Thoughts on how Obamacare may impact gun rights?

[leadcounsel]

Any thoughts on how the now public 'utility' of health care is or could impact gun rights?

For instance, is it now in the public interest to cut back on shooting injuries because of the healthcare costs?

 

[Rembrandt]

Some liberal attorney is probably trying to figure out how to "tax" the ownership of firearms and ammunition that don't meet approved gov. safety standards.

 

[Canfield]

I'm not sure it's related to your question, but the majority opinion does refer to the right to bear arms as a protected civil right when discussing the difference between Congress regulating vs taxing an activity:

"Those sanctions [from regulation] can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the rightto bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in othercontroversies, such as custody or immigration disputes."

HT to the Volokh Conspiracy.

 

[Neverwinter]

Any thoughts on how the now public 'utility' of health care is or could impact gun rights?

For instance, is it now in the public interest to cut back on shooting injuries because of the healthcare costs?

You would need someone trained in actuarial science to go through the numbers and check them against other activities which present a risk. Even high risk attributes like smoking and obesity can be better for health care costs because earlier fatalities can offset the later-in-life health care costs.

 

[YankeeFlyr]

Wow!

Talk about REACHING!

I heard Obama was responsible for genocide during the Third Reich.

again.

 

[MtnCreek]

Decided to opt out of this thread

 

[Gtscotty]

I was just considering this topic today, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if an argument was made against 2A based on the costs of firearms related injuries.

Wow!

Talk about REACHING!

I heard Obama was responsible for genocide during the Third Reich.

again.

I know it sounds far fetched, but consider the wave of municipal lawsuits against handgun manufacturers alleging that the manufacture and sale of handguns constitutes a public nuisance, that occurred in the 1990's and 2000's. A legislative argument or lawsuit based on healthcare costs that firearm manufacturers "impose" on the public, may not be out of the realm of possibility.

Some info on the Municipal lawsuits:

http://saf.org/LawReviews/Warner2.htm

http://216.197.116.106/data/Articles/Docs/Are_Public_Nuisance_Lawsuits_Against_the_Handgun_I-64.pdf

 

[PBR Streetgang]

"I heard Obama was responsible for genocide during the Third Reich. "


He wasn't, BUT his friend and mentor ,George Soros was!

 

[bhesler]

This is not necessarily related to the Obamacare law itself, but the Supreme court decision. Since the court decided that you can be taxed for doing nothing, I guess you could be taxed for not owning a puppy, because there are way too many animals in shelters that need adopting. Or, in a 2A utopia, you could be taxed for not owning a gun. Or maybe taxed for not having a job. The options are endless. I don't think the ramifications were really thought out on that decision.

 

[Prince Yamato]

You'll pay more taxes and thus have less money for guns...

 

[Neverwinter]

I know it sounds far fetched, but consider the wave of municipal lawsuits against handgun manufacturers alleging that the manufacture and sale of handguns constitutes a public nuisance, that occurred in the 1990's and 2000's. A legislative argument or lawsuit based on healthcare costs that firearm manufacturers "impose" on the public, may not be out of the realm of possibility.

A legislative argument perhaps, but not a rational argument if the data on the healthcare costs resultant from firearms manufacturers is less than other sources which remain untouched. However, if legislative arguments were in line with rational decision-making about reducing health care costs, we would have gone with the original health care bill.

 

[ATLDave]

This is not necessarily related to the Obamacare law itself, but the Supreme court decision. Since the court decided that you can be taxed for doing nothing, I guess you could be taxed for not owning a puppy, because there are way too many animals in shelters that need adopting. Or, in a 2A utopia, you could be taxed for not owning a gun. Or maybe taxed for not having a job. The options are endless. I don't think the ramifications were really thought out on that decision.

Relax. People are taxed for not doing things all the time. Anyone who doesn't have an interest-carrying mortgage is taxed for that; we think about it as a deduction, but that's just semantics. People won't be taxed for non-puppy-ownership because many voters don't want a puppy. The politics of a NPT don't work.

As for the broader point, the 2A is a constitutional provision. A statutory provision cannot override it. The Sup Ct (or at least CJ Roberts) found the most narrow grounds on which it could exercise judicial restraint. It doesn't signal a big anything, except a big concern by Roberts that the Court respect the (good or bad) decisions of the political branches.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Look what happens to those people who get more speeding tickets and have more accidents than others, their insurance rates go up, in some instances, they go up A LOT!

 

[X-Rap]

Given that the WH is working diligently at dictating what we eat and NYC is controlling what we drink I would expect them to make a run on guns or ammo too.
Health care will cast a wide net and since now we are all obliged (or soon to be) to pay for it as an aggregate group anything that can be construed to be an excessive cost will be taxed in a way as to pay for its hazards or be priced out of what most can afford.
Of course I hope I am wrong.

