The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 15, 2019, 02:21 AM   #126
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,837
Quote:
Either way, it really puts the doctor in a bind.
kinda does, doesn't it???

I wonder how Dr's who supported the initiative will feel when they learn that now, that law applies to them?

don't be overlooking the additional workload /cost the medical establishment will have to undertake to comply with this gun control law.

I'm sure that will make them happy, too!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 15, 2019, 03:16 PM   #127
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 793
Given their prior support for anything gun control related, I suspect the AMA won't really have a problem with it. Individual doctors, maybe not so much.
JN01 is offline  
Old July 20, 2019, 01:42 AM   #128
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,837
Update, another thing the 1639 law is doing;

We used to have private party face to face sale allowed in WA, but that changed with the passage of I-639, the background check law, which was also passed by initiative, passing only in the I-5 corridor counties. That law requires all "transfers" , with a handful of noted exceptions, to go through an FFL dealer, and background checks run. Used to be the Fed instant check only, and was done of all firearms. So, You want to sell a pistol to a buddy of 20+ years, you took him, you, and the pistol to an FFL dealer to make the transfer.

The new law, doesn't change anything if the gun is a manually operated rifle or shotgun, but if it is a semiautomatic assault rifle or a pistol, then a ten day (10 days, and we assume its business days) wait is now required.

10 day wait on "private sale" of pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles.

I'm quite sure there's more to follow...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 20, 2019, 08:39 AM   #129
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,454
What if they passed a law and nobody obeyed it? (Everybody, even those not affected by it, loses respect for the law in general) Politicians really should think about that before they pass stupid stuff.
Since this took the initiative path, I'm not sure how much control they had over it.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old July 20, 2019, 11:44 AM   #130
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,837
The people who wrote it and promoted it ARE politicians.
And they had complete control over what they wrote, and what they said, which were two very different things....

They just aren't elected representatives...or public officials...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 20, 2019, 02:14 PM   #131
Powermwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2000
Location: Selah, WA
Posts: 320
I have not tried to buy any firearm yet since the passage of 1639 but they may make the buyer sign a paper telling the doctor to release the records. No signature, no sale.

Found the form I was looking for:

https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001a.pdf

As far as 1639, if you look at the voting it is the greater Seattle area, the County adjacent to Portand, OR (Clark), Spokane and the county with WSU, next the the university in Moscow, ID (Whitman), that voted for 1639. The balance of the state had just the opposite voting... 60/40% against instead of 60/40% for. Population centers and liberal areas really skew the vote.

https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/..._ByCounty.html

Last edited by Powermwt; July 20, 2019 at 02:28 PM.
Powermwt is offline  
Old July 20, 2019, 06:15 PM   #132
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,379
Quote:
The balance of the state had just the opposite voting... 60/40% against instead of 60/40% for.
This is why the Electoral College is so important at the national level. Without it, the only people being represented in presidential elections will be a few states with the largest populations. The majority of the country (both in terms of states and in terms of land area) will not have a voice.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 21, 2019, 09:08 PM   #133
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,937
Yep, let the population centers rule everything and sooner or later you get a rural-peasant revolt.

Any more words on the HIPPA conflict?
raimius is offline  
Old Yesterday, 04:26 AM   #134
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,837
Quote:
Any more words on the HIPPA conflict?
I haven't heard anything but not being in doctors social circles I'm afraid I don't hear much on that side. I don't think the state is asking for the records, YET.

This did get me thinking, a bit, about HIPPA, and possible arguments.

The law states that by signing the application to purchase, you are giving them permission to access those records.

If you give your permission, then what grounds does the DR have to object??

Doesn't HIPPA cover allowing your records to be seen/used IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION??

So, isn't the issue here that the state, via the new law is REQUIRING you to give permission in order to purchase certain (at this time) firearms??

From the voter's pamphlet:
Quote:
Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows:
A signed application to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.

Sec. 8. RCW 9.41.097 and 2018 c 210 s 6005 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) The health care authority, mental health institutions and other health care facilities shall, upon request of a court, law enforcement agency or the state, supply such relevant information as is necessary to determine the eligibility of a person to possess a firearm or to be issued a concealed pistol license under RCW 9.41.070 or to purchase a pistol or semi automatic assault rifle under RCW 9.41.090
there is more, but for now look at sec 7 and sec 8, and note no court order is required, only a request, and it can be a request from the police alone...AND note in Sec 8 that it is not only to purchase certain arms but to POSSESS ANY FIREARM...

am I being an alarmist, or do you think this is a problem, as well??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM   #135
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
am I being an alarmist, or do you think this is a problem, as well??
I don't think you are being an alarmist. This is obviously an end run around the concept of doctor-patient confidentiality. The notion that citizens must agree to waive doctor-patient confidentiality in order to be allowed to engage in a constitutionally guaranteed right is (to borrow a phrase I've heard a constitutional attorney use) "chilling."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:17 PM   #136
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,837
I think it goes a bit beyond "chilling" and into the "illegal" category, but then, I'm not a lawyer or a gun control advocate.

Consider this, what is the legal required standard to suspend your firearms rights? And lets not get into the recent red flag crap at this point, ok?

Federal law requires "due process" a hearing, and you must be adjudicated incompetent. You (your attorneys) get to face your accuser (or at least, the court) and present your side of the case. Doctor notes, patient records, even Dr testimony can be part of the process but it requires a judge to make a ruling.
|
Seems to me that the state (in this case WA) using your medical records to determine if you are eligible to POSSESS a firearm (sec 8) AFTER the fact, and possibly at any/every future point in your life is deliberately evading established Federal law.

Doctors (especially in mental health fields) are not infallible. Their opinions are not Holy Writ. A bureaucrat looking at a Dr's notes and comparing them with statute requirements is not qualified to pass summary judgement on our rights, ANY of them.

We've already seen numerous mistakes and abuses and I think this law doesn't just open the floodgates, it removes the entire dam.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06351 seconds with 9 queries