Brady Center sues over new "Physician Gag Law"

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a Big-Brother-Nullifying-the-2nd-Amendment issue, pure and simple

IF YOU FIND THIS QUESTION ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP ON A MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE, DO NOT ANSWER IT.

Most in this thread have missed the point. The gun grabbers know that soon all medical records will be computerized and available nation-wide to government (all levels) and probably available to way too many other types of organizations (Army, insurance companies, law enforcement, anybody doing a credit/background check, etc.)

IF YOUR GUN OWNERSHIP INFO IS PART OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORD, the federal government will know (presently, it only knows, theoretically, if the states do their reporting, about new gun purchases). This is not a good thing.

Here is how Western Representation political action committe puts it:
Dear Patriot,

Florida Governor Rick Scott signed first in the nation legislation last week preventing doctors from asking and recording information regarding whether or not a family has a gun in their house. It may surprise many of you who do not have young children that pediatricians across America have included questions of gun ownership in their standard patient documentation for the last few years under the guise of protecting children from accidental death. It should be noted that these doctors do not ask about swimming pools, staircases, elevated decks or cleaning chemicals that each year kill far more children than do accidents with guns.

The Federal government has been pushing doctors toward electronic medical records for the last 10 years and under Obamacare, it will become mandatory for all medical records to be stored in central data repositories that will be accessible by the government. Using this data, the government will be able to more easily identify which households have guns and which do not. The Brady Center for Gun Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics (both politically liberal organizations) have filed suit in Federal court to block the new law.

We fully expect the Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder will join in the lawsuit much the same way they did regarding Arizona's illegal immigration laws to allow the continued collection of gun ownership information. What better way to find out who owns the millions of legal but unregistered firearms than hide behind the liberal standard of "we just want it for the children".

We encourage the safe storage and handling of all firearms, especially in those homes with children. It is the responsibility of every gun owner to make sure that firearm accidents are prevented. The pediatricians could easily give parents a handout on gun safety around children. They could also include safety information on pools, hot tubs, chemicals and other injury hazards. Don't be fooled for a second that these questions are about protecting children.

This is about data collection, period. Are you getting nervous yet?


Sincerely,

Roger Stockton
Joe Miller, Chairman (former Alaskan Senate condidate)

Western Representation PAC
http://www.westernpac.org/
Click to expand...

I suggest we all have a big, undocumented gun swap meet several times each year.
 
This is about data collection, period. Are you getting nervous yet?
Click to expand...

I figure if the government wants to know if I have guns, they can find out. All those forms 4473 are out there somewhere. Every gun and most of my ammo purchases are made with a credit card. It doesn't make me nervous.
 
Bill_Rights said:
IF YOUR GUN OWNERSHIP INFO IS PART OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORD, the federal government will know (presently, it only knows, theoretically, if the states do their reporting, about new gun purchases). This is not a good thing.

I suggest we all have a big, undocumented gun swap meet several times each year.
Click to expand...
So this huge fear is that the government will know if you have guns.
That method of disinformation only works if you swap guns so that people who are gun owners become non-gun owners and non-gun owners become gun owners.

Sure, I'm a non-gun owner. Mind swapping with me?
 
When I've taken the kids in for physicals in the past (I'm in FL) there's a whole list they go through in regards to safety and making sure parents are educated. It's usually stuff like do you have..."locks on the cabinets, outlets covered, cleaning supplies out of reach, guns locked if you have them, how old is your home - if built before whatever date is the paint lead free" In that context within a whole list it doesn't bother me to be asked. The stupidity of some parents is mind boggling and it doesn't bother me to run down a list. Shoot, there was a doc down here a couple years ago that posted on his door if you voted for Obama I will no longer treat you. LOL If the doc is going to let his personal feelings get in the way of his professionalism I don't want him as my doc anyway, no matter which candidate I actually support. So if one wants to drop me because I'm a gun owner, see ya bye. If they just want to know if I'm smart enough to consider my kids safety then I'm cool with it.

I hadn't considered the mental health side of the argument and can see where that could be a concern. Most of the discussion down here that I've seen has been from a pediatric stand point.

With the recent shooting of a transplant doc by a patient at an Orlando hospital parking garage, I'd be surprised if this gets overturned, I'm sure that will be used as an argument as why they should ask.
 
Bill_Rights said:
Sure! Whatcha got?

Some people keep gold for swapping for what they need when currency is meaningless. I keep guns and ammo for the same reason, plus others.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that someone would be so willing to disarm themselves for an indefinite time based on the fear-mongering of a random PAC.
 
Originally Posted by Bill_Rights View Post
Sure! Whatcha got?

