those nasty guns away! It's for the children AND the parents!"
 
What a bunch of garbage.

First, notice the source of the "article." It's a website that promotes "natural", unregulated remedies (i. e., drugs). The message is clear: don't use prescription drugs, use natural, unregulated drugs. In other words, the "article" is self-serving claptrap.

Second, note that in the article the author admits in the first paragraph:
...the actual text of the bill is not yet available to the public,...
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, he goes on to describe what the law could do and how it could work. That simply can not be properly done without the actual text of the law. The article is just a bunch of speculation to promote the author's agenda.

Third, while there are programs in place in connection with the payment by third parties of medical expenses to monitor prescription usage, that data is used to protect patients against adverse drug interactions and identify possible drug abuse -- both useful functions. HIPAA confidentiality rules would prevent the use of that data for the nefarious purposes described in the article. It's true that the privacy rules could be changed, but does anyone have any evidence that a change in those privacy rule has actually been proposed?
 
Natural News often crossposts with Alex Jones' site infowars. If that doesn't tell you something about its credibility, I suggest you research Alex Jones a bit. His name should cause suspicion anytime its attached to "news" of ANY kind. IMO, he's a whacko who sees conspiracy in the most mundane of things, and only serves to fuel the paranoid delusional
 
since this would "fix" the sandy hook problem
Click to expand...

That involved someone that took firearms belonging to his mother, a mother that recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars in alimony every year and had all the time and money in the world to qualify and obtain whatever firearm she wanted.
Almost any law dealing with him would not have prevented his mother from owning firearms.
Based on the alimony payments, totaling around a quarter million a year, I think this is a woman that could make her own sechedule, jump through any hoops needed, and could spend both more time and money than your average citizen to obtain something she wanted.
Any restriction capable of restricting her would restrict most of the population.



As for the OP:


It is a very real possibility that mental health records will be used to expand prohibited persons and what qualifies to prohibit someone could retroactively be changed, turning some that are not prohibited into prohibited persons.
Legally that precedent is already allowed under a misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition case reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the government declared that removing firearm rights retroactively from people that had been convicted years prior to the law, declaring it was not a punishment being retroactively applied.
Further the court has even said that in those places that don't offer a jury trial for misdemeanors because they are not considered serious enough, that loss of firearm rights as a consequence is still valid.
So someone is not even entitled to a jury trial for permanent loss of firearm rights, and loss of those firearm rights not considered serious enough to require one.
Extending these precedents it is easy to see how they could be applied to mental health prohibitions.
(Although Heller and McDonald could be used to argue that these precedents no longer apply as firearm rights are more firmly established and should take more to remove, but the result of such an argument is hard to predict.)

In fact it has been being done for some years. It is my understanding that most states did not have computerized databases that they were willing and able to send to the federal government to start getting them processed.
However some states did.
If I recall this was pushed as a result of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
These are previously confidential medical records that were protected under patient physician privacy laws.
Only the records of some states were used to add many people to the prohibited category as a result, but many states were just starting to modernize thier medical records and get them in easily accessed computerized databases, and so they were expected to be added eventually but were not ready yet.


You could look up certain medication types almost exclusively used to treat serious mental illness and infer that those using them are likely being treated for certain serious things.
Unlike the article I don't think anti-depressants would be such a drug, at least anytime in the near future.
However there is certain other drugs primarily used to treat serious disorders that could be used to infer someone is a prohibited person, or locate such people from a state that has not sent mental health records to the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Prescribing drugs off label is commonly done and is legal. So that means knowing only the name of the drug isn't enough to determine what diagnosis was made prior to writing the prescription.

Even when prescribed on label you might not know what for. For instance Haldol is used to treat psychosis. It is also used to treat tremors, tics and other problems. My mother takes it daily at the nursing home to keep her shaking from vibrating her out of her wheelchair. She's 88 and has had severe dementia since 2005 or 2006 and just sits there.

John
 
While it's possible that such a thing might be pushed for bear in mind that any attempt to create a database of prohibited persons based on either medication used or diagnosis assigned would be a violation of HIPAA. So the first thing they'd have to do would be to remove the protections currently in force to keep personal medical records confidential. If they tried to do that it wouldn't just be gun owners that would be angry, it would be every single US citizen.

I'm not sure that the politicians can afford to have 100% of the voting population mad at them.
 
The day HIPPA is repealed is the day liberals will join our cause.


I say don't worry.
 
swathdiver said:
Try getting/renewing a CDL while taking insulin for diabetes...
Click to expand...
Hardly a new thing and based on good medicine. A number of illnesses can present special risk factors for a number of activities -- such as insulin dependent diabetes or seizure disorders in the case of driving. In such cases, a physician's evaluation may be required.
 
Virginia actually has a state drug registry that gathers info from the pharmacies not the MD.
Not sure of the mechanics but it tracks all scheduled drugs by person/drug and a photo ID is needed to pick up.
Enforcement is delegated to the VSP.
 
www.dhp.virginia.gov/dhp_programs/pmp/pmp_desc.asp

Other states do it too, and some info is shared from I've been told.

The purpose of the database is to allow prescribers and dispensers to see if a patient has been doctor shopping for, say, multiple pain med prescriptions.

"Pharmacies, non-resident pharmacies, permitted physicians, and physicians holding a permit to sell controlled substances are required to report all dispensing of any Schedule II, III, and IV controlled substances to the PMP."


A little known fact. A patient at least 18 may request a copy of their report.
 
Recon Ron and others,

I hear what everyone is saying, but consider this. The left might be more than happy to make medical records available if Congress convinces them that it will be used to successfully reduce the number of gun owners in this country. I am sure I know at least a few who would probably like this idea if they heard it.
 
The patient's exact diagnosis or the particular drug(s) prescribed would not have to be reported to NICS, only that the person was prohbited. At that point it would be up to the purchaser to appeal it.
 
The patient's exact diagnosis or the particular drug(s) prescribed would not have to be reported to NICS, only that the person was prohbited.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't fly. If you wrote it that way then you'd literally be giving health care professionals the ability to restrict a person's constitutional rights without any proof that there was a problem.

The left might be more than happy to make medical records available if Congress convinces them that it will be used to successfully reduce the number of gun owners in this country. I am sure I know at least a few who would probably like this idea if they heard it.
Click to expand...

You probably do know a few. However most people would rather it not be public knowledge that they're clinically depressed, have attempted suicide, are anorexic, have a problem with some form of addiction...etc.. Aside from which the medical community strongly prefers that this information remain private and will fight to keep it so. Patients won't talk to us if they know we can report them to the government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top