TexasCHLforum.com

Rex B wrote:

EconDoc wrote:With respect to #14, directing the CDC to "research" the causes of gun violence, I think that it quite safe to say that they will be secretly ordered to turn our some antigun results using cherry-picked data. They will be told what results to report before they even begin the research process.

CDC was asked to determine if AWB 1.0 worked. They reported back that it had no effect at all

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a problem with being "able" to do it this way. In fact, if I was selling to someone I didn't know, I might want to do it this way, not only so that I didn't sell a gun to a criminal or psycho, but for my own protection as well. However, making it a legal requirement would be a joke, since anyone with criminal intent isn't going to follow the law anyway.

What I object to is being forced into a situation where I have to pay a fee to an FFL in order to transact a FTF transaction. If FFLs were willing to offer this as a "free service" for the good of the gun-owing community, I would have less problem with it; but I have no reasonable expectation that any FFL would be willing to do this for free, nor do I think they should be required to do this for free. Processing my transaction costs them money. They should NOT have to do that for free. But then, neither should I be required to use an FFL's service unless I am buying a gun from his inventory.

Further, it is possible that one might own more than one firearm which was acquired quite lawfully in FTF transactions in which no paperwork was involved. IF I had ever participated in any such transactions, I would very much prefer those transactions to remain "off the books" for the primary reason that the less the government knows about me, the happier I am, particularly when it comes to any firearms I might own. The thing is, I KNOW THAT I AM A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. I don't believe that I should be required to PROVE it every time I want to make a private purchase. AND, as we all know because we repeat it over and over again, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals will continue to obtain guns the same way they always have—illegally and off the books.

As far as answering my doctor's questions, I'm simply going to refuse to discuss it. If asked why, I'll answer that it's because once the information you collect here leaves this office, you no longer have control over it or who gets it or what is done with it, and neither do I. I have privacy expectations, even if you and Adolf Obama don't.

When I had my identity stolen several years ago, I was informed by police that it likely happened through my health insurance company at the time. Including my gun ownership in my healthcare data is an open invitation to someone who wants to steal guns to use my address information to break into my house and take them. It will be the same story as what happened in NY when a burglar used the addresses released by that commie rag to break into a home that was listed on the published map and stole his guns.

If they want to keep guns from being stolen, then they need to respect our privacy.

The number of mental diseases identified in the manual has risen from 100 to 300 in the last 15 years. That translated to a virtual epidemic of madness sweeping the country. Only a decade ago, psychiatrists said one in 10 Americans had a mental illness. Now according to the manual, half the population is mentally ill.

Does your 10-year-old dislike doing her homework? Better get her to the nearest couch because she’s got "Developmental Arithmetic Disorder" (billing code 315.4). Maybe you’re a teenager who argues with his parents. Uh-oh. Better get some medication pronto because you’ve got "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (billing code 313.8). And if your wife won’t tell you that she snuck out to the outlet mall last Saturday, then she’s definitely got "Selective Mutism" (billing code 313.2).

3dfxMM wrote:

RX8er wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

Unless they make it part of the CHL law that I have to disclose this to my doctor, they have nothing to stand on to take my gun or charge with perjury. Who hasn't "lied" to their doctor before.

Also, having a CHL is not proof that you have a gun.

RX8er wrote:

SewTexas wrote:when did I "swear" to tell the truth to the doctor under penalty of perjury? he/she isn't an agent of the court. until they change the paperwork I and my kids can and will say "no" if and when asked if there are guns in the home.

I must have been typing when you hit reply.

RX8er wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

Unless they make it part of the CHL law that I have to disclose this to my doctor, they have nothing to stand on to take my gun or charge with perjury. Who hasn't "lied" to their doctor before.

SewTexas wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Someone on another forum pointed out something I missed.....the key here is "information" and its use and exchange at all levels of government and throughout the medical system. You have a CHL? Then you can't lie to the doctor, because if you do, it will be caught in a cross-check, and you'll be prosecuted for perjury, and they'll take your guns. Of course, this isn't going to happen instantly, but that's the objective. Obamacare was the foot in the door. It's really a pretty smart plan to use it as the vehicle for creating the kind of all encompassing data base they want. Any man on here with kids, whose wife doesn't understand the ramifications of a doctor's questions about guns (or is an anti), is hosed.

when did I "swear" to tell the truth to the doctor under penalty of perjury? he/she isn't an agent of the court. until they change the paperwork I and my kids can and will say "no" if and when asked if there are guns in the home.

