HIPAA Changes to Comply With NICS - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > HIPAA Changes to Comply With NICS

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-27-2013, 05:42 AM   #21
Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bigcountry02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest
Posts: 6,363
Liked 1908 Times on 1103 Posts
Likes Given: 3902

Default

What loopholes are they going to install in this new regulation?

Look at the Healthcare Law, that thing is worst than it was set out to be.

__________________
Bigcountry02 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 08:50 AM   #22
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

that's what usually happens. the always put something on as a last minute rider. wasn't that what happened in 1986 with the FA firearms?

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:15 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
should people with mental health issues be denied the possession of firearms? yes they should. they could be a danger to themselves or others.

should your private Dr. have to report to some agency about your mental health? hell no! should a person be placed on some list just because of the medication they are taking? hell no!

but what i do see, is that if they start trying to invade the privacy of the patient, then it could drive people away from seeking the help they need.

if a person is committed for mental illness based on their actions by a judge involuntarily, then those records could be provided to the NCIS.

mental health issues are tricky subject and yes they need a clear defintion as to who can or can't possess a firearm. but it should not be any government agency or any political entity making those decisions for us. it needs to be people who have complete objectivity in the matter.

I do not agree with your very first statement on this quote at all...... I myself have severe PTSD/depression and insomnia.... "Mental Health Issues" -- I am a war vet, the reason I have these issues and I own and love firearms.... Most of all I would NEVER use them against anyone who was innocent or in some mass shooting incident, I am a law abiding citizen. Yes I have to take medications for my conditions, but even if I were to stop taking them I would not flip out and kill people for no reason. So, in short.... I do not agree at all with your statement, because that would mean most of today's war vets would be unable to own or purchase a firearm...... This is exactly what Feinstein wants, so I guess you support her and agree with her?
__________________
customammo72 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:20 PM   #24
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 8,391
Liked 7151 Times on 3915 Posts
Likes Given: 14495

Default

He came back and clarified what he was trying to say in that statement.

__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:28 PM   #25
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by customammo72 View Post
I do not agree with your very first statement on this quote at all...... I myself have severe PTSD/depression and insomnia.... "Mental Health Issues" -- I am a war vet, the reason I have these issues and I own and love firearms.... Most of all I would NEVER use them against anyone who was innocent or in some mass shooting incident, I am a law abiding citizen. Yes I have to take medications for my conditions, but even if I were to stop taking them I would not flip out and kill people for no reason. So, in short.... I do not agree at all with your statement, because that would mean most of today's war vets would be unable to own or purchase a firearm...... This is exactly what Feinstein wants, so I guess you support her and agree with her?
the core of the first part of that statement is more in line with those who would be a danger to themselves or others. somehow i'm not seeing that to be and issue for you or others like you.

biggest reason i am against the government being involved with this issue in any shape, fashion or form. IMO, it would drive away those who would seek help out of fear of it being used against them.

a person who knows they have a problem, and seeks medical attention for that problem and gets treatment is not a danger IMO. their medical records and conversations wit their doctor should be held in the strictest of privacy and never be allowed access by any agency.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
customammo72 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:30 PM   #26
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

i believe i have said all i need to say and meant no offence to anyone. but i think i will exit myself from this thread before it goes downhill and people get all pissed off at me.

please don't ever think i am in agreement with Feinstein. there is nothing she stands for or thinks that i agree with.

i think from now on i will keep my opinions about this subject to myself.

__________________

Last edited by Axxe55; 04-27-2013 at 09:34 PM.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:32 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
the core of the first part of that statement is more in line with those who would be a danger to themselves or others. somehow i'm not seeing that to be and issue for you or others like you.

biggest reason i am against the government being involved with this issue in any shape, fashion or form. IMO, it would drive away those who would seek help out of fear of it being used against them.

a person who knows they have a problem, and seeks medical attention for that problem and gets treatment is not a danger IMO. their medical records and conversations wit their doctor should be held in the strictest of privacy and never be allowed access by any agency.
Ok, I understand where you were headed with that now and I it makes sense, and of course as usual with all your other posts I do agree with you. I just needed some clarification of that statement, I wasn't trying to bash you and wasn't angry about it, I just wanted a little more explanation. Thanks for giving me that. With what you now explained I fully agree with you, and I am not defending all with PTSD because some of those guys are dangerous too and shouldn't be allowed to have guns, I have met MANY that fall into that bad category. Anyways, thanks for understanding what I was saying and not bashing back at me for just trying to clarify things.

