Mental health check requirement to own guns???

Status
Not open for further replies.
IL will revoke a FOID or refuse to issue one if you have voluntarily checked yourself into a mental health facility in the prior five years.

IMO this is an awful law as it will discourage people who care about their RKBA from seeking treatment should they need it.
 
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, it's coming down the pike. They now ask you in some drug stores, "when you pick up your prescription" if you want therapy. Not for narcotic drugs, even for blood pressure medication. To me that means a list, "they scan your Drivers License". I asked my doctor about it, he knew less than I did.
It means they are preparing for something to me. Many people take a pain pill or a sleeping aid or some other thing that their doctor is the one who told them they needed.
So if they go to a Federal permit, which many people favor because it would be good in all states, what's to stop them from denying anyone who ever took a prescription drug, which would be most everyone?
There is your instant gun control.
 
I don't want to go into the politics of it but let's not forget the government is in the process of building up a massive database of medical information. That includes whether you ever had a problem sleeping or whether you got depressed when both your parents were killed in a car wreck or worse yet a child. With access to that data, and what database ever created hasn't been abused, the government can single out people to be denied gun ownership. It could easily be an avenue they could pursue to attempt to get more guns out of the hands of the public. It wouldn't be the first time they tried to make gun ownership a medical issue. I expect this to be one of the primary pursuits of Obamacare at some point. Don't think they don't want guns out of the hands of average citizens. Those average Joe's nearly started firing at federal agents in Nevada last week. The protest groups were heavily armed. The government had reason to try to remover the cattle. They had court decisions on their side (I don't agree they were right but they had them). But what really irked people was the way the feds manhandled people including women. This is becoming too common from gold miners in Alaska having M-16's stuck in their noses to people in a guitar factory having SWAT invade their workplace. Did they think there was a massive arsenal in the back of that guitar factory? They want to push us around. Guns keep them from doing that. Nevada just proved that. I hate the idea of any kind of violence but I hate the idea of slavery more.
 
John this is an interesting and important thread. Thank you for posting it here.
 
spitballer said:
The reality is that there are many, many more people in this country than there were just a few years ago. Statistically there is more potential for nuts to get guns and misuse them. Add to that the availability of high-power, high-capacity rifles and we've got a problem.

I'm not big on gun control but it seems to me that our military and law enforcement personnel have trained long and hard for the privilege of carrying assault weapons, and it's a shame that these honorable pieces of equipment have been made available to every melon-blasting kid who wants one.
Click to expand...
In my experience, if someone supports an "assault weapons" ban, then at least one of the following is true: They don't understand what an "assault weapon" is, or they simply want to ban all firearms. It's plain that you fall into the first category at least.

Do you have any idea what an "assault weapon" is? It's simply a made-up class of firearm that is regulated based on cosmetic features. That's it. And your use of the term "high-powered" also shows you have no idea what you're talking about; most guns that are put into the made-up "assault weapons" category are actually low-powered rifles.

The invention and subsequent vilification of the artificial group of firearms dubbed "assault weapons" was an attempt by anti-gun groups and politicians to trick the public into supporting a ban on what they thought were assault rifles and machine guns, even though assault rifles and machine guns are already very heavily regulated and banned from new production. So "assault weapons" are simply guns that have certain cosmetic features that make them look extra-scary to people who don't know any better. Unfortunately, you appear to be one of those people.

Here's the best article on assault weapons I've ever read. It's by a pro-gun liberal Democrat and it does a great job explaining how ridiculous "assault weapons" bans are.

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

spitballer said:
Just my opinion, everybody's got one.
Click to expand...
Except it's an opinion based on complete ignorance.
 
OK ... and concurrent with that a mandated test to allow you to vote as well as producing a photo ID and payment of a fee.

I have to do that every time I buy a firearm.

I fill out a 4473, I have to produce a photo driver's license or other ID and I pay a fee if it's a pistol. :cuss:
 
From that same link JSH1 posted,
Not by the traditional definition of "database." The "hub" the government is creating is a mechanism for extracting data from a variety of databases that exist at other agencies. The hub doesn’t collect, centralize and store data; it is designed to allow real-time access to data that resides on the servers of other agencies in order to verify transactions related to the health insurance exchanges created under Obama’s law. "End Quote"
To me that sounds like they are just calling it a Hub. But in reality it's the same thing ,No?
We all know Obama is not finished with us by a longshot. He will mandate something one morning when we wake up. It's just a matter of when not if.
He wants something like 51 million dollars for more agents to go around and copy the "Bound books" of FFL dealers. I read that last week while investigating some other shady deals he is involved with. Once they have your name it's easy.
Stay loose, we are going to get a big push soon, between him an Bloomberg, they are coming after our guns, no Doubt in my mind. He has violated so many laws and goes unpunished, it's a shame. Something like 1 military leader every 8.8 days has been dismissed, so he will have more control over the troops should he need them.
Personally I doubt our troops will follow him.
 
