Comments on: State Says Court Should Reject ‘Docs V. Glocks’ Challenge

By: Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen — Mon, 23 May 2016 11:06:57 +0000

It’s not about the doctor asking about guns that concerns me. It’s the fact that they document it in your FEDERAL medical record. A de facto gun registration. The reason people are up in arms about guns is because there has never been a time when the government has been trying so hard to take them. When the 2nd amendment is taken away, the rest follow quickly. Wake up people. As for the kids shot in schools, it is a travesty, I feel for the victim’s families. But, just for the record, there are more kids killed every minute of every day with a hypodermic needle than by firearms. I wonder if it would be more horrific to those “choicers” if they performed abortions with a gun. Just sayin…

By: FL_Girl31

FL_Girl31 — Mon, 23 May 2016 10:53:21 +0000

I can understand a requirement for discussions about guns within access for a physician in the mental health field. Any other type of medical services doesn’t really have any place being informed, nor held responsible regarding guns that patients have access to.
Is the next step in this process to have doctors held accountable if one of their patience commits a crime? This would lead to insurance companies refusing to allow doctors to treat anyone that owns a gun. This would require doctors, many whom work in excess of 60 hour weeks, the added burden of court appearances. Legal protections during questioning about a crime committed by someone they took a splinter out of five years ago.
Gun ownership and health care are not related until the law is broken and someone is shot. A person with a bullet in them is automatically questioned by the police. Why are we so focused on spending tax money to fight for laws that duplicate current laws? Why do we push and fight for laws that are not logically feasible? These kinds of laws are pushed because of lobbying, and typically to get to information needed for some other nefarious law, that can’t be gotten to due to constitutional rights.
This law is intended to obtain information solely for the purpose of full disclosure on guns. Once the information is out there, it makes it so much easier for taking them away. This is the ultimate goal of this law, it’s a go around for constitutionally protected information.

By: Sedition

Sedition — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:47:59 +0000

dh
Comparing school shootings and the gender choice bathroom issue is like comparing brain surgeons and proctologists.
Opposite ends with nothing to do with each other.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 23 May 2016 02:31:06 +0000

The Right to Bear Arms is a constitutional right. Burdening patients with gun ownership questions is akin to standing inside a voting booth questioning a voter what candidate they r voting for. A form of intimidation. Unless a patient arrives to doctors office saying they r going to shoot the place up, a doctor has no business if a patient exercises their Second Amendment right.

By: No Excuses

No Excuses — Sun, 22 May 2016 23:29:11 +0000

@dh:

Your school shooting example is ridiculous. One reason school shootings occur is because they are “gun free zones” and the crazies who do these terrible deeds know it. I own a gun. I have a CC permit AND I am a teacher. I’d love to be able to carry my weapon to work with me, but it’s not allowed. Some rules are ridiculous, others aren’t.

By: Sedition

Sedition — Sun, 22 May 2016 21:39:25 +0000

I can’t get a doc to tell me definitively whether or not his/her personal assets or malpractice insurance would cover any injury or death to my person or that of a family member or friend if I followed his recommendations for firearm handling and we were harmed as a result of not being able to retrieve our firearm quickly enough.
I wonder why that is?

By: dh

dh — Sun, 22 May 2016 14:25:56 +0000

So I guess all those school shooting are okay. It’s okay to blow a hole the size of my fist through a six year old? This is not taking guns away but an attempt to stop a few instances of violence. We’re worried about who uses the bathroom but on shooting children, nothing, not one attempt to stop any of them.

By: Shay

Shay — Sun, 22 May 2016 11:41:10 +0000

@dh you’re naive if you think someone who has nafarious thoughts is going to tell the doctor they have a weapon.

My doctor does a lot for me but policing my guns will never be one of them.

This is just another way the government is overstepping its boundaries.

By: Rufus

Rufus — Sun, 22 May 2016 07:03:37 +0000

Just curious, but if the law is overturned, would doctors then go thru extensive training in order to “advise” patients who own firearms on safety issues and teach the patients the rules of safe gun handling and rules of engagement with a perpetrator?

By: Foma Kiniaev

Foma Kiniaev — Sat, 21 May 2016 22:13:37 +0000

So a Doctor “suspects someone of having mental issues”, what then? What does he do with the information? Go to the Police? The FBI? Just exactly what does a medical doctor do with this data? Just how Doctor/Patient confidentiality are you willing to give up? To put in perspective; Adam Lanza’s mother was trying to get him committed; but HIS rights trumped everything. James Homes was seeing a Psychiatrist, who warned others in her office of his violent nature, but not the police. Psychiatry is not a exact science, so how do balance the Doctor’s opinion with someone’s rights?

Better rethink the whole “wild west” violence, it was all in the mind of Hollywood. Unless you were a young male about, 17 to 25, your chance of being shot was miniscule. Even young men had a small chance of being shot. Gunfights did happen like they do on the silver screen, Matt Dillion won’t save you.

I do agree that we have lost some of our civil nature. But it come from the “entitled”, who demand instead of work for.