The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
I don't see anything objectionable.
In fact, I don't see that it changes much from the way things are currently.
(In Pennsylvania at least)
If anything, it seems to ease a few things.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
621 Posts
NA_Wreckdiver said:
I don't see anything objectionable.
In fact, I don't see that it changes much from the way things are currently.
(In Pennsylvania at least)
If anything, it seems to ease a few things.
Then you are not reading this with open eyes.

I encourage everyone to read full text of the Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013. I vote not according to party affiliation but if the person, no matter what office he/she is running for, is in favor of protecting the rights of traditional families, protecting the rights of the unborn, protecting our civil liberties, defends the Constitution including out 2nd Amendment Rights. I voted for Pat Toomey last time. I WILL NOT DO THAT EVER AGAIN.

So this is saying they will violate HIPPA, just like the state of NY: 4) There are deficits in the background check system in existence prior to the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.

This is basically saying that friends, neighbors, co-workers or anyone in general has the right to turn you the gun owner/purchaser/seller in if they suspect you have purchased, sold, acquired or own a gun illegally. (5) Congress and the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership, dangerous criminals and the seriously mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms; therefore, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
If you don't see a problem with the below you can't see.

SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM <span style="font-weight: bold">IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.</span>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
621 Posts
John S said:
If you don't see a problem with the below you can't see.

SEC. 117. CLARIFICATION THAT SUBMISSION OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
My point exactly. We were "sold" on the idea of HIPPA as a privacy act. Even our spouses cannot access our medical records unless we authorize them through HIPPA but the Fed can.

Who is to say that when it all comes down that the background check will not include your spouse or children that might be mentally unfit. If you read my thread on New York taking guns from the mentally ill you will see that they have already accessed medical records and are going after ANYONE who has taken SSRI medication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Hmm, so all the posts made right after Newtown by most of those posting saying mental health was the primary issue... changed their minds???

That as point of beginning for this discussion. Not a slight or slam on anyone. But - we can go back and look at all the posts here on this site about that very issue.

So I have to ask. What is the solution? The overwhelming conclusion by most after the shooting up there and before in other events was it was the mental issues being more to blame than the person or weapon.

I was and still am in agreement with that. Just as I agree the violent video games desensitize all playing them to violence and the ability to shoot another human.

And before any one takes issue with the above statement - think about the reason the US military and all LE do not use circular targets on weapons ranges opting instead for half silhouettes...


So if most posting after the Newtown shootings and others, posted and felt that mental issues had to be addressed as part of the solution to prevent more such shootings, but now have issues with an attempt to resolve those issues -


What is the solution to THAT problem?

There is already federal law mandating the reporting of that information. Even before HIPPA - it wasn't being done. Just as reporting felons and others not eligible for lawful gun ownership was not being reported.

Yet we say, enforce the current laws before passing new ones.


Guys and gals - we can have this one way or another. But not both. True, both sides of the coin have similar issues, but what we have now wasn't being enforced, and had been compromised by the health law privacy act.

So what is the answer to this particular part of the background check issue currently - or if this amendment becomes law?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
No Stan, the current law was not compromised by Hippa, Dr's have a legal obligation to notify authorities if a person is a danger to themselves or others,even with HIPA. It was not being done for fear of law suits. This current proposal is frightening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
John S said:
No Stan, the current law was not compromised by Hippa, Dr's have a legal obligation to notify authorities if a person is a danger to themselves or others,even with HIPA. It was not being done for fear of law suits. This current proposal is frightening.
This is why I am not understanding your prior post.
The current law requires the reporting. It was not being done, and HIPPA was being cited as the reason.
The only thing I have seen that this "amendment" does is specifically state that HIPPA does not prevent the reporting for this purpose.

So... why is this "current proposal" frightening?

I am a gun guy, who jealously guards my rights. I agree with you more often than not, John.
But I don't see anything objectionable here other than the fact that it is another "New law".

Comparing to what we have in PA now, the prohibitions (mental) that are supposed to be in place now...
This law seems to loosen some things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,060 Posts
There is a reason why most doctors these days ask...."Do you feel like doing harm to yourself or anyone else?"

