Mental Health Docs to Revoke 2nd Amendment Rights

[Dale00]

Here is a chance to head off the federal government trying to get between mental health providers and patients. They are asking for public comments - link at the bottom.

Taking anxiety meds? Working to overcome depression? You lose your second amendment rights. They'll deny this of course - "We are only asking docs to report serious cases" - but after a few lawyers start suing doctors over their failure to report, the pressure will be on docs to report everyone.

Obama Administration Trying to
Grab Guns Through Executive Order

Tell HHS their new regs are crazy

“Gun Owners of America [has] spent the months since Newtown doing tremendous damage, insisting that expanded background checks will lead to a gun registry.” - New York Times, April 4, 2013

It’s quite a complement when the New York Times thinks that you are doing “tremendous damage.” But you can be sure that the other side is not going to go away quietly.

And sure enough, the Obama Administration is trying to unilaterally undo our recent victory in the Senate - and to undo the “damage” that all of us inflicted together.

But first, a little history.

Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI's gun ban list?

And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a violation of the Second Amendment?

Well, guess what? Barack Obama has just concluded that "he don't need no stinkin’ Senate."

Instead, Secretary Kathleen "ObamaCare" Sebelius - and her Department of Health and Human Services - has promulgated regulations which would, by executive fiat, waive all federal privacy laws and encourage you doctor to report you to the FBI.

Understand a couple of things: First, the standard which your doctor would use to turn you in is embodied in Clinton-era ATF language and in the anti-gun Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007. Specifically, you doctor would "drop a dime" on you if he suspected you were even a slight "danger to yourself of others" or were "unable to manage your financial affairs."

So if they say you can't balance your checkbook, then you lose your constitutional rights.

But there's another problem: The day these regulations become law, lawyers will be lining up to sue "deep-pocket" psychiatrists for every case where they failed to turn in a patient to NICS - if the patient subsequently engages in a horrific act.

The bottom line? Any psychiatrist who failed to report all of his patients to the NICS system risks losing everything if any of them engages in harmful conduct. Soon the rule of thumb will be: See a shrink; lose your guns.

And the regulations will apply to private, as well as government-employed psychiatrists.

The bad news is that 165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.

Sadly, what happened to military veterans has now begun in the private sector - especially in places like New York, after they recently passed their misnamed SAFE Act.

According to gun rights reporter, Dan Roberts, firearms are now being confiscated from gun owners because of their mental health information. For example:

“[John Doe] received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history.”

So now taking anxiety pills can result in one’s forfeiting their Second Amendment rights in New York!

This is where the gun haters want to push their agenda. And this is one reason why background checks are so dangerous - because they give government bureaucrats the opportunity to deny law-abiding people their constitutionally-protected rights.

But the good news is this: The HHS rulemaking is still at an early stage, and HHS is (no doubt reluctantly) taking the views of the general public.

ACTION: Go to the Federal Register - at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-23/pdf/2013-09602.pdf - and respond to the regs entitled “HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

Let the HHS know how you feel about waiving all federal privacy laws for people who seek counseling.

You may submit your comments at www.regulations.gov

Also, be sure to tell your congressmen that you oppose the “see a shrink, lose your guns” regs issued by the HHS. Ask him to issue his own comments as well.

The regs themselves lay out several ways that you may submit your opposition. The comment period ends on June 7, 2013.

 

[Glocktogo]

I've been working on my reply for several days. Remember to be polite and professional. Intolerant rants will be ignored. They're required to reply to serious comments.

FWIW, my comments will detail how any changes are completely unnecessary, as the only entities who should be reporting to NICS in accordance with the law are courts, commissions and other duly appointed government entities, none of which are regulated under HIPPA. Further, that HCP's are not qulified nor trained in legal protections afforded to citizens, making them ill suited to perform this task.

 

[rebel-son]

Yeah, People just will be afraid to seek help. We are supposed to have a right of innocence until proven guilty. I know it sucks but you really cant do anything until someone does something, makes a threat to do it or something like that.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Where is that quote in the original post from?

 

[spamby]

Sane or insane it doesn't matter. The government is gonna try anything to get your guns. And since none of your rights mean anything to them anyway, taking them away will be as easy as some doctor signing the paperwork. Truthfully or fraudulently.

 

[Dale00]

Where is that quote in the original post from?

An e-mail alert to GOA members

 

[Cinaet]

The bad news is that 165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.

As far as I know PTSD hasn't been used to deny 2A yet. If this is true I wonder how PTSD will be handled.

 

[UnSafe]

This is concerning, but I'd like to see better detail or references about the 165k military that have already lost firearms rights.

A medical concern- Threaten anyone with the loss of privacy or adequate care for whatever condition or illness they might have and guess what? They'll avoid treatment and may have a worse outcome. That's similar to the situations that resulted in EMTALA act and anti- (patient) dumping legislation/ COBRA laws.
In addition, states have enacted protection rules so addicts in a medical crisis (like a fellow junkie OD'ing on your couch) can call for help without fearing prosecution for all the junk laying around or being high themselves. IIRC, the daughter of a notable singer used this recently in NYC. Don't recall the name.

The point is to prevent illness, injury or loss of life, related to fear of privacy compromise by healthcare providers.

 

[DFarcher]

What is the answer? A Mantra in the gun rights world after one of these tragic events like Sandy Hook is "Guns are not the problem people are" or something similar. I have seen threads attacking a law enforcement agency for sugesting we report our neighbors if they make statements sugesting they might twist off. Now all of this information about mental health reporting. I agree this is a VERY slippery slope! As someone above mentioned I would like to know exactly what is happening with reporting from the VA. The VAST majority of vets that need some counseling for PTSD or whatever are solid and should NEVER be denied the right to own or carry fire arms. But there are exceptions, I have first hand experience and could give examples. Who exactly makes the decision? We need to make sure we error on the side of ownership whatever is done. Sandy Hook and other events get the publicity but are statisically not even relevent when you look at gun violence in our country. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, a Vast majority of the rest are related to illegal activities which almost always involve drugs. Stop the crap at the borders, lock up for life or execute meth dealers and other drug makers and distributors. That would solve most all of the gun violence problems in the US.

 

[Glocktogo]

What is the answer? A Mantra in the gun rights world after one of these tragic events like Sandy Hook is "Guns are not the problem people are" or something similar. I have seen threads attacking a law enforcement agency for sugesting we report our neighbors if they make statements sugesting they might twist off. Now all of this information about mental health reporting. I agree this is a VERY slippery slope! As someone above mentioned I would like to know exactly what is happening with reporting from the VA. The VAST majority of vets that need some counseling for PTSD or whatever are solid and should NEVER be denied the right to own or carry fire arms. But there are exceptions, I have first hand experience and could give examples. Who exactly makes the decision? We need to make sure we error on the side of ownership whatever is done. Sandy Hook and other events get the publicity but are statisically not even relevent when you look at gun violence in our country. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, a Vast majority of the rest are related to illegal activities which almost always involve drugs. Stop the crap at the borders, lock up for life or execute meth dealers and other drug makers and distributors. That would solve most all of the gun violence problems in the US.

The "answer" is to follow the laws as they're currently written, and for the federal government to fund the reporting of mental adjudications from the courts to NICS. It really is that simple, but that wouldn't allow those with an agenda to cry wolf.