Mike1951 wrote:Just received the letter from BATFE regarding transfers between individuals.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
I agree, however, you have children, right? Are you present 100% of the time when they are with the doctor? Do they go to a public school --cause you can bet teachers will be asking these kinds of questions too. They will work through the children. Grown kids? Then how about grandchildren......I guarantee they'll be asking if grandpa has guns in the home. Nieces, newphews? What about Auntie Mamabear, does she have guns? And in this kind of a rat fink society being created here, your anti-gun neighbor will be asking their pediatrician what can be done about those nutty gun owners next door who let their children use guns....you know, they're afraid of what those evil little right-wingers might do, or that one of those guns next door might get loose. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Pelosibama, tell me the name and address of those obviously dangerous neighbors and I'll make sure it gets in their records.

As long as I am paying for the medical bills and they are under 18 either I or my husband will be in the room.

My kids do not go to public indoctrination centers. I am responsible for their education.

As for grand kids.....well...my eldest is 7 we will cross that bridge when we get there.

Yes this is turning into a rat fink society, but we are not there yet.

mamabearCali wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
I agree, however, you have children, right? Are you present 100% of the time when they are with the doctor? Do they go to a public school --cause you can bet teachers will be asking these kinds of questions too. They will work through the children. Grown kids? Then how about grandchildren......I guarantee they'll be asking if grandpa has guns in the home. Nieces, newphews? What about Auntie Mamabear, does she have guns? And in this kind of a rat fink society being created here, your anti-gun neighbor will be asking their pediatrician what can be done about those nutty gun owners next door who let their children use guns....you know, they're afraid of what those evil little right-wingers might do, or that one of those guns next door might get loose. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Pelosibama, tell me the name and address of those obviously dangerous neighbors and I'll make sure it gets in their records.

As long as I am paying for the medical bills and they are under 18 either I or my husband will be in the room.

My kids do not go to public indoctrination centers. I am responsible for their education.

As for grand kids.....well...my eldest is 7 we will cross that bridge when we get there.

Yes this is turning into a rat fink society, but we are not there yet.

mamabearCali wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

RottenApple wrote:FYI re #16 "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" from the Affordable Care Act itself:

"(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—[As added by section 10101(e)(2)]
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

So while it doesn't prohibit doctors from asking, 1) they cannot be required to and 2) (the way I read it) patients cannot be required to answer and/or answer truthfully.

If you refuse to answer you obviously have something to hide. And who hides information about gun ownership? Why, someone who is paranoid, since we all know the government is ultra pure goodness and would never do anything to you because you own guns. Calling someone paranoid is just another way of saying they're crazy, and if you're crazy, you can't own a gun.

Don't be squeamish. They are your doctor not a judge. It is called deception and if they have become agents of a corrupt gov't willing to step all over my constitutional rights then I have no problem with deception. Last I remembered one did not swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but he truth so help me God when one steps into a MD office.

OldCannon wrote:

stroo wrote:Other than 12,18 and 19, none of these would have prevented Newtown nor will prevent any future mass murder.

The EOs were not as bad as I was expecting.

This is just the first step.

RottenApple wrote:FYI re #16 "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" from the Affordable Care Act itself:

"(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—[As added by section 10101(e)(2)]
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

So while it doesn't prohibit doctors from asking, 1) they cannot be required to and 2) (the way I read it) patients cannot be required to answer and/or answer truthfully.

CC Italian wrote:The medical executive order! This is the one I worried about most. Obama is trying to make gun ownership a mental health issue. You can see where this could go from here! Categorising gun owners, reporting to insurence companies, reporting to employer. This is not good!

TexasCajun wrote:So nothing on actual proposed legislation??? I suspect that there's more to come. Most of this is just a lot of fluff that's probably designed to lull us into a false sense of security. Sort of a "See, the president is being reasonable" charade. My uncle always told me that if I don't trust someone, I need to watch BOTH of their hands.

mamabearCali wrote:A good bit of that is in the category of --enforce the laws on the books--. For all his huffing and puffing he share did not have much wind. Now some of this I am unfamiliar with, so I don't know what is happening on those levels. The medical stuff, I have no experience with. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

And NONE if this would have done a blessed thing to stop any of the mass murders in the recent past. It is more show little substance, but perhaps that is by the grace of God.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

v-rog wrote:I'm interested in seeing the "list" regarding EO #4

I had the same thought.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Who gets to decide what "dangerous" means? Are you dangerous if you call AR15s and AK47s "Militia Rifles" as I have been doing?

I'd like to know how #5 would affect a CHL holder whose gun has been seized pending the outcome of a self-defense shooting........or even a non-CHL but lawful gun owner. He had the background check when he bought the gun. He broke no laws between then and when he uses it in self-defense, and his self-defense was lawful, but he has to have another background check which can take weeks before he has his gun returned to him? And what if he owns more than one gun? Do they seize all his other guns pending a background check?

Sieg Heil, Mr. President.