jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
per federal law,
people who suffer mental conditions which manifest in violent outbursts that can be a danger to themselves or the public CANNOT PURCHASE A FUCKING GUN.
Jlf, the passage of a law by Congress does not make that law automatically Constitutional. It has to be tested before the Court. I just don't think mandatory reporting of medical diagnosis and records would meet the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
quote:
Yet anti gun groups feel that fact should be published in local newspapers, as evidenced by a full page ad taken out in local papers in New York state.
Anti-gun groups are not government agencies. You have no Constitutional protection against their behavior. Same for the ACLU. Same for political parties re David Duke.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed in 2003.
The law requires that the following measures be taken to protect patient privacy:
Individuals must have access to their records.
Individuals can require that errors in their records be corrected.
Disclosure of medical information is allowed without the patient's permission as needed to facilitate treatment, billing and payment and other related operations; all other disclosures require the written permission of the patient.
Providers must track all disclosures of patient information and inform the patient of any use of that information.
Providers must make reasonable efforts to keep communications regarding patient information confidential.
I wonder if Obama's Executive Order would pass a Constitutional test.
Man are you ever clueless.
The restriction was part of the Gun Control Act of 1968!
In other words, it has been on the books for forty eight years.
quote:
it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Then the bill was enhanced by the passage of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which made back ground checks MANDATORY.
quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Now the Brady bill has stood up to every Supreme Court challenge, including two cases where mental illness and condition were part of the case.
In point of fact, Seung-Hui Cho was committed on a court order, adjudicated as Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," which under both Federal and Virginia state law, would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm, the firearms he use in the Virginia Tech shooting.
However, the information was not entered into the national database that is used for back ground checks, even though it was entered into the state database.
Now, since the law has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, and all states require that information be placed in STATE (key word here) records, there is no place where it is mandatory for that information to be placed into the information data base used in back ground checks.
Furthermore, it is a STANDARD requirement, in every state that any person being treated for a mental illness or condition in which they may be a danger to themselves or others be placed in a mental health facility for at least a 72 hour observational hold.
In fact, mental health professionals who do not follow this practice have been successfully sued by surviving family members if the patient goes on to hurt themselves or others in the family.
So now here are the problems with your argument.
The law has stood supreme court test, and thanks to incidents like Virginia Tech and others, proven to be a necessary part of life in a country where firearms can be legally purchased, YET people like you still insist that even though the law is sound and necessary, and the very tools that would make it damn near impossible for these individuals to purchase a firearm are in place, you refuse to make it mandatory for such information to be placed on the database....
EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE BY THE PUBLIC THROUGH A SEARCH OF HOSPITAL OR COURT RECORDS BY SUPREME COURT RULING.
What makes the who thing complete stupid is that even though the anti gun and more gun regulation lobby praised the Brady Bill as a step in the right direction, you turn around and with equal fervor and tenacity fight every possible way to make the damn thing work the way it is supposed to.
The best analogy is this:
Your house is on fire, but the only access to the fire hydrant for the fire department to use to put out that fire is through your late mother's rose garden and you refuse to allow them to destroy the roses so they can put out the fire.
Then you bitch because your house burned to the ground.
It makes no logical sense that anti gun and gun regulation lobbyists support a bill that could have prevented a number of people from getting the very guns they used in mass shootings, and instead scream that guns should be banned or further restricted.
As for the HEPA law, did you catch the part where information concerning mental conditions that may pose a danger to the patient or others is legally allowed to be disclosed to the necessary authorities??????
In fact, in the very law you are so quick to throw up as an excuse to prevent the information from being turned over, it is in fact, mandatory to do so.
What is not mandatory is the part where after the information is turned over to the proper authorities, that it be placed into the database used for background checks, nor is it mandatory if a person signs themselves in for treatment for suicidal depression or anger issues resulting in violence, and then signing themselves out.
Now, I am going to ask you a simple, straight forward question.
You have a neighbor who is known in YOUR neighborhood for violent outbursts, threatening other neighbors, neighbors children or even you and your children. In today's United States, where guns are legal to purchase, as in RIGHT NOW, TODAY, IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, and that person ends up committed for 3 days or more for some violent outburst, diagnosed with a mental condition that left untreated will not change.
Would YOU want that information available to the owner or employee selling guns and running a background check on that individual to be able to access that information so they would not sell a gun to that neighbor?
Because every time liberals and the anti gun idiots stop that from happening they are putting themselves and every other person at risk.
So, are you willing to bet your life, and the life of your family that a person who, under the law, is prohibited from purchasing a gun, to buy a gun on the grounds that their mental health is a right to privacy even though it poses a danger to you and everyone else and by law has to be reported, just not put on the database used for back ground checks?
Because, until the second amendment is removed by congress and ratification of the states, that is EXACTLY what you people are doing AND in that case, if you happen to be downrange of the next mass shooter who bought a gun because that information was not available to the dealer on a back ground check, you people deserve what you get.
So, in this case, please enjoy the cake.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: AND WHY ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread