Wow!
I don’t understand your statement that the the Police will have full access to your medical records. Is it required by law that you list all of your Doctors, what medical treatment you received and, most importantly that you sign release of information with your Doctor / Health Care Provider?
You receiving counseling and taking prescription drugs is not reported to the Federal Government and as previously discussed is in fact prohibited except in rare cases from being disclosed from anyone other than your Doctor. My point is simply do not report on the application.
The anti-gunners are winning when they convince folks like you not to buy firearms because of medical treatment you received in the past.
It's being challenged in the courts (thank you, SAF). It's not that the state is going to know or look for your medical/mental health providers, it's that state law requires mental health providers to share information with law enforcement that someone has become (or is) a prohibited person. However, we've already seen how that works in this country, given that a few murderers of late were able to legally purchase weapons with which to commit their crimes.
Some folks up here are acting as though this is all new. With regards to one's medical/mental health privacy rights, all 1639 really did was add the provision of signing for purchase of a semi-automatic rifle to the RCW clause stating that when one signs for purchase of a pistol (any handgun, as far as the RCW is concerned) or applying for a concealed pistol license (CPL), you are waiving your confidentiality rights. This has been the case in Washington since 1994.
I have purchased firearms from retailers since July 1, 2019 (including one rifle shipped that unfortunately didn't arrive here until the 1st of July, so I had to give proof of completion of a firearms safety class as well as pay the extra tariff). Since due to the nature of my occupation I have background checks run on me annually and my employer knows who my medical providers are (since they pay my insurance), I was forced to pragmatically consider that I wasn't really giving up anything extra (except an extra $18 per rifle and now a 10-business day waiting period that didn't exist here before) in the way of privacy if I wanted to continue acquiring the odd firearm here or there (legally).
For other citizens, I fully comprehend the quandary in which some may find themselves (until this onerous law is repealed or rejected by the courts).
Yes, it all stinks.
Straight from the WA Attorney General's website...
https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639#15 hipaa
I love how they say it's not a privacy violation since you have to sign away your privacy.
And note that they give any "inquiring court or law enforcement agency" any information "relevant" to the applicant's eligibility and it covers the Health Care Authority, mental institutions, and "other health care facilities" meaning my health clinic at work.
Another poster asked if the local Sheriff or Chief of Police can simply refuse to do the Enhanced Background Checks.
And, the state law has given immunity to LEOs so that if I apply and am refused, I have no legal recourse against a corrupt Sheriff or Chief of Police who refuses my ability to purchase a firearm based on personal prejudice or agenda.
Straight from the WA Attorney General's website...
https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639#15 hipaa
View attachment 872628
I love how they say it's not a privacy violation since you have to sign away your privacy.
And note that they give any "inquiring court or law enforcement agency" any information "relevant" to the applicant's eligibility and it covers the Health Care Authority, mental institutions, and "other health care facilities" meaning my health clinic at work.
Another poster asked if the local Sheriff or Chief of Police can simply refuse to do the Enhanced Background Checks. Not according to the website...
View attachment 872630
And, the state law has given immunity to LEOs so that if I apply and am refused, I have no legal recourse against a corrupt Sheriff or Chief of Police who refuses my ability to purchase a firearm based on personal prejudice or agenda.
You are probably correct. There was no outrage 25 years ago from me because I was a citizen of Idaho then. I have only lived in Washington for 5 years when I foolishly bought a house on the wrong side of the border. I grew up in Idaho on the Washington border and didn't consider five years ago that the left was poised to take over all aspects of the legislature.Once again, the only thing that has really changed is that now the waiver of confidentiality -- that Washington residents have been signing since 1994 -- was expanded to include purchases of semi-automatic rifles. Previously, one only signed the state form for handgun purchases. Where's the outrage been the past 25 years? Well, the other thing that changed is that now one's local LE agency does the background check, and NICS is no longer the single approval for purchase proceeds.
The law requires medical/mental health providers to furnish information that may render an individual a prohibited person upon request by law enforcement. There is no single database that can be tapped into that contains every citizen's medical and mental health records.
So you are saying that Idaho is a more "relatively free state" than Washington?Then I will go about building a new home in a relatively free state; at least until the onslaught of Californians turns that state blue.
So you are saying that Idaho is a more "relatively free state" than Washington?
I submit that it's all "relative." I spend quite a bit of time in Boise, with an immediate family going to school there, I know Boise is rapidly turning blue ...
Not really what I was arguing, though I don't think I clearly articulated what I was thinking at the time ... Was sorta getting at what South Prairie Jim said, in that in mostly rural states, the most populous area (in WA, it's King County) sets the trends for bad law, as historically voter turnout in rural areas is lower. Boise will have a voice that'll change Idaho politics in not too much farther in the future, in the same way Arizona is changing, as well as Texas, as how Virginia has just gone ...I think it's pretty clear that Idaho was much more red than Washington in the last two major elections... Not sure why anyone would argue that.
That actually violates HIPPA
In NJ almost nothing in federal gun laws apply here and yes state laws restrctions are superceding federal law.HIPPA is federal. I would be surprised if a state law could supercede.
Well, I gotta wait 'til I retire, but I'll be right behind you (maybe not Montana, which by the way has become a favored place for wealthy liberal Hollywood types and other Californians to invest in property, but somewhere better, for sure). Totally agree with you about Seattle, a city in which the mayor and city council have directed cops to not make arrests for any drug possession offenses and where the city prosecutor only follows up with criminal charges on less than half of the arrests SPD officers make. Yet the city prosecutor will aid and abet the feds in using the state's ERPO law against citizens.I’ll stop my rant now grab another cup of coffee and chill out ‘hell’ I’m moving to Montana next spring/summer where life is totally different wife says to keep my blood pressure in line till then
How does it violate HIPAA?
Keep in mind that HIPAA only applies to certain designated agencies and individuals specified in the act. The Washington State Attorney General is not one of those.
They can.I don't believe even police can access them without a warrant.
HIPPA significantly constrains who can access medical records. I don't believe even police can access them without a warrant. There was recently a case where a nurse refused to take blood from a suspect, even under extreme police pressure, and her position was upheld.