AMA Pushes 'Unprecedented' Gun Control Agenda As Congress Dithers

[the_doc]

AMA Pushes 'Unprecedented' Gun Control Agenda As Congress Dithers
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/05/27/ama-pushes-unprecedented-gun-control-agenda-as-congress-dithers/#5119e7a469ef

The AMA has long been dominated by progressives, especially at its higher levels.  This is one of the reasons why so many doctors are not members of the AMA.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
In this case the doctor has the legal authority to withdraw a persons 2A amend rights without due process.

You are making that up. 

  It seems you support that current process.

And you're making that up, too.   

[darroll]

Hatchets don't make any noise .... until they are used.

[skeeter]

Hatchets don't make any noise .... until they are used.

Excellent point. But the average medicine man doesn't belong to the AMA.

[driftdiver]

You are making that up. 

And you're making that up, too.   

@Jazzhead

No and no

[rustynail]

Went to my cardiologist a few months ago and filled out a form with his outfit. They wanted me to state whether there were guns in the house.  I skipped it.

Like that was a medical condition.

    Skipping is likely is counted as a yes.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

No and no

Under what circumstances can a doctor deprive an individual of his 2A rights on his own, without some sort of judicial or administrative proceeding where the individual can be afforded due process?  My apologies for the failure to communicate;  I view the doctor as the provider of expert testimony, but not as the decision-maker.   

It is axiomatic that a legal right, or property, cannot be taken away without due process.   

[txradioguy]

Under what circumstances can a doctor deprive an individual of his 2A rights on his own, without some sort of judicial or administrative proceeding where the individual can be afforded due process?  My apologies for the failure to communicate;  I view the doctor as the provider of expert testimony, but not as the decision-maker.   

It is axiomatic that a legal right, or property, cannot be taken away without due process.

You said it yourself.

Is it your view that an individual who is "unstable and a danger to himself and those around him" should be able to have a gun?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318386.msg1698859.html#msg1698859

You answered your own question when you asked what I quoted to @driftdiver

You have no problem with a doctor of an unspecified area of expertise making the diagnosis that a person is unfit to have a gun.

Hence the reason you asked the question.  You wouldn't have posed the question to DD the way you did if that's not what you believe.

Now you'll try and mask your true feelings in double speak claims of putting words into your mouth...but your belief is clear based on the question you asked.

Otherwise you wouldn't have asked such a rhetorical question in the first place.

[Jazzhead]

@txradioguy : 

There is obviously a failure to communicate here.   It was @driftdiver who suggested that a doctor could deprive an individual of his 2A rights on his own, not me.  I was asking to explain himself - I think he's making that up. 

My view is clearly stated - no one can be deprived of a legal right, or a right to property, without due process of law.   

In exercising due process,  a doctor may be engaged to provide an expert opinion.  But the doctor is not the decision maker; rather the court or administrative tribunal is.

And YES - it is my view that an individual who is mentally unstable or poses a danger to himself or others should not be able to posess a gun.  But that determination cannot be made without the due process of law.   I don't believe that driftdiver has ever clearly stated his view whether an unstable person should be allowed to have a gun.  He's the one speaking in weasel words, not me.     

[driftdiver]

@txradioguy : 

There is obviously a failure to communicate here.   It was @driftdiver who suggested that a doctor could deprive an individual of his 2A rights on his own, not me.  I was asking to explain himself - I think he's making that up. 

My view is clearly stated - no one can be deprived of a legal right, or a right to property, without due process of law.   

In exercising due process,  a doctor may be engaged to provide an expert opinion.  But the doctor is not the decision maker; rather the court or administrative tribunal is.

And YES - it is my view that an individual who is mentally unstable or poses a danger to himself or others should not be able to posess a gun.  But that determination cannot be made without the due process of law.   I don't believe that driftdiver has ever clearly stated his view whether an unstable person should be allowed to have a gun.  He's the one speaking in weasel words, not me.     

@Jazzhead @txradioguy
Under current law a doctor can ask you if you are depressed, have you ever considered suicide, have you ever had violent thoughts.  Based on your answer they can declare you as mentally unstable, a threat to yourself and others.   This can be any doctor, not just a shrink.

Once that is done, depending on state laws, you are now unable to legally possess a firearm.   In most areas this is reported to the local authorities and in some they will collect your firearms.  There is little you can do to change this diagnosis.   

So a doctor that is obviously against personal ownership of firearms is a concern.

[Applewood]

My doctor used to ask if I owned a gun till I once said, yeah, I have a whole arsenal and if you don't treat me right, I'm going to come back and shoot this place up.  Now I've ben going to him for years; he knows about my warped sense of humor, but then the next time he had to go through that checklist, he didn't ask about guns.  When I inquired as to why the question was omitted, he said the regs had changed and he was no longer required to ask.  I think he was pulling my leg. 

