HIPAA Changes to Comply With NICS - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > HIPAA Changes to Comply With NICS

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2013, 11:31 PM   #11
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 9,100
Liked 7956 Times on 4305 Posts
Likes Given: 16864

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55
should people with mental health issues be denied the possession of firearms? yes they should. they could be a danger to themselves or others.
And as long as we are deciding whom should be left unarmed and defenseless, how about the handicapped or poor or elderly or immigrants or women or???
__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 11:35 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2058 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

They will be able to say if you own or want to own a gun you have a mental problem, they been trying this for a few years.

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 12:31 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mdauben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 441
Liked 97 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockaLouis
I wrote on this here previously. It seems like the right thing to do on the face of it to have the NICS work as intended, and if not abused, including stopping some crazies..
Actually, this is an unconscionable invasion of doctor/patient confidentiality guaranteed to both deny people who pose no actual threat their constitutional rights but also to drive people in real need of psychiatric help into not seeking it for fear of their doctors narcing them out.

We have a legal process for declaring people a danger to themselves and society. If people are determined BY A COURT to be mentally unfit, with ample chance to argue their competence, THEN they should be listed as "Prohibited Persons" not on the word of one healthcare provider who may have his own biases in the matter.
__________________
mdauben is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:12 AM   #14
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 22028 Times on 12418 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
And as long as we are deciding whom should be left unarmed and defenseless, how about the handicapped or poor or elderly or immigrants or women or???
not in the least. my definition of mental health issues that would disallow possession would be those that have tendencies towards violent episodes, or are classified as a danger to themselves or others.

my main issue is that i don't feel any government agency is what needs to be deciding on this issue. nor requiring a doctor to report his patient to some agency when he comes to his family doctor, because he hs depression over such things a job loss, the loos of a loved one, or is having a hard time coping with a divorce or other drastic change in their life.

i surely don't have all the answers on this subject, and surely am not near qualified to even have most of the answers, but i know that i don't feel the government needs to have involvement in this issue by any means.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
opaww Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:24 AM   #15
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 9,100
Liked 7956 Times on 4305 Posts
Likes Given: 16864

Default

I agree....

__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:32 AM   #16
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 22028 Times on 12418 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
And as long as we are deciding whom should be left unarmed and defenseless, how about the handicapped or poor or elderly or immigrants or women or???
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdauben View Post
Actually, this is an unconscionable invasion of doctor/patient confidentiality guaranteed to both deny people who pose no actual threat their constitutional rights but also to drive people in real need of psychiatric help into not seeking it for fear of their doctors narcing them out.

We have a legal process for declaring people a danger to themselves and society. If people are determined BY A COURT to be mentally unfit, with ample chance to argue their competence, THEN they should be listed as "Prohibited Persons" not on the word of one healthcare provider who may have his own biases in the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
I agree....
Mdaben is saying what i was trying to convey. there are legal proceedings for this. in this scenario, they are also represented by an attorney, so that their legal rights are observed. they interview witness' who usually are doctors and mental health doctors. then a judge makes a determination in the case.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:40 AM   #17
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 9,100
Liked 7956 Times on 4305 Posts
Likes Given: 16864

Default

Says the man whose signature is "crazy as an outhouse rat."

__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:46 AM   #18
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 22028 Times on 12418 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
Says the man whose signature is "crazy as an outhouse rat."
i am in good company here though!
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 03:48 AM   #19
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 6,517
Liked 7223 Times on 3665 Posts
Likes Given: 8000

Default

“In order to protect our children and communities, we must ensure that information on potentially dangerous individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms is available to the background check system,”

Wow, Potentially dangerous Individuals must be really stupid as well as being unstable. Cant buy a legal gun so I guess were safe from them huh? They wouldnt think about using anything but a legal gun to kill people would they?

I sure hope I never suspect I have a mental Illness cause I can tell you I would not seek counseling knowing full well that my privacy is no longer mine and someone might decide I could be dangerous if I wasnt their idea of the good citizen.

Funny how were discussing why Terrorists should be awarded Constitutional Rights at the same time were losing ours, how ironic is that?
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 04:31 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ
Posts: 145
Liked 27 Times on 17 Posts

Default Hippa

I'm not against the intent of this concept. I do however, feel adamant, any such restriction of an "inalienable right", (temporary or permanent) ought to be conducted in a court, not at the dubious "discretion", of a local prosecutor or LEO.

The history of "mass shootings", all exhibit very similar characteristics; i.e. the "perp" exhibited a history of anti-social behaviors that were noted by people in direct contact. For various reasons the "system" ( mostly established by hoplophobic progressives ) failed to provide both LE and firearms sellers - via the NICS - with adequate information that could have prevented acquisition of arms via legitimate sources. IOW, the "nanny government" mentality - as espoused by Sen. Feinstein, et al - failed !

But now, (true to progressive formula ) their failure has morphed - in the "spin machine" - into ours. >MW

__________________
Millwright is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Will you comply to a semi-automatic gun ban? molonlabexx Legal and Activism 92 03-02-2013 06:41 PM
NICS hold? Flatman6 NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion 10 01-10-2013 03:46 PM
Would You Sign A To The White House Stating You Will Not Comply With Registration Vikingdad Legal and Activism 86 01-04-2013 03:08 AM
10 States Seek Waiver to Comply With Military Voting Law's Absentee Ballot Rules Kimber45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 11 08-28-2010 06:01 PM
NICS checks notwhywhynot Politics, Religion and Controversy 20 06-21-2009 04:05 AM