Some people keep gold for swapping for what they need when currency is meaningless. I keep guns and ammo for the same reason, plus others.
Click to expand...




I keep guns and ammo so I can take gold from those who don't.




lol. J/K.

.
 
Alicia,

When you said
With the recent shooting of a transplant doc by a patient at an Orlando hospital parking garage, I'd be surprised if this gets overturned, I'm sure that will be used as an argument as why they should ask.
Click to expand...
I think you got the part about the law backwards. The Florida law banning questionnaires about guns has already passed. When we talk about overturning the law, we're talking about allowing the gun questions. It is the gungrabbers who will be trying to overturn the law.

On the other part of your meaning, you are correct. The liberals (translation: illiberals, tyrants, oppressors, control freaks, statists, socialists, counter-revolutionaries (counter the 1776 Revolution, I mean), Big Brother, coercive rule-makers and flat-earth Luddites) will use the shooting of the Orlando transplant doc as an argument to limit gun rights any way they can, including promoting sneaky medical questionnaires to gather gun location data.
 
Neverwinter,

To what or whom were you referring when you wrote?
I'm surprised that someone would be so willing to disarm themselves for an indefinite time based on the fear-mongering of a random PAC.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I am advocating that you all arm yourselves and keep the fact that you are armed private information.

That is what we are guaranteed under the U.S. Second Amendment. At least, I interpret the government gathering data on the location of guns as "abridging" the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). Legalistically, there may be a technical difference between RKBA and my secrecy of having done so (or not). But when you've got a federal gov't full of Brady Bunch types like Eric Holder, secrecy = having a right; no secrecy = no right. Fear of the unknown on the part of government type people is a powerful restraint on their power. The whole point of the Constitution is to do exactly that: limit the power of government and the people in the government.
 
Last edited:
Bill_Rights said:
Neverwinter,

To what or whom were you referring when you wrote? To the contrary, I am advocating that you all arm yourselves and keep the fact that you are armed private information.
Click to expand...
Your post addressed concern about the government knowing that you are a gun owner. Then you said we should all be involved in undocumented gun swaps. Doing a swap would be pointless if they know you're a gun owner, unless you were switching your status as a gun owner. Whether it's 2 rifles or 3 handguns, you're still a gun owner. Any kind of subversive disinformation effort would be pointless if the information remains as reliable as it always has been.
 
I followed the link to the AAP firerarms policy page and quite frankly it is a statement based on gun politics more than simple gun safety awareness. It does cite as references the researchers who promote the "guns as virus to be eradicated" meme, plus Art Kellerman who claims guns are from 2.7 to 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family membr than a total stranger intruder, whose research as been politicised by Brady and VPC.

For other references to guns as disease see Somerville "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, Jan. 3, 1994, for an example of this recurrent meme;also, the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) network, funded by the Joyce Foundation, founded and lead by Dr. Katherine Christoffel who has written on the theory.

Perhaps the "guns as virus" and gun ownership as a disease to be cured is a fringe medical belief, but the abstract of the AAP firearms policy does reaffirm: "the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents."

That is gun politics. You could save more kids by promoting legislation to assure the absence of swimming pools, bicycles, and 5 gallon mop buckets but the absurdity of that crusade would be obvious. When gun politics rears its head, the blinders go on.
 
The bottom line as I see it:

We are talking about authority figures asking questions and keeping records on a poltically sensitive private matter.

I don't think that is a first amendment issue.
 
Yeager said:
I stopped reading after I saw your username.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge.
I figure if the government wants to know if I have guns, they can find out. All those forms 4473 are out there somewhere. Every gun and most of my ammo purchases are made with a credit card. It doesn't make me nervous.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're a person who never buys through an FFL, always uses cash for every gun related purchase, and posts through an anonymous proxy. You are the people most at danger of having the government know you're a gun owner.
 
We are talking about authority figures asking questions and keeping records on a poltically sensitive private matter.

I don't think that is a first amendment issue.
Click to expand...

I just don't see the family doctor as an authority figure. He or she is just someone selling a service.

If you're visiting a government employed physician from the VA or Health Department then the government can set rules about what's asked in the office.

If the doctor is in a privately owned office speaking to a patient there of his or her own free will... the First Amendment says the government should butt out of the conversation.

Maybe you're a person who never buys through an FFL, always uses cash for every gun related purchase, and posts through an anonymous proxy. You are the people most at danger of having the government know you're a gun owner.
Click to expand...

The government knows I'm a homeowner and a car owner and a dog owner. Those things aren't protected by their very own constitutional amendment. Guns are.

I'm just not afraid if folks know I own guns. They are legal and honorable possessions.
 
