Obozo makes another push for gun control - your doctor

The guy carrying the AR in the mall doesn't scare me one bit,
the guy that half of American stupidity re-elected scares me,




Obozo has no qualms about going after peoples guns and the
rights of Americans, remember most of them thinking zippy
would never go after guns, well he hasn't stopped....

Now millions who 'may want" or "might like" some help with any kind
of psychological issue no matter how minor, or someone just ordered by a court in a divorce
case, maybe having nothing wrong, or being wrongfully accused will be in the NCIS
no gun data base.

Killing off the doctor patient confidentiality link. Now how many people will
NOT go to get help even if it's just to talk things out. How many liberal Dr's
will be getting into your life, asking your family members about guns so even if
you say no, if your kid or wife says yes, bam you could be on the list... Based
on medication you've been taking for years, happens to vets all the time..

LInk

See a shrink, lose your weapon
By Washington Times (DC) January 9, 2014 6:55 am

In a preternatural example of tone-deafness, an administration under fire for snooping into Americans' privacy is now proposing to waive federal privacy laws so psychiatrists can report their gun- owning patients to the government.
The Department of Health and Human Service's "notice of proposed rule-making," floated by the White House in a Friday media dump, would waive portions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to allow psychiatrists to report their patients to the FBI's gun-ban blacklist (the NICS system) on the basis of confidential communications.

The 1968 Gun Control Act bans guns for anyone who is "adjudicated as a mental defective or ... committed to a mental institution." Unfortunately, under 2008 NICS Improvement Act, drafted by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and its regulations, that "adjudication" can be made by any "other lawful authority." This means a diagnosis by a single psychiatrist in connection with a government program.

In the case of nearly 175,000 law-abiding veterans, the "lawful authority" has been a Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist, who, generally, will take away a veteran's guns by unilaterally declaring him incompetent and appointing a guardian over his financial affairs. Certainly, the findings can be appealed, but most veterans don't have the tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and psychiatrists to do so.

Although the problem hasn't yet been as apparent in other areas, police and firemen on Social Security disability for post-traumatic stress disorder, Medicare seniors with Alzheimer's, and people who as children were diagnosed under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder will ultimately face the same fate. Even a subsidized Obamacare policy might now make Americans participants in a federal program.

In fact, that process of expanding gun bans has now begun:

One gun owner in a virulently anti-gun state was placed on the gun-ban blacklist because many years ago, police, without the approval of any court, put him in a mental facility overnight. The facility found nothing wrong with him, but that didn't stop his state from recently turning him in to the FBI for a lifetime gun ban.

In another case, a gun owner in an anti-gun state lost his guns because of a prescription for a psychiatric drug.

Will imposing gun bans on Americans who seek counseling "keep us safe"?

Ask the 175,000 veterans who have lost their guns. Shortly before taking their constitutional rights away with no due process, the government had no problem issuing them fully automatic assault rifles and sending them out to patrol the streets of Baghdad and Kabul.

Rather, the real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans, even if the result is to discourage people from seeking counseling.

However, protests the Department of Health and Human Services, the psychiatrist isn't going to turn over his notes to the FBI - just an unsubstantiated finding that in his subjective opinion, for unexplained reasons, he finds his patient dangerous to himself or others. The danger only need be minimal under guidance issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the result of incompetence, and the psychiatrist is not allowed to say which. On the basis of this subjective, unexplained finding, the patient loses his constitutional rights.

Do you really think a hunter or gun owner feels somehow less violated when, as a result of sharing his deepest secrets in confidence, his name is turned over to government as either a dangerous or incompetent person and - as has happened - a SWAT team is sent to his house to seize his guns?

Furthermore, there is the practical problem that both the Constitution and the Brady Law give Americans a right to contest a gun ban. How is that even possible under this subjective, no-due- process system? The gun owner can pay for a second opinion and enter that psychiatrist's notes on the record. Practically speaking, though, in order to exercise these constitutional and statutory appeals rights, the gun owner is going to have to waive his confidentiality.

The practical choice is this: Either forfeit your privacy or forfeit your guns.

Combine this with the fact that in some parts of the country, efforts are being made to coerce psychiatrists to report patients whom they suspect could pose a problem, and it's clear where this is going: The "safe" course of action, for psychiatrists, will be to report more of their patients to the government, rather than fewer.

Is it any wonder that both patients' advocates and gun owners warned the Department of Health and Human Services that its proposed actions would discourage treatment and endanger public safety? Of course, the exercise is not about public safety, but rather about President Obama's efforts to destroy what his allies call the "gun manufacturers' lobby."

The problem for him is that neither Congress nor the American people support his efforts.

Mr. Obama has taken away more than enough of our personal privacy by executive fiat. Congress, therefore, needs to approve an appropriations rider that will stop this partial repeal of HIPAA from being implemented.

Obummer will stop at nothing and I'm sure he has more tricks up his sleeve in the next 3 years. I just wished he could be impeached.

Marc55 is there no concealed carry permits allowed or issued in NJ

Jersey is tough, in fact IIRC hollow points are illegal, get caught with them go to jail, very strict rules on transport and registration, now if he has to go into the city to work, NYC is stopping him, they give carry to nobody outside of the state.

Get caught with a carry in NYC unapproved by the lords of the city and you go to jail.

Well for me there is no reason in the world to ever visit one of those states and would sure never live there or vote for Christi. I had my pistol with me when we went to Washington DC but kept it locked in a box with a pad lock while there.

You are lucky because if they caught you even with an unloaded pistol you'd be in jail...

DC laws are bad for gun owners, just recently opened up owning a gun in your home and starting on carry, lots of federal property so you have to watch your step, even on the mall...

Not that I agree, I dont

Notice that one of zippys judges smacked down Dom-Rom's no gun laws in Chicago, good they needed to be smacked down. next will be Noo Yawk City
cesspool of libtardia... Worse than California...

Nothing else I could do with it but keep it unloaded and in locked box inside a locked saddle bag until we left.

If he does he is finished

I simply do not like Christie because of the New Jersey gun laws.