RPB wrote:Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...baldeagle wrote:For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does anyone disagree with that?‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’
This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.
This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.
If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.
If so, I'm against it
how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?
seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.
I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.
How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??
Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.
actually it will fit within the Healthcare Insurance Portability Accountability Act just fine, nothing in the Hipaa disallows information to be given out for a legal reason to include to law enforcement authorities, healthcare professionals that have a need to know. and actually it doesn't apply to so many healthcare activities I really wish you wouldn't cite the HIPAA. read the thing before you try and cite something like this. Please don't take this as a personal attack, its not it is however coming from someone that is certified in the HIPAA as an administrator. I fight against this being cited all the time because its used incorrectly more often than not. The information being released may violate the Texas Health Care Information Privacy act but not HIPAA
