Quote:
|
had a clause that required gun purchasers to waive their privacy rights under HIPAA
|
Spats, you are essentially correct, but it's "
has a clause..", not "had".
That law, defeated several times in the state legislature was passed by voter initiative, due to a heavy ad campaign aimed at the metro Seattle area, repeatedly claiming the law was needed to keep gun out of the hands of domestic abusers, (a lie) and not really mentioning anything else in it. ONLY the 5 counties in the I-5 corridor passed it, the rest of the state voted it down, but those 5 counties had enough voters passing it to make it the law for the entire state.
That law contains nearly the entire anti-gun wish list, short of an actual ban.
Part of it went into effect Jan1 2019, the rest July 1 2019.
The part you are referring to are sections that REQUIRE a number of things most people would find objectionable, but were never informed of, before voting.
APPLYING to purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle (and due to the law, that is now the legal term for ALL semiautomatic rifles in WA) means the applicant is waiving their medical privacy rights. And, not just that but also that medical professionals (not just Doctors)
must supply that information to the police (or an as yet un-named agency) not only to conduct the initial review to determine if you are eligible to purchase said weapon, but ALSO to "periodically review" your eligible status after you have made your purchase, and no limit is given so, one must assume you will be checked, "periodically" from the time you purchase the gun until the end of your life!!
(and there is no doubt in my mind, if the law stands, that a couple years after you die, the periodic review will find you no longer eligible, and the weapon will have to be surrendered...
)
It is currently the law in WA, though facing several court challenges due to MULTIPLE sections we believe violate not only our rights, but also basic common sense. But, until the courts rule, it is the law, so "has", not "had" is the proper term.
As to the Doctor approval thing in France, ok, I spoke with an Italian fellow some years back, and Doctor approval is needed there, too. It might be a common European thing, I don't know. The intent is that they have some level of "professional" stating you are of sound, stable mind, before you can purchase a firearm.
We've done our own variant of that for generations, in some places. Much more limited, of course, but essentially the same idea. Getting a pistol permit in places that require "character references" or language in the law stating one must be "of good moral character" (determined by the issuing authority) has been going on here since the creation of the permit system, and is going on today.
In the broadest sense, the entire background check requirement is the same thing. All that differs is the degree.
The WA law is the only one I know of that has the features of applying for purchase = granting permission to access your medical records (all of them I assume) AND requires medical professionals (which includes councilors and therapists, not just doctors) to supply those records. AND includes having your records "periodically" reviewed, to determine if you are still authorized to possess a semiautomatic assault rifle...
Don't think it can't happen here, it has been, and is happening here. In the general press, something that is misleadingly reported on, if it is reported on at all (and it usually isn't) and the only people who know about the law are those who are directly affected by it, and not a lot of them, until they actually hit one of the legal barriers.