David Pittman writing in Politico
* * * * *
Delivering on its promise to deliver "common sense" gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
* SO... ANY THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE OF "DOCTOR-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY" AND HOW THIS "RULE" IMPACTS THAT DOCTRINE?
The action was one of a series of steps that President Barack Obama had called for in January 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings to curb gun violence, but the rule was not published until today.
While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from sharing information without the consent of their patients.
* AND ON THE FACE OF IT THAT DOES SOUND... KINDA STUPID.
Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussions.
* WHY "CAN" AS OPPOSED TO "MUST?" SERIOUSLY... PONDER THAT...
* ANY THOUGHTS?
“The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and certain other information needed for NICS purposes,” the rule states. Disclosure of diagnostic or clinical information is prohibited.
* BUT... Er... IF THE DIAGNOSIS CAN'T BE VERIFIED...??? (GET THE POINT, FOLKS? GET THE QUESTION?)
Paul Gionfriddo, chief executive of the mental health rights advocate Mental Health America, said he believes the White House strikes the right balance between the need to have this information shared with the FBI’s background check system and protecting individuals’ privacy.
* WHO CARES? (SERIOUSLY... NOT SNARK; WHO THE HECK CARES WHAT PAUL GIONFRIDDO THINKS? I KNOW I DON'T!)
Current law allows HIPAA exclusions for law enforcement purposes, but it's a broad exclusion.
“That could be a barn door opened quite wide if an administration really wanted to open it, and they didn’t,” Gionfriddo said. “The administration has taken great pain to try to clarify that there is very limited information that would be reported only within a very limited group.”
* AGAIN... I "GET" THE REPORT THING; WHAT I'M NOT SEEING IS THE "VERIFICATION" THING. (IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF "JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER?" WELL...)
Since the Newtown shootings, the number of mental health records submitted to the FBI system has tripled to more than 3 million records, according to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group promoting an end to gun violence. The FBI system resulted in more than 6,000 denials of firearm purchases because of mental health criteria.
* NOW... BACK TO LAW... THE CONCEPT OF BASIC RIGHTS... AND THE CONSTITUTION:
* QUESTION: IF ONE IS JUDGED (BY GOVERNMENT EDICT) "MENTALLY INCOMPETENT" TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION...
* WHAT OTHER RIGHTS CAN THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY TAKE AWAY ABSENT TRIAL AND CONVICTION?
* FOLKS... THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE READING; THINK ABOUT WHAT I'M ASKING!
* YOU KNOW HOW YOU WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL (HIGH SCHOOL) THAT "DRIVING IS A RESPONSIBILITY, NOT A RIGHT?" WELL... THEY WERE TALKING IN A LEGAL SENSE... A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. BUT, FOLKS... THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. IT CAN'T BE JUST TAKEN AWAY ABSENT TRIAL AND CONVICTION! (OR... CAN IT BE? APPARENTLY OBAMA AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HIM IN THIS BELIEVE IT CAN BE.)
* FOLKS... I'M BEGGING YOU: APPLY THE "LOGIC" OF OBAMA'S POSITION ON THIS TO ANY AND ALL OTHER "RIGHTS" YOU HAVE... BOTH "NATURAL" RIGHTS AND EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (DO YOU SEE THE POINT I'M GETTING AT...?!?!)
* IF ONE IS DEEMED (LAYING ASIDE WHETHER GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO SIMPLY "DEEM" ABSENT TRIAL AND CONVICTION) MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO EXERCISE HIS OR HER SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS... SHOULDN'T THEIR FRANCHISE BE REVOKED? (LOGICALLY?) SHOULDN'T THEIR RIGHT TO CONTRACT BE REVOKED? (LOGICALLY?) AND ON AND ON AND ON...