To me that sounds like they are just calling it a Hub. But in reality it's the same thing ,No?
Click to expand...

It is hard to track down where most of the claims about the ACA setting up a federal health record database come from but most seem to be centered on two things. One, the ACA requires medical providers switch to electronic records or face a penalty. Two, the ACA sets up PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute). PCORI was set up to do research on the effectiveness of treatments. Research like:
  • Does new wonder drug X that costs $100 per dose actually work better than old generic drug Y that costs $1 per dose.
  • Does robotic surgery have better outcomes than old fashion arthroscopic.
  • Does hospital A that charges $30K for a hip replacement have better outcomes that hospital B than charges $10K.
The ACA allows PCORI access to health care records to do this type of research but data used has the patient identifying information removed. It also does not set up a new database but pulls specific data require for a study from existing databases. Such a system allows researchers access to sample sizes much larger than what they would get with a normal clinical trial.
 
Cee Zee, can you provide the slightest bit of documentation for your claims?
Click to expand...

Which claims? The national database of health information? It's part of Obamacare.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-medical-records-privacy/2013/11/08/id/535604/

Doctors making guns a health issue?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...018656-5066-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_print.html

I can cite hundreds of sources. It took me about 30 seconds to find these. There are lots more.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018585859_floridaguns03.html

I think this knocks "slightest bit" right out of the park.
 
GRIZ22 said:
New Jersey requires a mental health check when you apply for a Firearms Puchaser's ID Card (to buy long guns) and everytime you apply for a Pistol Purchase Permit.

Can't say its helped any to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent.
Click to expand...
Actually the requirement is a mental health RECORDS check, not a mental health check of the applicant. They're looking to avoid approving permits for people who may cross a certain mental health line. I think it may be records of commitment or incompetency, but I don't really know exactly.
 
Which claims? The national database of health information? It's part of Obamacare.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oba.../08/id/535604/
Click to expand...

You can find websites claiming anything on the internet, the key is finding a credible source that links actual information not wild speculation. That said, your link specifically says Obamacare does not set up a new medical database. It talks about the requirement for electronic medical records.

"The Obamacare database collected for those signing up for the healthcare exchanges is separate from the EMR collection. The healthcare exchange program collects other vital personal data like Social Security numbers, employment and tax information and income, but it doesn’t track health conditions, Jacobs said.

Still, doctors' privacy concerns about the EMR system are not out of place, he noted.

"There is not one massive database [for health records] but certainly you can hack into a doctor's system or hospital's system," ​

The author is describing the change in the way existing records are stored and then goes on to talk about scary ways they could be misused. What if some hacks a judge's medical records to blackmail him, etc. Yes, electronic files can be hacked, good security is required, but let's not pretend that current paper records are secure. Paper records can be stolen, photographed, photocopied, or scanned.
 
JSH1 said:
Which is part of the paranoia. Medical records are not public record. Federal law prevents medical providers from sharing patient medical records with anyone except those approved by the patient. Without permission from a patient it takes a court order to get access to a patient's medical records. That is why doctors have new patients fill out a HIPAA form telling the doctor who they are allowed to share the patient's records with. A doctor cannot share your medical records or results with your spouse without your approval.

The Affordable Care Act required medical providers to switch to electronic record keeping. This is a change in how the records are stored not who can access them.
Click to expand...
Rush Limbaugh and several other prominent people would disagree with you!

Anyone who believes his medical records are confidential are fools. As Ed Ames in post #14 pointed out, there are many exceptions to the widely held assumption, and more being created all the time. When IRS tax data is leaked to the news media and political foes without prosecution, despite strong legal protections against it, don't bet that confessing to your doctor that you feel depressed is not going to end up in your file in the Dept. of Homeland Security.
 
Rush Limbaugh and several other prominent people would disagree with you!
Click to expand...
Of course he would. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer that has found playing to people's fears a very lucrative way to make money. He is no more a source for unbiased news than Bill Maher but that doesn't mean the supporters of each don't take every word they say as gospel.
 
