Crossroads time. Give up HIPAA rights over new gun? Washington state laws
- Thread starter silicosys4
- Start date
- Status
Trey Veston
Member
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. Not according to the website...
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.
Switchblade7.62x51
member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2019
- Messages
- 14
That actually violates HIPPA
bdickens
Member
Y'all ought to get together and sue up there.
JFrank
Member
If ya want to buy a gun in Washington ya sign or go home.
I signed and still waited 10 days to receive my pistol even though I have a carry permit.
J
I signed and still waited 10 days to receive my pistol even though I have a carry permit.
J
Last edited:
IJ1981
Member
It sure does! I am glad that you have the option of leaving that abysmally failing State Stat!
BSA1
member
What is “enhanced” under this new law?
How about posting a copy of the application for us to read for ourselves?
It sounds like you have a “poison pill” relationship with your Chief of Police and you are concerned he will find and make Public embarrassing information he finds on you. I can understand your concern as a private citizen but as a elected Public Official your background and life is fair game in American politics.
There ain’t no politics like small town politics.
Old Dog
Member
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.
Trey Veston
Member
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.
My long term plan is to remain in my wonderful little town until my elderly father passes and I inherit his ten acres in the Idaho countryside 12 miles away. 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.
Old Dog
Member
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 ...
entropy
Member
The State would be in violation of Federal Law; A subpoena is required.
Trey Veston
Member
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.
2016 Presidential election...
2016 congressional election...
JFrank
Member
Unfortunate to live in the heavily populated blue areas or where a few blue counties speak for the entire state but that s..t happens like it or not, so get out and vote then live with the results until next election.
Old Dog
Member
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 ...
What I really wanted to say was that considering one state more "free" than another is not a good thing to believe. As we've seen, the political dynamics in most states can change drastically over the course of just a couple general election cycles.
RickD427
Member
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.
JFrank
Member
Western Washington use to be a beautiful place to live, I’ve been here most of my life unfortunately my opinion has changed , one thing is the cost of living is terrible and while the city of Seattle approved new high rise buildings the counsel and mayor are and we’re IMO all about the money and legacies they’ve instead created thousands of homeless people living under bridges like freakin trolls. This is their legacy...Nextly if that’s a word??Garbage!!! Is everywhere in this state. People are throwing their trash out anywhere they feel like with total disregard for stewardship. I haven’t even touched on the free needles they hand out so dopers can shoot up on the street corners.These examples I’m mentioning are above and beyond sniveling about any gun rights issues , snowflakes want um gone and replaced with more police on bicycles.
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
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
Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
In NJ almost nothing in federal gun laws apply here and yes state laws restrctions are superceding federal law.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
entropy
Member
They can.
Source:
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html
Cite:
Who Is Not Required to Follow These Laws
Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow these laws.
Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy and Security Rules include:
- Life insurers
- Employers
- Workers compensation carriers
- Most schools and school districts
- Many state agencies like child protective service agencies
- Most law enforcement agencies
- Many municipal offices
entropy
Member
No, you can refuse to sign a HIPAA acknowledgement and there is no penalty for doing so. The health provider is still bound by HIPAA.
RickD427
Member
You've got it backwards. HIPAA (please not the correction to your spelling of the acronym) does not restrict who can access medical records. It significantly restricts the release of medical records. You are correct that in most cases (but not all cases) the police do need a warrant to access medical records, but if there is an inappropriate access of those records the HIPAA only provides a penalty to the person improperly releasing the records.
I'm familiar with the nurse case that you mentions. It was not about HIPAA, it was about the lawful standing of the officers to demand the blood draw.
In the case being discussed here, the private person signs a waiver allowing access to the records. That establishes compliance with the HIPAA. It's a fair question if the state of Washington can make the right to acquire a firearm contingent on the waiver of a right to medical record privacy, but that's not a HIPAA question.
Last edited:
- Status
