View Single Post
Old January 1, 2020, 11:59 PM   #54
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,988
We won't know, for background check purposes, who is mentally ill as long as the HIPAA makes it an individual doctor's call whether or not to involve authorities and the law doesn't require that doctor to also inform the FBI to include that person's name in firearm purchase background checks. Currently, I believe it is only those who have been adjudicated mentally ill who can be found in NICS records for background check purposes, and then only if the local authorities got around to reporting it.
We have a bit of a can of worms here, because a Doctor's opinion does not deprive one of Constitutional rights. Only a court hearing, with full due process does that. So, while a doctor's report that they consider you a danger may start the process, it does not, and SHOULD not put you on the prohibited list, simply on their say so.

This is the claimed reasoning behind the push for "red flag" laws, so that one may be "legally" deprived of your property (and your rights) UNTIL a court hearing.

The HIPPA law further complicates matters.

I hold the opinion that we should not create "red flag" laws with their huge potential for abuse, but that if an individual is deemed a risk, they should be put through the existing system with full due process. If that isn't "fast" enough to make people feel safe, then they should put the money into expanding the existing system so it can handle the workload in a timely enough manner to meet public approval.

In other words, I think its wrong to create more laws and restrict rights because people are too cheap to spend enough money on the existing system to have it work properly.

And that's a big part of the problem, because given the choice, people will almost always choose the cheap way, over the best way...
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Page generated in 0.03013 seconds with 8 queries