For the record I have nothing to do with Rush or Bill. I have no idea what they are really, because I can't stand talk radio.

However, as long as records exist, the rules regarding their disclosure can be changed. No law can guarantee that records will not be disclosed, because no law can bar its own repeal or replacement. Only destruction of the records can prevent disclosure, and then only until they are copied.
 
Once a thing is listed in any sort of record anyware it can be eventually compromised. Just like Credit Cards and drivers license records. A good hacker can hack into any system and steal anything, so once you write it down, it's no longer private, "someone else has a copy now". Just like people are selling ID online that supposedly was secure, they will be able to compromise your mental and physical records and make them a matter of public record.
The government will use these records to establish your incompetence to own a firearm and pull or cancel your new federal license, "which is why Obama will come out in favor of a Federal licensing system soon".
On a side note, over 2000 military leaders in places of authority, Generals, Commanders, etc. have been removed in the past 2-4 years, something likened to 1 man every 8.8 days.
This corresponds with the same sort of plan that goes along with taking away our guns, If he takes away our guns and military leaders, then who will be left to oppose him?
That statistic was from CNN last week. It's not a secret, while we sit around, this guy has his eye on the prize, he plans on being in office for a long time, or controlling it through others. The next round of gun grabbing is coming soon, and we better be ready for it, because now he knows what sort of resistance he faces. He also knows that he will be facing a Republican Congress, so he simply will use Veto's and mandates to circumvent the process.
 
You can find websites claiming anything on the internet, the key is finding a credible source
Click to expand...

You're claiming Newsmax is not a reliable source??? I didn't use that as a source for the government abusing the database they are creating. I used it to prove they are creating that database. If you think anything the government collects won't be abused you haven't paid very close attention. Let's use the Limbaugh example. His medical records were released to the public in violation of the law. That's one example. It's not "wild speculation" to think a government database will be abused. How many examples do you want? Let's talk about the IRS scandal involving the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Let's talk about IRS records being passed around to other government agencies including the office of Senator Cummings. Again those are violations and proof that the government can NOT be trusted to keep private data private. And there certainly is a database being created. It's main purpose will be to ration health care services. And you can call it wild speculation that the data will be abused but it's often said that the government has never created a database that hasn't been abused. I'll challenge you to give me an example of a government database that hasn't been abused. Do we really have to go into all the spying issues that were abuses under the Patriot Act? My god how can anyone call it wild speculation that the government will abuse data. That's what they do best. It's not speculation when it's happened so many times.

Are you aware of "The Data Hub" being built right now? It's massive beyond belief. They stopped construction in the wake of the Snowden revelations but the idea that this is going away is not supported by the facts.

Even databases that appear to be a good thing end up being abused. When they break the laws that govern the use of that data that's abuse. Here's an example of that:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...abase-prescription-drug-abuse-law-enforcement

No one wants pill mills staying open but what about the people who take pain medicine legitimately? Should they have their medical information made public too?

Instead of me going through the thousands of examples of government database abuses how about you just read this article in US News And World Report. Take notice it is a collaboration between a Republican congressman and a left wing news magazine which makes no effort to discredit the "wild speculation" but rather agrees with it. It details some of the "wild speculation" that is actually a fact. The abuse has already occurred. The only argument here is whether it will continute:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...abase-could-mean-more-irs-scandal-style-abuse

And when you give me that single example of a government database that has NOT been abused then I will provide you with more evidence (which you didn't acknowledge but rather picked out a single phrase and tried to pick it apart ignoring the bulk of my evidence). I'm not playing this game of "you find evidence and I'll nitpick it and ask you for more evidence". You go ahead and think it's "wild speculation". And I know what I'll be thinking.
 
Which is part of the paranoia. Medical records are not public record. Federal law prevents medical providers from sharing patient medical records with anyone except those approved by the patient.
Click to expand...
Yes and no...

If you really read the consents you must sign when you choose to be treated by a physician you probably should have a lawyer present.
The legal writing allows your data to be shared with LOTS of people and LOTS of entities and agencies...

Consulting physicians, various specialists, clerical staff, nurses, technologists, therapists, insurance agencies (and all of their staffing), archiving agencies (and all of their staffing), researchers, police agencies (when deemed appropriate), social workers (when deemed appropriate), child services (when deemed appropriate), even school teachers and school administration staff (when deemed appropriate).....
Typically, hundreds of eyes see information that you think is just between you and your doctor.
And this is just the LEGAL sharing of information.


