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

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,598
Likes
1,125
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
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.)
I always have fun with the "do you feel safe in your home" question. [laugh] It's a personal favorite and I work it to the max. [thumbsup]

But I've never had any medical person ask me the "gun" question. My long-time PCP knows that I shoot just from the many casual conversations we've had on this and that over the years, so no way I could ever say "no" at this point without having to tell him the story about my recent tragic boating accident. [laugh]
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
I always have fun with the "do you feel safe in your home" question. [laugh] It's a personal favorite and I work it to the max. [thumbsup]

But I've never had any medical person ask me the "gun" question. My long-time PCP knows that I shoot just from the many casual conversations we've had on this and that over the years, so no way I could ever say "no" at this point without having to tell him the story about my tragic boating accident. [laugh]
I answered No to the gun question while my PCP was standing next to my pile of clothes with my holster S&W59 sitting on top. He marked it as a NO, but we both knew. [smile]
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,598
Likes
1,125
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Read the section https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter111/Section237
The title alone is helps "Section 237: Analysis of population health trends; opiate overdoses"
I've already read it several times. It may be that the original intended purpose of the Section was to apply only to those who have OD'd on opiates as you have stated, but I'm just not getting where that limitation is stated or is even implied. I may be missing it. I'm old. I'll read it again. [thinking]
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
I've already read it several times. It may be that the original intended purpose of the Section was to apply only to those who have OD'd on opiates as you have stated, but I'm just not getting where that limitation is stated or is even implied. I may be missing it. I'm old. I'll read it again. [thinking]
Well, given the way Section 237 is written they could probably do anything they wanted already.

First we have to remember that this is Gov. not private sector. The private sector can ask anything they want.

But the Gov., if ever questioned on it, will have to provide a link between what they are asking and what they are studying, which in this case is Opioid OD. Or if they can't provide that link, a clear mandate to ask. And that's where this Bill comes into play.

Firearms ownership is still not considered a public record, so even one department can't access the information available to another department (LE), unless they are specifically allowed to by law. And can you imagine the push-back if they tried to change that to allow LE and Public Health to openly share information?

This little law is trying to link Opioids with guns, to help support the "war" against both. Since there is no link between legal gun ownership and Opioid use, it will fail. But letting it go through is still a crack that can be used for future laws. Thus my position against it.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,922
Location
SE MA
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.
I think the more likely option is:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Refused to answer

I have been asked a few times by my kids’ various doctors but never my own. I just answer no now. One time I asked what the relevance was and what would her response be if a patient said yes. She said if someone says yes they ask if guns and ammo are secured and stored separately. I asked the doc if she was a gun owner or knew anything about guns or firearms safety and she said no, and I told her it was a little strange for her to ask the question then. From then on, I have always said no. If they ask the question, it gets recorded in a database somewhere, for whatever the reason.

Pretty sure my ex has probably answered yes, at their dad’s house, but I told her not to do that anymore (she did it once when we were together at one of the kids doc appointment). Also told her to stop telling caregivers/prospective suitors that dad has guns (she wants to put them on notice in case they ever touch the kids). She understands now why that’s a bad idea.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
7,847
Likes
2,970
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
H.2005
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H2005

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??
I went to that liberal gun forum, and got banned after my first post.... :eek: What happened to liberals embracing the freedom of thought, expression and exchanging of ideas, etc? Soch a fine example of liberal tolerance. :)

They basically said "another gift from NEShooters". f*** off and banned me. :)
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
7,847
Likes
2,970
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
Just refuse to answer - or answer none of your business. What are they going to do, compel you to answer by force next? Deny you care if you refuse to capitulate? They want more people to leave the state? Really. Because driving out gun owners, who are also some of the most productive and law-abiding people, that seems like a good policy to these douche bags?
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,172
Likes
3,398
I don't know about the rest of you, but I read what my doc puts into my records. Everything is electronic now so it's easy. I may not like everything in his notes but I know what's in them.
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,598
Likes
1,125
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Well, given the way Section 237 is written they could probably do anything they wanted already.
Exactly my point. There is no limitation to only those who have OD'd on opiates in Section 237 as it stands today or with the proposed addition. In fact, if I am reading it correctly, Section 237 would be pretty much self-defeating if this data gathering exercise were limited only to those who have OD'd on opiates.

The purpose of the Bill is clear: Create a fictitious link between legal firearms ownership and opioid drug abuse. I'm not buying it.
 
Last edited:

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,850
Likes
8,405
Location
North Shore
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.
Not so stupid considering the NY state troopers have in fact been rifling medical records looking for mental health disqualifiers.
There have been threads on it here.
There have been actual confiscations .
Could that be the endgame here ?
The constitution means nothing in this state as most of us have realized by now.
If they want the records , they are going to take them , end of story.
After 5 or 6 years and more money than you and I will ever be able to spend we might , maybe get it squared away in the Supreme Court.

It's actually the Doctors that should be raising holy hell about this.
How are you supposed to take care of people who look at you as a government agent ?
You bet your ass I'm not only not telling a doctor I own guns, no way would I say anything that might be used against me like depression or anxiety .
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
1,098
Likes
749
Location
Down the rabbit hole, somewhere in Paradise.
I know that at several dr (different doctors too) visits for physicals, my wife, my kids, and I have all been asked "do you have a gun in the home?". They have all been told to the correct answer is "No".
We do the same thing. Our daughters are never left alone with doctors and nurses. The questions are directed to us. The answer to the gun ownership question is always a polite but resolute "no"!
 

pinefd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
180
Likes
215
Location
Eastern MA
If I ever get asked the question, I'm prepared to answer "Yes", and then proceed to show them pics (although I'm afraid that most healthcare workers would assume that this is some type of assault weapon):




Frank
 

Koolmoose

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
929
Likes
397
Location
Other side of the bridges behind the iron curtain
I have no firearms, just gunz
I have neither, just lots of dependable friends who are available when I need them.

Records:

HIPPA is complete BS. All written and digital records are available to the .gov if they want them. Anyone who thinks records are confidential is either misinformed or delusional.

Act accordingly!

Ask me how I know.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,374
Likes
26,230
Firearms ownership is still not considered a public record, so even one department can't access the information available to another department (LE), unless they are specifically allowed to by law.
Lol, this practically happens as a matter of course when you get stopped by any LEO that has a terminal in their car. Your DL is cross referenced with the LTC database on the fly and the flag pops immediately. Last one I had (MSP stopped for a light out) the guy just about shit his pants. (apparently the scroller for all the shit you have registered is not far away from the thing that pops the flag).

Also without going into gory details, I know people who have been harassed by their IA because they posted dumb shit on faceplant about another PD in MA.... insulting the towns chief or some bullshit. Shit town chief or one of his lackeys looked guy up in MIRCS/CJISweb and ratted on him to his issuing authority. So if there are laws, they clearly don't give a f***. I think it ended up being a nothing burger for him after he met with his LO (to clear it up) but it was still retarded. I wouldn't consider much of that information to be protected against anything outside of of a full on public data dump. Anything layers below that, not much protection at all. The only way you will get privacy in the system in MA is to "be part of the noise" or "be unnoticeable as gravel on the ground".

-Mike
 
Top Bottom