Massachusetts Democrat introduces bill to "screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home"

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,694
Likes
991
Location
SoNH
H.2005
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H2005
SECTION 1. Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 236 the following section:-

Section 237. The director shall establish a program for firearm screening and counseling. Such program shall systematically screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home. The director shall, after consultation with recognized professional medical groups and such other sources as the director deems appropriate, promulgate regulations establishing (1) the means by which and the intervals at which patients shall be screened for the presence of firearms in the home and (2) guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms in the home.

SECTION 2. This section shall take effect 6 months after its passage.
Relates back to the Democratic Party platform plank on gun prohibition topic and others about treating firearm ownership as a public health issue.

Seems as if this would have to be a dupe.

ETA Yep: A Healthcare Bill To Treat Gun Ownership As A Disease??
 
Last edited:

one-eyed Jack

Manufacturer
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
9,542
Likes
10,360
Location
Eastern Mass and southern NH
If this passes, I'll just take a piece of screen (critter proof) with me with a "no trespassing" sign on it. Take it or leave it. If they question me, I'll tell them that I'm the meanest son of a bitch in the valley. Jack.
 

oldguy68

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
1,760
Likes
1,631
Location
3 miles out
I don't have any firearms anymore as they got tired of being labeled as bad and now self identify as shower curtain rods.:D

Doctor: Is there anything out of the ordinary that I should know about since your last checkup?
Me: Nope, just a small issue I'm having while trying to take a shower. [rofl]
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
5,246
Likes
2,029
Location
Western MA
I had never ever been asked that question until my "Welcome to Medicare" physical last month. Same doctor as before. When the nurse asked it I said "next question" - she was clearly uncomfortable asking and went on through the rest of the questions.
Then when you left, she checked off “Yes” for that question....
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,598
Likes
1,125
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Then when you left, she checked off “Yes” for that question....
Most likely correct. [thinking]

I'll bet their checkoff sheet goes something like this:

1) Yes, and admitted it.
2) Said No, but I think yes.
3) Wouldn't answer, so obviously yes.
4) No, and snowflaky enough to be a no.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,954
Likes
53
Location
SShore
I thought I linked this yesterday. Anything you confide in the medical community goes straight to the .gov/state.

 
Last edited:

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
19,557
Likes
7,738
Location
NH
The only good part about this is that you will have the opportunity to shit all over the bastards when they ask you questions. Jack.
Are they going to ask the gun question before or after they ask the "do you feel safe in your home" question? (That one makes me cringe and feel all soy boy-ish.)
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
Assuming screening just means questions, then simply answer no, I do not have any firearms.
The screening would probably be more than that. But what a lot seem to be missing is that this is an addition to Section 237 which deals with those who have OD'd on opiates. The reference to patients is those people being treated for opioid overdose. This is not a general healthcare thing. And the law has some pretty extensive language on how the information can be used/disclosed and protecting privacy.

As I said in the other thread on this, I'm against this Bill. So if you are going to contact your Rep/Senator, know what the law really is about so you don't come off sounding like an uninformed gun nut. Which will just get you ignored.

I can also tell you from first hand experience, having worked with them, the doctors that do this kind of addiction and research work take the keeping of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) private very seriously. They are not going to release it in any form that identifies individuals. In this case, the self righteous libs work in our favor.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,850
Likes
8,405
Location
North Shore
The screening would probably be more than that. But what a lot seem to be missing is that this is an addition to Section 237 which deals with those who have OD'd on opiates. The reference to patients is those people being treated for opioid overdose. This is not a general healthcare thing. And the law has some pretty extensive language on how the information can be used/disclosed and protecting privacy.

As I said in the other thread on this, I'm against this Bill. So if you are going to contact your Rep/Senator, know what the law really is about so you don't come off sounding like an uninformed gun nut. Which will just get you ignored.