Without permission from a patient it takes a court order to get access to a patient's medical records. That is why doctors have new patients fill out a HIPAA form telling the doctor who they are allowed to share the patient's records with. A doctor cannot share your medical records or results with your spouse without your approval.
Click to expand...
Not true.
If your doctor believes that you are a danger to your spouse he can share information with your spouse.


The Affordable Care Act required medical providers to switch to electronic record keeping. This is a change in how the records are stored not who can access them.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of medical records are still on paper.
Fortunately, paper records are much easier to control than electronic records.
 
It's like "A Secret", once you tell someone, anyone, it's no longer a secret. Once you inform anyone of anything, you lose control over who is going to see it.
They, "those in power", can and do decide that "it's better for you", if they are allowed to make certain decisions, that "they, have decided that "they" are more qualified to make than you ,"we" are. And the doctor also gives up all control once it is on the net. Everything that goes on the net is accessible if you know how to obtain it.
If the administration want your records they can find a number of ways to obtain them, just as an example, they can label you a threat of some kind, either a physical or contaminated, or terrorist threat , and you loose your rights.
The government has been lying to us about most everything since there Governments began. Do you really trust that they won't use information easily obtainable against you.
How many "sealed" records, and legal files that were, "destroyed" pop up again years later.
 
You're claiming Newsmax is not a reliable source??? I didn't use that as a source for the government abusing the database they are creating. I used it to prove they are creating that database.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is:

1. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it true. People need to check out sources. I wasn't speaking specifically of Newsmax though a quick scan of their headlines and this article would make me think they are not a source for unbiased news: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/newsmax-nielsen-number-one/2010/01/17/id/346606/

2. The Newsmax article that you linked specifically says that the government IS NOT creating a database of medical records.

You can believe what you want to believe but linking an article that disagrees with your claim doesn't help you prove the point that you are trying to make.
 
The reality is that there are many, many more people in this country than there were just a few years ago. Statistically there is more potential for nuts to get guns and misuse them. Add to that the availability of high-power, high-capacity rifles and we've got a problem.

I'm not big on gun control but it seems to me that our military and law enforcement personnel have trained long and hard for the privilege of carrying assault weapons, and it's a shame that these honorable pieces of equipment have been made available to every melon-blasting kid who wants one.

Just my opinion, everybody's got one.
Click to expand...

Uh, you do know an AR is LESS powerful than the average deer rifle, right? And more regulated than guns ever have been in history? So essentially your entire statement is false, never minding opinions.


Larry
 
I'm not big on gun control but it seems to me that our military and law enforcement personnel have trained long and hard for the privilege of carrying assault weapons, and it's a shame that these honorable pieces of equipment have been made available to every melon-blasting kid who wants one.
Click to expand...

Seriously????

I was in basic training with a guy who was chasing imaginary flies with the tongs during KP.

I was in basic training with a guy who was a convicted pimp.

I had been hunting and reloading ammunition for many years before I enlisted in the Army.

Aside from a few years in the military I'm also an electrical engineer. You folks have no idea how much stuff around you could be misused for evil. Guns are very dangerous, no doubt, but when the mentally ill get creative there is a whole lot more out there to worry about, particularly government. The biggest disasters in human history have not been mentally ill gunmen, they have been mentally ill leaders in positions of "authority".

Ignorance is also dangerous.
 
Man does this thread bring Catch 22 to mind... or Kafka.

"Sir, I understand you wish to have your firearms returned to you as you've been deemed "rehabilitated" with regards to your past mental distresses. In our esteemed opinions, only one in an unacceptable frame of mind would ever care to possess firearms. Thank you for coming in, I assume you can see yourself out."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Mental health record submissions for gun checks on the rise
Replies
1
Views
442
Jeff White
J
E
  • Locked
Maryland mental health and buying guns
Replies
10
Views
698
ByAnyMeans
B
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
Chicago Tribune Editorial: Guns and the mentally ill
Replies
15
Views
715
NeoSpud
N
N
  • Locked
Be careful what you wish for - the problem with the "mental health" issue
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
BryanDavis
BryanDavis
U
  • Locked
People always say it's 'guns' or 'mental health' but no one simply says 'Anger'....
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
cdk8
C
Back
Top