Last edited:
Neverwinter said:
You are the people most at danger of having the government know you're a gun owner.
Click to expand...

I have a concealed carry license which included a background check and fingerprinting. I get a hunting license every year. I purchase firearm accessories online. I get firearms related magazines delivered to my house. I’m a member of the NRA. I have firearms listed on my homeowners insurance.

The government knows I have firearms.

I’ve already stated that I don’t care if my pediatrician asks about firearms. They have no authority and should we disagree about firearm ownership I’m under no obligation to listen to them. I think it’s OK for them to highlight areas which might be dangerous in the household. I consider that part of their job; right up until it becomes clear they are on some kind of anti-gun crusade.

To be fair I would find it odd if my doctor asked me during a checkup, though I would likely answer honestly. I might even ask if he did any hunting or shooting.

What if the questions were simply meant to make sure the household was safe for kids and included questions about poisons and swimming pools? Would it still bother you to be asked about guns?
 
Lib,
Thank you for your good contributions. I beg to differ, a slight bit, when you say:
I figure if the government wants to know blah blah blah blah. It doesn't make me nervous.
AND
I'm just not afraid if folks know I own guns.
Click to expand...
It's not about you! It's not even about me.

It IS about THEM being nervous. It IS about THEM being afraid.

By "THEM" I mean politicians, government agency managers, political agitators and party bosses, and, of course, run of the mill criminals.

What I want, and, patently, what our Founding Fathers/Mothers wanted, is that when every political and governmental (so-called) "leader", those with access to power, looks out upon an well armed population in vast numbers:
a) They have a deep, visceral FEAR in their gut of us (the law abiding people).
b) They are in utter uncertainty about how well armed the populace is, except that they know the answer is somewhere north of VERY WELL.
c) They dare not even think about tricking us, lying to us or other chicanery in a bid to dominate, oppress, enslave or establish tyranny over the population.

Honestly, I don't care if these "public servants" live in constant fear of the people, even when they are not doing anything wrong. That constant pre-fear is the only way to keep the bad ones from attempting something tyrannical. For you good-hearted, honest public servants, TOO BAD. That's why they call it public SERVICE.
 
Never,
Doing a swap would be pointless if they know you're a gun owner, unless you were switching your status as a gun owner. Whether it's 2 rifles or 3 handguns, you're still a gun owner. Any kind of subversive disinformation effort would be pointless if the information remains as reliable as it always has been.
Click to expand...
Yah, yah, yah. I don't need a lecture in verbal logic. Of course, literally, you are correct.

That was not my point. I am advocating peaceful civil disobedience to gov't authority. If I even need a justification, it is that the gathering of gun data by the authority violates the spirit of the Second Amendment. The sneaky, lying, underhanded method of collecting 2A data via harmless doctors used as dupes (useful idiots) makes me want to double down on the defiance and civil disobedience against the authority.

By civil disobedience, if it wasn't obvious from the posts on swapping guns for gold, etc., of course, I don't mean ONLY swapping guns among people who are already "registered" gun owners. I mean for a good number of people to end up owning guns who are specifically NOT documented. I have extra guns just to arm those in my neighborhood and clan who have not been prudent enough to arm themselves.

A little OT, but in my state and I think in the whole U.S., it is perfectly legal to hand guns down or laterally (or up) among relatives. Since we are all relatives with less than "six degrees of separation" (remember that craze from a few years ago?), I think passing guns down/sideways/up to anybody is legal. So what if the 3rd or 4th link in those degrees of separation has been dead a few decades? If dead people can vote in Chicago to elect crooks, dead people can pass guns down to promote freedom!
 
It IS about THEM being nervous. It IS about THEM being afraid.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but it's a bit too hardcore for me.

The "public servants" don't fear an armed populace and likely never will. First, "They" have "Us" out gunned.

Secondly "They" are "Us." And the people in power know they will be out of power someday. Laws may get more and less restrictive over the years, but the U.S. Government will never trash our freedom. That's because the people who would have to carry it out don't want their freedom trashed.

The public servants fear out ballots much more than our bullets.
 
Yes, this gives me comfort, too:
the U.S. Government will never trash our freedom. That's because the people who would have to carry it out don't want their freedom trashed.
Click to expand...
While it gives me, you and others comfort, it somehow does not seem to deter power-grabbing politicians nor gun-eradicating __________ (I don't know what to call them - troglodytes?).

These opponents to gun ownership seem to think they can eliminate guns from among the population legally, even though the highest and most cherished law of the land permits guns.

I will not be comfortable until "THEY" give up trying.

"THEY" won't. I don't know why. It is illogical, as Spock would say.