I can also tell you from first hand experience, having worked with them, the doctors that do this kind of addiction and research work take the keeping of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) private very seriously. They are not going to release it in any form that identifies individuals. In this case, the self righteous libs work in our favor.
And what happens when say Maura's goons come in with a warrant for their records ?
The doctor going to take an arrest to protect your privacy ?
You might say well they can't because it wouldn't. be legal or constitutional.
Till you remember that doesn't mean shit in this state.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
And what happens when say Maura's goons come in with a warrant for their records ?
The doctor going to take an arrest to protect your privacy ?
You might say well they can't because it wouldn't. be legal or constitutional.
Till you remember that doesn't mean shit in this state.
Well, yes. those I worked with were highly committed to their ideals and profesion. We didn't agree politically but there was no question on their level of commitment. So I would expect them to take that arrest, as would I since I too had access to that information.

But it wouldn't come to that because in that case, trying to get access to medical information that the law clearly does not allow, would put the Libs and us on the same side.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,850
Likes
8,405
Location
North Shore
Well, yes. those I worked with were highly committed to their ideals and profesion. We didn't agree politically but there was no question on their level of commitment. So I would expect them to take that arrest, as would I since I too had access to that information.

But it wouldn't come to that because in that case, trying to get access to medical information that the law clearly does not allow, would put the Libs and us on the same side.
That sounds good .
Reality though is a bucket of cold water over the head .
If you've seen the AMA's stance on gun ownership, I'm betting many would do it without even being served a warrant and the rest faced with having their career and livelihood blown out of the water would cave like a wet paper bag.
I haven't seen a hue and cry from the medical community opposing this, have you ?
And if you think about it , why on earth would the politicians want records kept that no one would ever see?
Seems a bit pointless.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
That sounds good .
Reality though is a bucket of cold water over the head .
If you've seen the AMA's stance on gun ownership, I'm betting many would do it without even being served a warrant and the rest faced with having their career and livelihood blown out of the water would cave like a wet paper bag.
I haven't seen a hue and cry from the medical community opposing this, have you ?
And if you think about it , why on earth would the politicians want records kept that no one would ever see?
Seems a bit pointless.
You're speculating, and I'm talking from first hand experience, so....
And the AMA is pretty clear on their position on privacy Confidentiality & Electronic Medical Records

Again, I'm against the bill, because it's useless and intrusive, but I'm not going to go all hyperbolic or ignorantly repete the miss-information that this is a global healthcare Bill.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,850
Likes
8,405
Location
North Shore
You're speculating, and I'm talking from first hand experience, so....
And the AMA is pretty clear on their position on privacy Confidentiality & Electronic Medical Records

Again, I'm against the bill, because it's useless and intrusive, but I'm not going to go all hyperbolic or ignorantly repete the miss-information that this is a global healthcare Bill.
I am curious though as to why you think politicians want the records kept then.
Think there was a bunch of them sitting around saying "I know , let's have doctors compile information on gun owners that no one will ever see. " ?
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,598
Likes
1,125
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
The screening would probably be more than that. But what a lot seem to be missing is that this is an addition to Section 237 which deals with those who have OD'd on opiates. The reference to patients is those people being treated for opioid overdose. This is not a general healthcare thing. And the law has some pretty extensive language on how the information can be used/disclosed and protecting privacy.
I'm not seeing how Chapter 111, Section 237 deals only with those who have OD'd on opiates. Can you further explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
I am curious though as to why you think politicians want the records kept then.
Think there was a bunch of them sitting around saying "I know , let's have doctors compile information on gun owners that no one will ever see. " ?
two reasons'
1. they are hoping that the aggregate data will provide some kind of link between gun ownership and drug usage, which they will not get.
2. they operate on the idea that more laws are better and they will put through any half-baked idea just to increase their "law I created" count.
make that three
3. they know many pro-2a people will scream that this is a general healthcare thing, which they will then point out is just them being stupid, thus degrading the perception of the pro-2a further. this will result in people ignoring the pro-2a when they do in fact pass a general healthcare bill singling out gun owners.
 
Top Bottom