Why waste resources doing background checks on everybody. Just require doctors, lawyers, police to enter names as they are determined ineligible.
4 Likes
Sure I can tell the difference. But it is still a illness. When the government puts a label an people and says who can and cannot purchase a firearm then there lies the problem. Again it is big government that we donât need.
4 Likes
I agree with you on that one, @William8!
1 Like
The problem isnât checks, itâs what they do about it. Standards vary, and provide an excuse for denial against anyone they fear. And people who make rules tend to fear everyone else. We should focus on the standards for disqualification (i.e., infringement of Second Amendment), not the background check itself.
For AdamJ up at the top of the list, the best way to deter violence is to confront it. Background checks only hide it.
1 Like
DES57 - Doctors and lawyers tend to follow liberal orthodoxy, wanting everyone disarmed but themselves and the cops. Cops tend to want everyone disarmed except cops. The real question isnât the check but the standards to determine ineligibility. Ineligibility is an infringement of Second Amendment rights, which does not guarantee the right to everyone except people they dislike. If psychosis is grounds for infringement, it should be made illegal, and all psychotics locked up. Otherwise itâs just an excuse to deny rights for people they dislike.
1 Like
Dawn, the problem with judging a personâs connection with reality, is itâs variable. Extreme cases are obvious, and should result in institutionalizing them, but weâre not allowed to do that any more, unless theyâve committed actual crimes or otherwise convinced a judge. So we decide we donât want them to have a gun, but okay to roam free with cars, knives, rocks, karate lessons, etc, all potentially lethal. Then there are a greater number of people with occasional or partial difficulties with reality. Where is the line, and who draws it? Denial of firearms is denial of Constitutional rights, and should not be done without judicial determination which includes mandatory treatment, not just withholding random weapons.
1 Like
Doctors can NOT do that as it would violate Federal HIPPA regulations.
1 Like
Do background checks work? Hmmm, letâs see. Do locks work? Sure, for honest people.
Rules and Laws work for law abiding citizens.
Personally, there are a lot of people who could pass a background check I would not want to have a firearm. Totally insane people can pass a psych evaluation. The law does what it can to weed out certain people, but it cannot weed them all out. There are rules in place for those elected to political office, but they still get in. Do I think we should continue to have background check? Absolutely!
2 Likes
Yes, background checks work ⊠sometimes. There is noting wrong with requiring a background check but, like locks on doors, it keeps honest people honest. But, they only work to the degree that the data accumulated is current and accurate. They cannot tell what is in someoneâs heart or mind and they will never stop the transfer of weapons to those who do not care about the law.
2 Likes
You know from a practical standpoint I agree.
The problem is, background checks are by definition a prior restraint on a specifically protected constitutional right.
We would not tolerate a similar requirement for the exercise of any other constitutional right.
Can you imagine the uproar if congress tried to pass a law requiring say a woman who wants to have an abortion first pass a mental health screening? keep in mind, there is no mention of abortion anywhere in our constitution but such a bill would almost certainly have millions marching in the streets, riots etc.
Anytime weâre willing to concede ground when it comes to gun rights all we get in return for being âreasonableâ is more demands from the anti gun left to further restrict our rights.
Now, if we passed a federal law that all gun owners pass a background check within 90-180 days following purchase that would accomplish just as much without infringing on our rights.
2 Likes
If by work you mean; Infringing on the second amendment and used as a tool by our governments to categorize and catalog what the people they are governing are doing.
Then YES it is working as intended.
Does it stop the mass amounts of crime or even slow it down by the numbers they are pulling out of their rectal orifice? I think not.
People have the ability to make numbers say whatever they want them to say (if we ever meet, I will show you how you have 11 digits between your two hands when over 95% of you will tell me there is only 10).
Can it be a factor in keeping a gun out of the hands of criminals? Yes it has that potential, but the harm it does to our rights far out ways the good it can potentially do.
Just my opinion (I should not have been required to read George Orwellâs â1984â in high school).
2 Likes
Thatâs true under current laws/regulations but weâre talking about changes so everything is up for grabs. Not that Iâm in favor of any of it, but if left wing politicians get their way, letâs apply the least costly method to you and I and the bureaucracy.
1 Like
Background checks are vital and used for concealed carry permit issue in Florida as well as gun purchase protocol.
If, God forbid, a self defense situation occurs, the concealed carry permit holder is at least a âknown/vettedâ personality.
Yes, the realities of post incident legal ramifications have to be navigated, including possible arrest .
Again, Florida rules.
That is why carry insurance , ideally USCCA, is a MUST.
BEST,
Patrick
1 Like
Great point, @John30. Iâm not advocating we/the government make that judgment. It needs to be backed up by medical documentation that can show the issues are that severe. And it needs to be reviewed periodically to ensure that itâs not being abused.
@DBrogue, in Wisconsin, doctors are allowed to notify authorities if there is a threat to self or others and it is not seen as a HIPPA violation as it is for the safety of the patient.
Is there a perfect way to address the issue of mental illness and firearms? Not at this point.
A family friend had schizophrenia and was hospitalized. He was well adjusted when he was on his medication. When he left the hospital, he stopped taking his medication. I wonât go into details, but he died within months of leaving the hospital. He didnât hurt anyone else as far as I know, but if he had a firearm would that have been different? I donât know. I do know that his death still haunts his family and cannot image how much worse it would be if he had hurt someone else because of his illness and inability to distinguish what his mind was creating from reality.
2 Likes
@Dawn
I agree they can and should
but, what I was talking about is doctors entering medical information into a database that people other than law enforcement could access. This is where HIPPA regulations get involved.
Trust me I know all about schizophrenia and the patents going off their meds. I am the one that found my brother after he used a firearm on himself. He had a full bottle of meds that he picked up over a week earlier and had not taken any.
This was over 28 years ago and I am convinced had he not has access to a firearm he would have found another way to end his life. I wont go into all the details here on why I am so sure but there were other things that helped me come to that conclusion.
I am not saying HIPPA regulations are right or wrong, but in this case it would not have changed anything.
2 Likes
Dawn is correct on this one. Not only can they, they are ethically and legally obligated to report those who show to be a clear danger to themselves and others.
Many wonât under the guise of HIPAA but in truth itâs a smoke screen.
A subject worthy of itâs own thread. We could combine it with âRed Flag Lawsâ.
1 Like
I agreed about notifying authorities, what I tried to clarify was doctors could not enter patient medical information into a data base which could be accessed by others who have no legitimate reason to have access to the information.
I have to sign new HIPPA waivers every so often so my wife (who has been an active licensed nurse for over 40 years) can be given information about me. I trust her opinion and advice over many health care professionals (she is very good at what she does).
I also work for a company which has to deal with HIPPA regulations in relationship to patent data stored in databases concerning cancer treatment. While looking at blind patient data is fine, as soon as that data is associated with a patients name is where the HIPPA laws come into play.
1 Like
Sorry, having a good chuckle here. Let me suggest an edit. âRe Signâ, not âresignâ. 
2 Likes
LOL Thanks
Fingers typing faster than brain is thinking.
2 Likes