Pro-Gun Clause Found in Obamacare

Apparently Harry Reid managed to sneak some pro-gun language into the Obamacare legislation. Here is what it reads:

Quote:

---

Gun Amendment in Health Care Law - Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c "PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS"

Government cannot collect: "...any information relating to -- (A) the lawful ownership of possession of a firearm or ammunition."

---

The fact this language is there has caused a bit of a stir as few people knew it existed and fewer thought a Democrat would be the one to insert the language.

Just FYI

Intriguing.

I call serious BS that its there and if it is that he put it there. I call this BS on the grounds of look at his state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

I call serious BS that its there and if it is that he put it there. I call this BS on the grounds of look at his state.

---

^^ I call BS 2... How about read the doc and site the location for us!

Oh ye of little faith . . .

Here ya go --> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...cnn?hpt=hp_bn4

Enjoy!

Edit to Add: For those calling BS, what is the penalty for egg on your face(s) ??

Here is from the gpo (USG printing office)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...PgS13490-2.pdf

page S13490 3rd column toward the bottom...

Quote:

---

‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENTGUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(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.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
of the authorities provided to the Secretary
under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act or an amendment made by that Act
shall be construed to authorize or may be
used for the collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA
BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to
the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records
of individual ownership or possession of a
firearm or ammunition

---

Basically, the fed cannot withheld healthcare to gunowners or collect their data to be used against them. Nevertheless, the keyword is 'lawful' possession. Soon that 'lawful' part means 10 round max!!!

I find that kinda funny, (not haha funny either) One of my employee's just went for his DOT physical and was asked these questions, He told them to piss off.

1. Do you own firearms?
2. How many firearms do you own?
3. How do you use your firearms?

When he asked WTF are you asking me these questions for their response was, it's required to ask by the insurance companies and the government.

I just about shit myself, he's an Iraq war vet and recieved a purple heart for being shot in the shoulder. And they have the nerve to question him like that.

I have read it, read the whole thing. All it says is that medical professionals cannot collect gun owners info and give it to the feds. This was brought up shortly after the obama care came out. Its not new news.

Do people not know how to use google anymore?

who said, “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
oh that's right...suck it Ms. Nancy Fancypants!

(it's way past my bedtime)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

I have read it, read the whole thing. All it says is that medical professionals cannot collect gun owners info and give it to the feds. This was brought up shortly after the obama care came out. Its not new news.

---

I disagree, to me, it says they can't require you to answer the questions to recieve health care. Because they ARE asking the questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Nevertheless, the keyword is 'lawful' possession. Soon that 'lawful' part means 10 round max!!!

---

Ah! This was my exact thought on the issue as well. What is lawful today may very well be a felony tomorrow.

1. "A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection", 2. " a lawfully". It would apear they have limited the scope and defined the activity with the first statement. Your loacal ATF Agent is not a wellness professional engaging in wellness. If the law changes firearms will not be lawfully owned or held. It would apear to this simple country boy that the "out" is wishfull thinking. Please remember the way the tyrannical group passed the legislation in question.