I did notice in March when he went through the checklist with me again, he didn't ask if I was depressed or suicidal, but he did ask if I felt homicidal.  I suppose the emphasis on wanting to kill others was in response to the mass shootings, particularly in Las Vegas.

[Suppressed]

In this case the doctor has the legal authority to withdraw a persons 2A amend rights without due process.

@driftdiver

In what case?
Where are you seeing that?

[Cyber Liberty]

My primary physician has a few choice words for the AMA.  Get him started and you will hear a barrage of nasty words that will curl your hair. 

Doc blames the AMA for Obamacare and all the headaches that go with it.

Your Doc is correct about that.  Sounds like the kind of person who won't bother asking about your armed status.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead @txradioguy
Under current law a doctor can ask you if you are depressed, have you ever considered suicide, have you ever had violent thoughts.  Based on your answer they can declare you as mentally unstable, a threat to yourself and others.   This can be any doctor, not just a shrink.

Once that is done, depending on state laws, you are now unable to legally possess a firearm.   In most areas this is reported to the local authorities and in some they will collect your firearms.  There is little you can do to change this diagnosis.   

So a doctor that is obviously against personal ownership of firearms is a concern.

@driftdiver - see this article: No, POLITICO, a Doctor Can't Take Your Guns Away  .   It appears to be from a conservative source, and puts the lie to rumors apparently rampant on the internet at one point that some HHS rule allows a doctor's say-so to take your guns away without due process. 

Is this the issue you've been referring to?   

[Cyber Liberty]

@driftdiver - see this article: No, POLITICO, a Doctor Can't Take Your Guns Away  .   It appears to be from a conservative source, and puts the lie to rumors apparently rampant on the internet at one point that some HHS rule allows a doctor's say-so to take your guns away without due process. 

Is this the issue you've been referring to?   

Your link is over two years old.  Much changes in that period of time.  I think I'll wait for something a bit more contemporary to come along that more closely resembles the state of jurisprudence today, June 1, 2018.

[driftdiver]

Oh it's there and it's as ingrained as the Obama admin could make it.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160106/NEWS/160109963

Doctors have to comply with HIPAA or lose federal reimbursement.

[Cyber Liberty]

If you are concerned with government "controlling people they don't like", then it seems to me you ought to agree that instability should be addressed by expert medical opinion, especially the opinion of the individual's own physician.   

This is amusing.

You spent several posts in this thread poo-pooing the notion that Drs. are to make the solo call that someone should be disarmed, then you turn around and make the argument that a Dr. should be able to make the judgement that would lead to people being disarmed.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh it's there and it's as ingrained as the Obama admin could make it.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160106/NEWS/160109963

Doctors have to comply with HIPAA or lose federal reimbursement.

I'm sure an unbiased Judge will make the right call.  (Do I HAVE to "/s?")

[IsailedawayfromFR]

    Skipping is likely is counted as a yes.

Is that the way ballots work as well?

[Cyber Liberty]

    Skipping is likely is counted as a yes.

I believe that. Anything short of "No!" is regarded as a "Yes!" and will be written down as such on your record.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead @txradioguy
Under current law a doctor can ask you if you are depressed, have you ever considered suicide, have you ever had violent thoughts.  Based on your answer they can declare you as mentally unstable, a threat to yourself and others.   This can be any doctor, not just a shrink.

Once that is done, depending on state laws, you are now unable to legally possess a firearm.   In most areas this is reported to the local authorities and in some they will collect your firearms.  There is little you can do to change this diagnosis.   

So a doctor that is obviously against personal ownership of firearms is a concern.

@driftdiver those are mandatory questions I have to answer either on paper or via a computer every time I visit a doctor on post no matter what I'm going in for.

For many reasons besides fear of weapons confiscation I'm always a happy camper as far as the questionnaire is concerned.

[Fishrrman]

If you're asked by a doctor as to whether you own guns, just say "no", whether it's the truth or not.

What's so difficult about doing that?

[Cyber Liberty]

If you're asked by a doctor as to whether you own guns, just say "no", whether it's the truth or not.

What's so difficult about doing that?

Perzackly.  Big Brother wouldn't think twice about lying to us.  Hell, they wouldn't think once, it's just second nature, especially when it comes to this particular God-given right.

[driftdiver]

If you're asked by a doctor as to whether you own guns, just say "no", whether it's the truth or not.

What's so difficult about doing that?

Works until its a crime to lie on those forms.  After all it involves federal payment to the doctor.  Lying to the federal govt for financial reasons is a crime.  So far this one isn't enforced.  They have started putting doctors in jail for failing to comply with HIPAA though.