Anti-gun folks need to learn and practice the Serenity Prayer. Acceptance. Guns are here to stay.
 
Without our bullets nothing would stop them from taking away our ballots.
Click to expand...

I don't think its the threat of armed rebellion that makes politicians honor the results of elections. Call me naive, but I believe its because the kind of folks who become public servants really do respect the Constitution.

I believe the Second Amendment is a good thing, but I have a confession. Here in 2011 I don't think the right to keep and bear has a thing to do with the preservation of our other freedoms.

There! I said it.

The "threat" of armed insurrection is simply not credible. Look around. If we took to the streets brandishing our ARs, AKs, and Milsups who would have our backs? It would be the memberships of The High Road, Gun Rights Media, and the NRA members who aren't out in the woods hunting that day. A real Band of Brothers and Sisters but hardly a force that could stand up to the most powerful government in the world.

Our guns don't give us freedom. Our freedom gives us guns. That's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Lib,

Oh boy:uhoh:, where do we start with this?:
I don't think its the threat of armed rebellion that makes politicians honor the results of elections. Call me naive, but I believe its because the kind of folks who become public servants really do respect the Constitution.

I believe the Second Amendment is a good thing, but I have a confession. Here in 2011 I don't think the right to keep and bear has a thing to do with the preservation of our other freedoms. (There! I said it.)

The "threat" of armed insurrection is simply not credible. Look around. If we took to the streets brandishing our ARs, AKs, and Milsups who would have our backs? It would be the memberships of The High Road, Gun Rights Media, and the NRA members who aren't out in the woods hunting that day. A real Band of Brothers and Sisters but hardly a force that could stand up to the most powerful government in the world.
Click to expand...
Lib, for some reason, I like you a lot. I will not have time to address you point by point tonight. Just a couple of starter ideas....

For starters, I am not talking about armed insurrection or overthrowing the government, per se. According to the traditional, unique, exceptional and normal American mindset, We The People ARE the government. This, its surrounding ideas and the Constitution are hugely important and I will return to them. But suffice it to say, for now, that if the government is very powerful and we the people fear it, that is exactly BASS ACKWARDS. Precisely the opposite should obtain.

As another appetizer, look up the Posse Comitatus Act of June 18, 1878. Basically it says that the government cannot use the U.S. Military for combat operations on American soil (except to repel foreign invader) or against U.S. citizens. Actually, what it really says is that the military cannot be used for domestic police duties. But historically, broadly, it has been practiced as I first said.

Here is some perspective. Do I have to remind you how much the government can be upset and boggled by one shooter? Barest beginning of list: Gabbie Gifford in Tucson, Pres. Reagan by Hinckley, Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, and on and on. Heck, where I live in very peaceful Fairfax County, VA, very frequently a policeman in his cruiser, having pulled over a driver, will wait until a second cruiser arrives before exiting his car and approaching the stopped driver/car. Both of the cruisers typically have a 12 Ga shotgun loaded with buckshot and an AR15 strapped in the trunk, 1/4 of which is vastly more firepower than the pistol the pulled driver is likely, at most, to have on board. Still, there is huge respect for potentially armed criminals (or righteous citizen resisting oppression by force of arms, though that is not at issue in the police-stop setting). The point is, firepower is not everything. How small firepower might be used, when and with what degree of warning/surprise matters a lot.

Finally, I think there are some high politicians and government officials who actually detest the Constitution. I can name names and, for each name, give 4-5 pieces of supporting evidence. The reason they hate it is that it legally limits their power. They privately envy Hu Jintao of China, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, etc. These and dozens of other strong men around the world have theoretically unlimited power - why can't they have that too? It's not fair! They could get so much more done if they could just sweep away the opposition! (salivate, salivate....) For those who do not respect our Constitution and who are not too picky about laws in general, Chairman Mao said it: "All power emanates from the barrel of a gun."
 
LibShooter said:
Here in 2011 I don't think the right to keep and bear has a thing to do with the preservation of our other freedoms.
Click to expand...

Ever been in a disaster area? There was no government for several days in my old neighborhood after hurricane Andrew tore it apart, but there were some looters about. We were responsible for preserving our own freedoms for a bit there, and were equipped to do it. Good thing, too, I think.

I heard they had some problems in Nawlins after Katrina as well, but I wasn't there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Brady allegedly to sue GA Town
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Jaymo
J
S
  • Locked
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
Replies
2
Views
469
armoredman
armoredman
W
  • Locked
Florida MD restrictions overturned.
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
BSA1
  • Locked
Brady Group sues Kansas
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
L
  • Locked
Bradys: No guns in parks
Replies
14
Views
1K
Tyris
T
Back
Top