Why would doctors need to know if you have a gun?

Damocles said:
And at the point that I am diagnosed insane/unstable they would then have an actual reason to ask that question... although at that point they should probably ask my wife, unstable people may not be truthful.

The idea that someday I might be diagnosed insane/unstable so my doctor needs to know if I have a gun is ridiculous. Gun or not I'd put n/a down on any form that asks that from a medical provider.
Click to expand...

I see you are in the NRA mindset on this.
I understand.

I would just tell my doctor lots of guns if asked.
Actually I do not have to becuase he is a friend and knows I have guns he has gone shootin with me.
 
Occupant said:
I see you are in the NRA mindset on this.
Click to expand...
Nah. I don't think we need a law. I just won't answer the question.
I understand.
Click to expand...
What are you saying you understand?

I would just tell my doctor lots of guns if asked.
Actually I do not have to becuase he is a friend and knows I have guns he has gone shootin with me.
Click to expand...

k...

I have no reason to believe that my doctor has any need to know if I have guns. So I wouldn't answer the question. I wouldn't get upset or make noise.. I'd simply put it on the form as n/a... guns have nothing to do with my kidney stones.
 
Damocles said:
Nah. I don't think we need a law. I just won't answer the question.

What are you saying you understand?




k...

I have no reason to believe that my doctor has any need to know if I have guns. So I wouldn't answer the question. I wouldn't get upset or make noise.. I'd simply put it on the form as n/a... guns have nothing to do with my kidney stones.
Click to expand...


I understand the mindset propogated by the NRA and their minions about fear of letting anyone in authority know you have a gun, out of fear it will be taken away from you and leave you defenseless...
I do not have that problem and would tell any official, etc I have guns.
 
Occupant said:
I understand the mindset propogated by the NRA and their minions about fear of letting anyone in authority know you have a gun, out of fear it will be taken away from you and leave you defenseless...
I do not have that problem and would tell any official, etc I have guns.
Click to expand...

right. because registration has NEVER led to confiscation and no gov entity would EVER confiscate legally owned firearms........:rolleyes:
 
\\\()/// said:
Anybody who swears out a complaint.

[h=3]Possession of Firearm While Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)[/h]It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. The protection order must have been issued following an evidentiary hearing in which the defendant had notice and an opportunity to appear. The protection order must also include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected to cause injury. The statutory language of Section 922(g)(8), in addition to the language of Section 2262, provides additional justification for review of a jurisdiction's protection order form to determine if they conform with the federal requirements. Again, refer any questions about the applicability of this statute to the United States Attorney's Office in that district.
[h=3]Transfer of Firearm to Person Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(8)[/h]


It is also illegal to transfer a firearm to a person subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. A violation of Section 922(d)(8) must be knowing. Proof concerning knowledge on the part of the supplier may be difficult to establish absent a fully operational central registry for protection orders.

[h=3]Official Use Exemption, 18 U.S.C. §925[/h]


The restrictions of Sections 922(d)(8) and (g)(8) do not apply to firearms issued by governmental agencies to a law enforcement officer or military personnel so long as the officer or military personnel is on duty. Personal firearms do not fall within this exemption nor may these personnel possess officially issued firearms when off duty.



http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter5.html#id325601
Click to expand...

only an anti gun idiot would approve of the simple act of filing a complaint as justification for stealing someones private property and the denial of a basic and fundamental right. I suppose the official use exemption works for you, police statist?
 
Damocles said:
I have no reason to believe that my doctor has any need to know if I have guns. So I wouldn't answer the question. I wouldn't get upset or make noise.. I'd simply put it on the form as n/a... guns have nothing to do with my kidney stones.
Click to expand...

Just for you, Damo.
 
\\\()/// said:
It has? Where? How? Link up to the source of this claim.
Click to expand...
Guns as a public health issue

feel free to peruse as many as you like.

\\\()/// said:
BTW, doctors have had the authority to label people insane/unstable for a while now.
Click to expand...
then why are you still out and about?


\\\()/// said:
You suppose incorrectly.

And the simple act of filing a complaint as justification for stealing someones private property and the denial of a basic and fundamental right has been legal for years. How come you haven't noticed?
Click to expand...
haven't noticed? really?
 
Damocles said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4805895...as-docs-vs-glocks-law-shot-down/#.T_SND_XNlD0


NBCMIAMI.com
updated 7/3/2012 10:47:33 AM ET

Print
Font:

A Florida law that banned doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients has been shot down by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke permanently ruled against the so-called "Docs vs. Glocks" law on Friday, according to the Miami Herald.

Cooke, who had issued a preliminary injunction last September, said the law was so "vague" that it violated the free speech rights of doctors.

Lawsuit Takes Aim at Docs vs. Glocks Law

“What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient, whether relevant or not at the time of the consult with the patient,” Cooke wrote in her 25-page ruling.

The law, called the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was adopted in 2011 after a physician refused to see an Ocala couple that refused to answer questions about guns. The law was backed by the National Rifle Association.

House sponsor Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said an appeal is likely, according to the Herald.
Click to expand...

he might want to tell them that gun ownership shortens the life expectancy of themselves and their families

studies have shown (sorry no link) that a gun in the house is more likely to be used against a family member than anyone else - whether accidently or intentionally

gun safes lower this likelihood, but then it would not be handy during a domestic dispute or a robbery...
 
\\\()/// said:
Anybody who swears out a complaint.

Possession of Firearm While Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)

It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. The protection order must have been issued following an evidentiary hearing in which the defendant had notice and an opportunity to appear. The protection order must also include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected to cause injury. The statutory language of Section 922(g)(8), in addition to the language of Section 2262, provides additional justification for review of a jurisdiction's protection order form to determine if they conform with the federal requirements. Again, refer any questions about the applicability of this statute to the United States Attorney's Office in that district.
Transfer of Firearm to Person Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(8)




It is also illegal to transfer a firearm to a person subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. A violation of Section 922(d)(8) must be knowing. Proof concerning knowledge on the part of the supplier may be difficult to establish absent a fully operational central registry for protection orders.

Official Use Exemption, 18 U.S.C. §925




The restrictions of Sections 922(d)(8) and (g)(8) do not apply to firearms issued by governmental agencies to a law enforcement officer or military personnel so long as the officer or military personnel is on duty. Personal firearms do not fall within this exemption nor may these personnel possess officially issued firearms when off duty.



http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter5.html#id325601
Click to expand...

how enforceable are these laws and are they enforced across the nation
 
Don Quixote said:
he might want to tell them that gun ownership shortens the life expectancy of themselves and their families

studies have shown (sorry no link) that a gun in the house is more likely to be used against a family member than anyone else - whether accidently or intentionally

gun safes lower this likelihood, but then it would not be handy during a domestic dispute or a robbery...
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on what type of safe you have...

You can get ones with fingerprint recognition as well as simple hand activated combinations... Here's a good company.

http://www.gunvault.com/
 
SmarterthanYou said:
as of late, it's been shown that most doctors appear to hold an antigun bias, so i'm extremely hesitant to provide them with the authority to label people insane/unstable.
Click to expand...

perhaps a referral to a psychiatrist would be in order then

my shrink has come close a few times to questioning my right to own firearms

he was ready to write a tarasoff warning letter to my boss once
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_tarasoff_warning
 
SmarterthanYou said:
only an anti gun idiot would approve of the simple act of filing a complaint as justification for stealing someones private property and the denial of a basic and fundamental right. I suppose the official use exemption works for you, police statist?
Click to expand...

you would have to do more than file a complaint, you would have to appear in a court of law to justify the complaint
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top