A bit more of a direct approach than the old doctors who found out what they wanted to know through casual conversation. The sad part is now you have to treat a doctor same as you would someone in law enforcement and think about every word spoken before you speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
I suppose the thing that makes me most suspicious is the support from the anti-gun side.

I THINK that maybe the support is because "something" is now up for discussion. I THINK they are hoping to attach all their draconian amendments to it, even though they openly admit the prospects of success with those additions are slim... (without something, the prospects are ZERO).

What is in this proposal, I am failing to see an issue with.
What they may do to modify this proposal, causes me GREAT CONCERN.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Wreck diver, in the past the government could not poke around in medical records. I read the language as saying the government can if it wants to, order all medical records to be produced, not simply a statement from a Dr saying an individual isn't mentally capable to own a gun. The people who are in the Obama administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth if the truth was the best answer and congress is becoming more and more left leaning in order to get re-elected. You may trust them to do right, I do not.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
Though I agree with many of John’s concerns about not trusting our current government I still have to ask what is the answer then.

Should everyone just continue to turn a blind eye toward the lunatics that we all know shouldn’t have access to firearms but do?

I don’t know the answers to the questions being asked but I have to stand by the fact that some people with mental and/or drug issues should not be eligible to buy or have possession of firearms. How we reach that objective seems to be the real challenge we all face yet I don’t hear anyone in opposition to the current legislations offering any better alternatives.

Society, including most of us gun owners; know that mentally unstable people shouldn’t; have firearms. Society has always demanded solutions from the government once they have identified or even perceived a problem. That hasn’t and isn’t going to change. We as gun owners have to either work toward helping to find better solutions to those problems or we are going to be stuck with the solutions we aren’t at all in favor of in the future.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
Curly Maple said:
I don't think people turn a blind eye to the lunitics. It's just that too many hands are tied dealing with them.
Isn’t that what the current legislation, which so many appear to stand opposed to, is intended to address?

We can’t have it both ways. Society will no longer allow it. As I see it we allow greater restrictions on the mentally unstable people in our society or we are going to have to face even bigger gun restrictions in the future.

The big problem I see is in who gets to make the determination of what mentally unstable really is and at what level does it become a threat to society.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,060 Posts
The big problem I see is in who gets to make the determination of what mentally unstable really is and at what level does it become a threat to society.
YUP!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Dick, governmemt continues to ignor and selectively enforce the gun laws we have now, why would anyone support expanding their power over us when it is us who is supposed to have power over them and that is the main reason they gleefully rub their hands ever time there is a tradgey with firearms involved. It gives them another incremental take over of our rights. We have enough laws now, just enforce the things.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
John S said:
Dick, governmemt continues to ignor and selectively enforce the gun laws we have now, why would anyone support expanding their power over us when it is us who is supposed to have power over them and that is the main reason they gleefully rub their hands ever time there is a tradgey with firearms involved. It gives them another incremental take over of our rights. We have enough laws now, just enforce the things.
Though I agree in principle we also have to recognize that we as gun owners are not the only members of society and thus have to work to suitable compromise with the multitudes that stand opposed to our views.

If we fail to do that we will see the day we are not taken seriously and viewed as just another bunch of fringe radicals. When that day arrives we will have lost all that we hold great value to.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
I do not believe we compromise on rights. Should we compromise on the 1st amendment and not speak against what our government is doing when they go astray or just because we disagree? Should we compromise on the 5th amendment because it would make it easier to prosecute criminals? Some hills are worth dying on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Maybe we need to take the offense instead of playing defense.

So, it seems MOST of those strongly opposed to this "bill", "amendment", whatever...
are opposed in principle, "that it is one more restriction", not necessarily what it attempts to do.

So... what if you give them that, it actually seems to relax some things in Pennsylvania.
(though state law can make things stricter, so nothing may change)

Then, like the recent decisions of Heller vs. DC, the words of this bill, the NEW "tightening" this bill creates...
go after further expansion of rights. Get things like suppressors removed from NFA on the basis of "hearing health" and
"environmentally friendly" (noise pollution), and the fact that they do nothing to increase crime.

Just keep going after them. Turn the tables, use their tactics against them.
The NRA should wage a LOW KEY publicity campaign promoting our position.
It's strategically better to promote a position, than to defend one.
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top