RE: firing your doctor over questions they ask.

[jerrymrc]

people are way too paranoid

Yes and no. Here is why. All medical records are now electronic and accessible by my employer. Once everything is in place it will be real easy to cross them into a query to pull that info. I will leave it at that.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Yes and no. Here is why. All medical records are now electronic and accessible by my government. Once everything is in place it will be real easy to cross them into a query to pull that info. I will leave it at that.

FIFY (unless that is your employer )

[jerrymrc]

FIFY (unless that is your employer )

I had it right the first time.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

I had it right the first time.

LOL I seen that..........

[Great-Kazoo]

people are way too paranoid

Yes and no. Here is why. All medical records are now electronic and accessible by my employer. Once everything is in place it will be real easy to cross them into a query to pull that info. I will leave it at that.

Ask Californians OR Ny'er (SAFE Act) It's allowed in NY to confiscate firearms IF a LE or person in the medical field BELIEVES you may be or pose a threat to other people.

While i do support removing people who show or present a danger to them self or others, from dangerous items.

My question / CONCERN is . With the medical profession , AMA etc, in favor of stricter gun laws. How does one prevent an over zealous person from reporting you?
The safe act is so vague, it bases confiscation upon said persons Perception of one with a gun.

My neighbor is a cop. We're in a rural area so shooting guns is ok, even the cop does it. One day you ask him (again) to keep his dogs off your property, or you'll contact animal control. Next thing you know mister casual neighbor feels as a gun owner, you possess a threat to the gen pop.
I don't believe it's a far fetched scenario and one that can, could happen anywhere. [TIN FOIL HAT OFF]

2013 article

California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. The program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, is being heralded as a model for the nation.

Individuals who legally purchased guns but are now disqualified are identified by analysts who match gun sales back to 1996 with databases listing criminal convictions, restraining orders and mental health detentions, UPI reports. Over the past five years, agents conducting twice-weekly sweeps have confiscated more than 10,000 guns.
However, there are still more than 19,700 individuals on the state's Armed Prohibited Persons list, and it would cost the state up to $50 million to hire more agents to catch up with the backlog, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...bear-arms.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...s-confiscated/

Such was recently the case for one woman, who had been in the hospital voluntarily for mental illness last year that she says was due to medication she was taking. Lynette Phillips of Upland, Calif., told TheBlaze in a phone interview Monday she had purchased a gun years ago for her husband, David, as a present. That gun, as well as two others registered to her law-abiding husband (who does not have a history of felonies or mental illness), were seized last Tuesday.
“My husband is upset that they took the right from us that should never have been taken, Phillips told TheBlaze.
But according to the state of California, that doesn’t matter.
“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm” regardless of who the registered owner is, Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office


http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/safe_act/

http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/mental-health-faq

The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

[tmckay2]

Yes and no. Here is why. All medical records are now electronic and accessible by my employer. Once everything is in place it will be real easy to cross them into a query to pull that info. I will leave it at that.

its a standard question to try to weed out mentally ill patients who also have guns. if you schizophrenic patient says yes to that question, its worth looking into. don't have mental illness? say no you don't have any guns. you aren't required by law to answer that question truthfully. the atf isn't going to come to your house and check if you were honest. they are hoping people with mental illness will accidentally disclose that they do in fact have guns, in which case intervention might be required. i have the government as much as everyone else, but this isn't a conspiracy to take everyone's guns. its a minor step taken to try to take guns from mentally incompetent people so mass shootings don't occur. don't like the question, just answer no. its simple.

[Great-Kazoo]

its a standard question to try to weed out mentally ill patients who also have guns. if you schizophrenic patient says yes to that question, its worth looking into. don't have mental illness? say no you don't have any guns. you aren't required by law to answer that question truthfully. the atf isn't going to come to your house and check if you were honest. they are hoping people with mental illness will accidentally disclose that they do in fact have guns, in which case intervention might be required. i have the government as much as everyone else, but this isn't a conspiracy to take everyone's guns. its a minor step taken to try to take guns from mentally incompetent people so mass shootings don't occur. don't like the question, just answer no. its simple.

The flip side is no medical folks are reporting over Hipa disclosure .