 

[Cosmoline]

You are taxed for not owning a house, for not giving to charity, and for not doing a thousand other things. They just phrase it in terms of credits and deductions to make the pill go down easier. But make no mistake, the power to tax IS the power to destroy. They could use it to make firearms too expensive to own, but they could have before the recent decision. Robert's ruling changes nothing.

 

[ATLDave]

Cosmoline's post summarizes it perfectly.

 

[CoRoMo]

I was hoping that Roberts' finding against the Commerce Clause in this case would further limit Congress's wielding of it and return a great deal of rights to the states. It doesn't look like he went to that extent. From what I've read, he simply said that the limit he's binding the Commerce Clause to is Congress's mandate to force people into a certain market. But that limit doesn't seem to confine Congress in the least since it is now well defined to have the power to force citizens into any specific market via taxation.

 

[foxtail207]

Back to the OP .....
I can see that medical records could be used in ways to limit your ability to use, own, or buy firearms.
Certain psychological (PTSD) or nervous conditions could be construed as being a negative factor in the "right" to own a firearm. Other medical conditions could also be used to say you are unfit to buy, use, or own firearms. There are cases like that now, but I can see them being expanded since the Gooberment will have more/full access to all medial records.

If there's a will, there's a way! And they will find the way.

 

[Iramo94]

I can definitely see how you could be "taxed" (read: robbed) because of gun ownership, and not even for the obvious anti-gunner reasoning of it possibly leading to death by shooting.

How about exposure to hazardous materials if you make your own cast bullets.
Under the assumption that the government has the right to tax you for the purpose of health care, I can definitely see how you can defend an additional payment added on to lead and gun powder purchases.

Just from the point of view of a tax payer, I don't want to be footing the bill of someone who has been casting in an enclosed room for the past forty years. It seems sensible for them to at least pay a part of their own healthcare through a tax on reloading stuff.

 

[Bubbles]

I can see that medical records could be used in ways to limit your ability to use, own, or buy firearms.
Certain psychological (PTSD) or nervous conditions could be construed as being a negative factor in the "right" to own a firearm. Other medical conditions could also be used to say you are unfit to buy, use, or own firearms. There are cases like that now, but I can see them being expanded since the Gooberment will have more/full access to all medial records.

This was my first thought when I heard that everyone's medical records would be in a centralized FedGov database. IMO future gun control is going to focus less on firearms and more on expanding the definition of "prohibited person". I could see anyone diagnosed with specific mental illnesses - bipolar, schizophrenia, etc. - being added to that list.

 

[Alaska444]

This is not necessarily related to the Obamacare law itself, but the Supreme court decision. Since the court decided that you can be taxed for doing nothing, I guess you could be taxed for not owning a puppy, because there are way too many animals in shelters that need adopting. Or, in a 2A utopia, you could be taxed for not owning a gun. Or maybe taxed for not having a job. The options are endless. I don't think the ramifications were really thought out on that decision.

+1, excellent observation.

 

[EnglishmanInArizona]

I'm glad this thread hasn't been closed, I think it is a genuinely important thing to consider.

I left Britain (and the National Health Service) two years ago to come to the United States.

Throughout British culture, it is NORMAL to say that people should not take too many risks because the rest of society will have to pay their medical costs. When society shares costs, everyone becomes more accountable to society, and restriction inevitably follows.

In Britain they have very few firearms, mostly as a knee-jerk reaction to ONE sick guy on a rampage with a handgun in a school, so I can't say that the logic has been applied to firearms there. However, I will not be surprised if Obamacare leads to people putting out figures on the estimated medical costs resulting from firearms injuries and saying this is an unacceptable burden on the system. We've got it going on in Britain regarding alcohol, tobacco and "unhealthy" foods.

 

[Art Eatman]

"I will not be surprised if Obamacare leads to people putting out figures on the estimated medical costs resulting from firearms injuries and saying this is an unacceptable burden on the system."

I don't know that this has been brought up at any legislative level, but the argument has been advanced in occasional commentaries by anti-gun people.

 

[tomrkba]

Firearms are a disease.

Owning firearms contributes to the disease.

Therefore, engaging in risky behavior that promotes disease should be taxed.

As we all know, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

 

[Feanor]

Wow!

Talk about REACHING!

I heard Obama was responsible for genocide during the Third Reich.

again.

Don't be a fool, you'd best keep your mouth shut when visiting your new "national democratic socialist party" appointed doctor. He'll be charting on you for the IRS, FBI, and BATFE, who very definitely will have unfettered access to your medical records, and newly empowered to extra-constitutionally strip you of your second amendment privileges, just as they are now doing to returning vets of the war on terrorism.