Also that is one of my biggest fears with our POS Gov't getting involved, so if they get all the docs notes and stuff, even if the doc doesn't think you are a danger, are they going to make the decision themselves and go ahead and deem you a danger and prohibit you? I just don't like where they are headed with this thing, if your doc says you are a danger and you really are, then by all means that should be in NICS for good reason..... I just don't wanna see good people get wronged by this.
__________________

Last edited by customammo72; 04-27-2013 at 09:34 PM.
customammo72 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 09:36 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
i believe i have said all i need to say and meant no offence to anyone. but i think i will exit myself from this thread before it goes downhill and people get all pissed off at me.

please don't ever think i am in agreement with Feinstein. there is nothing she stands for or thinks that i agree with.

i think from now on i will keep my opinions about this subject to myself.
No axxe, you didn't offend me brother, not at all, I was just trying to clarify what was said like I already posted. I was not angry at you for what you said or anything like that, I hope you understand.
__________________
customammo72 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 10:04 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default

Little more reading, little less writing fellas...


Summary of Federal Law

Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

•Is underage;
•Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
•Is a fugitive from justice;
•Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or [involuntarily] committed to a mental institution;
•Is an illegal alien;
•Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
•Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
•Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
•Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.



NICS was set up to help administrate the law at point of purchase quickly and efficiently. What exactly about this mental health provision, already the law, being enforced makes you see red? In fact, let me quote myself...

"For 45 years national law prohibited guns being sold to those judged a danger to themselves or others, involuntarily committed or found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial*."

The only reason it is un-enforceable today is that states do not share the secret information for the non-detailed background checks because HIPPA law arguably contradicts it, so, they err on the side of less information than more. For their part the Federal government has not erred as it recognizes the primacy of The Second Amendment and has not tried to shut the system or sales down altogether, yet. The shortcoming and the potential argument will be corrected by the HIPPA clarification it seems, and, we might actually, in truth, be a little safer. I do stress a "little"...


*http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/getting-credit-old-executive-orders-what-how-bad-89205/

__________________

Last edited by HockaLouis; 04-27-2013 at 10:18 PM.
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 10:26 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
customammo72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 193
Liked 49 Times on 34 Posts
Likes Given: 80

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockaLouis View Post
Little more reading, little less writing fellas...


Summary of Federal Law

Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

•Is underage;
•Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
•Is a fugitive from justice;
•Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or [involuntarily] committed to a mental institution;
•Is an illegal alien;
•Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
•Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
•Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
•Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.



NICS was set up to help administrate the law at point of purchase quickly and efficiently. What exactly about this mental health provision, already the law, being enforced makes you see red? In fact, let me quote myself...

"For 45 years national law prohibited guns being sold to those judged a danger to themselves or others, involuntarily committed or found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial*."

The only reason it is un-enforceable today is that states do not share the secret information for the non-detailed background checks because HIPPA law arguably contradicts it, so, they err on the side of less information than more. For their part the Federal government has not erred as it recognizes the primacy of The Second Amendment and has not tried to shut the system or sales down altogether, yet. The shortcoming and the potential argument will be corrected by the HIPPA clarification it seems, and, we might actually, in truth, be a little safer. I do stress a "little"...


*http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/getting-credit-old-executive-orders-what-how-bad-89205/
Once again this just shows that the measures are already in place as usual and we don't need more stupid laws, the ones already on the books just need to be enforced..... The problem with the newest bout of legislation to add to this seems to be wanting to force more mental health info into the system then what should be allowed. Yes, they claim they just want what is already supposed to be put in there (once again, then enforce the current law and stop making new ones) but behind our backs they also show they have more intention of getting more and more mental health info added to NICS, more than what they need to have access to..........
__________________
customammo72 is offline  
 
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 05:41 PM
NICS hold? Flatman6 NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion 10 01-10-2013 02:46 PM
Would You Sign A To The White House Stating You Will Not Comply With Registration Vikingdad Legal and Activism 86 01-04-2013 02:08 AM
10 States Seek Waiver to Comply With Military Voting Law's Absentee Ballot Rules Kimber45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 11 08-28-2010 05:01 PM
NICS checks notwhywhynot Politics, Religion and Controversy 20 06-21-2009 03:05 AM