CO HB 1306

[Ronin13]

And my fear is what happens when they declare PTSD to be on the list of mental health "issues" barring one from owning/possessing firearms. Thanks to HIPPA they can't go rooting through the files at the VA, but I'm sure if this passed they'd find a way to get a list of names of individuals diagnosed. Just another step on the path. Maybe we can really push back now? I'm stretching out my fingers to start typing some emails to our state legislature.

[Dave_L]

Thanks to HIPPA they can't go rooting through the files at the VA.

LOL...yeah, they'd never violate the HIPPA law. The general public will welcome that with open arms if it gets firearms out of the hands of the "unstable". They were already found to be sharing info with DHS for CCW holders. That's illegal too.

[Hound]

I think this is just a precursor to what comes next year. They want a commitee to tell them what they can get away with. I had to read it a couple of time to figure out what angle they were going for with this. I think they want to know if they went too far this time or is it a free-for-all next year. We need to be at those 'public' meetings which will hopefully be more public than the senate hearings.

[Ronin13]

LOL...yeah, they'd never violate the HIPPA law. The general public will welcome that with open arms if it gets firearms out of the hands of the "unstable". They were already found to be sharing info with DHS for CCW holders. That's illegal too.

Missed my "but..." in that quote... By law HIPPA protects my privacy, in action, well we all know they don't give a shit about what's legal and whats not.

Um... Where is the Judical review/process we are all guaranteed under the constitution? This sets up a panel that is not elected, has NO judicial oversite I can see and it is not clear what they can impose or how it can be overturned? I believe they call this a Kangaroo court? Did I miss something?

You missed nothing, you are correct... Give them an inch... Goddamn democrats! And here people are bitching about Conservatives trying to restrict peoples' rights? I find this to be more egregious than some Republicans saying "You shouldn't have abortions." Excuse me while I go edit the Wikipedia page for "Hypocrite" to include Demo-nazis.

[Hound]

You missed nothing, you are correct...

Ronin: Actually I think I did. That is why I retracted my previous post. They are actuallly asking the question we told them to. "What can we do on the mental health side?" That always starts with a commitee. I am not saying this is a small issue but it is not as sinister as it first reads (yet). We need to get in there and not let the anti-gun crowd control the discussion or this years round of Bills will be the Good-Ol-Times.

[Ronin13]

Ronin: Actually I think I did. That is why I retracted my previous post. They are actuallly asking the question we told them to. "What can we do on the mental health side?" That always starts with a commitee. I am not saying this is a small issue but it is not as sinister as it first reads (yet). We need to get in there and not let the anti-gun crowd control the discussion or this years round of Bills will be the Good-Ol-Times.

Oh indeed... I was commenting that usually when you put Democrats in charge of something, objectivity and impartiality go out the window. Something tells me that they won't allow for an impartial, removed, and emotionally dispassionate group to aid in determinations. And if they do in fact allow for sound and unbiased determinations, who decides what is "potentially dangerous" in terms of diagnoses? I see this as a very slippery slope, especially with the inclusion of "alcohol abuse." By some definitions, drinking more than one night a week would be considered abusive behavior.

[Hound]

Oh indeed... I was commenting that usually when you put Democrats in charge of something, objectivity and impartiality go out the window. Something tells me that they won't allow for an impartial, removed, and emotionally dispassionate group to aid in determinations. And if they do in fact allow for sound and unbiased determinations, who decides what is "potentially dangerous" in terms of diagnoses? I see this as a very slippery slope, especially with the inclusion of "alcohol abuse." By some definitions, drinking more than one night a week would be considered abusive behavior.

After the debachal of the last year from the left, who in there right mind would argue except to say I think both sides have proven (really not a big fan of the Bush years either), in spades, that old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutly"