Second Amendment in action

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

There should be systems in place that flags ANY person. Young, old, black, white, rich, poor, that evaluates both their disposition, background, and mental health, and forbids them from buying a gun if there is even a tiny chance that they will become the aggressor in a fight.

I don't understand how that is such a big deal that pro-gun people have stuck up their asses that EVERYONE needs to be able to buy a gun because of MAH RITES!!!

And just who decides someone's disposition, background, and mental health gives them even a tiny chance that they will become the aggressor in a fight.

And just what criteria and due process is involved in that.

When you can answer that perhaps you understand why it is a big deal to some people to stand up for their rights under the constitution

[DrivesAllDay]

In case everyone forgot, they tried to make a mental health check part of the requirement to buy/own a gun and it was turned down as being "invasion of privacy".

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by DrivesAllDay

In case everyone forgot, they tried to make a mental health check part of the requirement to buy/own a gun and it was turned down as being "invasion of privacy".

That's fucking stupid. By their logic, needing to have a physical done an an eye exam (to not be legally blind) to have a driving license is also an invasion of privacy. But that's mandatory

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

That's fucking stupid. By their logic, needing to have a physical done an an eye exam (to not be legally blind) to have a driving license is also an invasion of privacy. But that's mandatory

Then blame the liberals who put the stupid hippa laws into place. The longest u can put a mental I'll person into the hospital is 72 hours with their consent...... amazing how the government jerkwads will say its an invasion of privacy to check on a person's mental health but they want the irs to be able to see anything u do with ur money over 600 dollars

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by chizzy

Then blame the liberals who put the stupid hippa laws into place. The longest u can put a mental I'll person into the hospital is 72 hours with their consent...... amazing how the government jerkwads will say its an invasion of privacy to check on a person's mental health but they want the irs to be able to see anything u do with ur money over 600 dollars

HIPAA laws have nothing to do with this.

If you need a medical evaluation (phych is medical) for anything, such as work, a license, a drug test, you go to a third party medical professional. They do the evaluation and then tell the company that requested the test a pass or fail.



Example, you drive a company vehicle, someone hits you. Company needs you to do a drug test right away to make sure you aren't on anything. You go to a med express or what have you, take a piss, then the med express tells your employer 'we did/not detect any drugs in their system'


HIPAA prohibits them from saying WHAT drugs that found and how much of it, but not IF they found any or not. Because you are signing the waiver to allow them to tell your employer if they did or did not find drugs.



A phych evaluation to buy a gun is the exact same thing. If you go to a dealer, you would either need to present them something saying you've already had an evaluation done, or you'd go through a doctor to have them test you, and they tell the dealer pass or fail. Not what they found, just if you pass or fail.



HIPAA basically boils down to
- Do you approve an entity to have access to your medical records?
- If they are a minor, the parent/guardian by default has access to all of their medical records
- Which medical records?
- They get the bare minimum in order to complete their task.



For example on what the bare minimum is;
- For a billing company, they only get your name and some demographic information, contact information (to contact you about the bill), and the dates of service for what they are billing you for. Not any results the doctor found.
- For another doctor, they get any applicable information they need in order to do treatment. If they are in the same network (say, AHN, they use EPICS software), specialists receive data that is already redacted/only applicable to them. If a doctor is sending information to someone outside of their internal network, then the doctor sending the records chooses what to send - and if they send too much, they are in violation of HIPAA and it might come up in an audit.
- For an outside entity that is not medical or medical billing related, they get your name, contact information, DOS, and a redacted test result. Drug test result, positive or negative. Psych evaluation, if they are OK or not OK.

- And in some cases like STD tests, they allow you to have them anonymously tell people you've been in contact with that they might want get tested. Not who they seen, or what you have, just to get a check.






TL;DR a mental health test in order to own a gun would tell the gun dealer the same amount of information that a physical would tell the DMV when you apply for a driving license. Only if you are healthy enough to do it.

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

HIPAA laws have nothing to do with this.

If you need a medical evaluation (phych is medical) for anything, such as work, a license, a drug test, you go to a third party medical professional. They do the evaluation and then tell the company that requested the test a pass or fail.



Example, you drive a company vehicle, someone hits you. Company needs you to do a drug test right away to make sure you aren't on anything. You go to a med express or what have you, take a piss, then the med express tells your employer 'we did/not detect any drugs in their system'


HIPAA prohibits them from saying WHAT drugs that found and how much of it, but not IF they found any or not. Because you are signing the waiver to allow them to tell your employer if they did or did not find drugs.



A phych evaluation to buy a gun is the exact same thing. If you go to a dealer, you would either need to present them something saying you've already had an evaluation done, or you'd go through a doctor to have them test you, and they tell the dealer pass or fail. Not what they found, just if you pass or fail.



HIPAA basically boils down to
- Do you approve an entity to have access to your medical records?
- If they are a minor, the parent/guardian by default has access to all of their medical records
- Which medical records?
- They get the bare minimum in order to complete their task.



For example on what the bare minimum is;
- For a billing company, they only get your name and some demographic information, contact information (to contact you about the bill), and the dates of service for what they are billing you for. Not any results the doctor found.
- For another doctor, they get any applicable information they need in order to do treatment. If they are in the same network (say, AHN, they use EPICS software), specialists receive data that is already redacted/only applicable to them. If a doctor is sending information to someone outside of their internal network, then the doctor sending the records chooses what to send - and if they send too much, they are in violation of HIPAA and it might come up in an audit.
- For an outside entity that is not medical or medical billing related, they get your name, contact information, DOS, and a redacted test result. Drug test result, positive or negative. Psych evaluation, if they are OK or not OK.

- And in some cases like STD tests, they allow you to have them anonymously tell people you've been in contact with that they might want get tested. Not who they seen, or what you have, just to get a check.






TL;DR a mental health test in order to own a gun would tell the gun dealer the same amount of information that a physical would tell the DMV when you apply for a driving license. Only if you are healthy enough to do it.

hippa has everything to do with it.... the patient has to sign over the rights to expose results. I dont have time to show you the incorrect examples you posted right now but will later.

[Dr-epg]

Gentlemen this thread is getting off the intended subject

Let’s get back on topic

The Dr

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by chizzy

hippa has everything to do with it.... the patient has to sign over the rights to expose results. I dont have time to show you the incorrect examples you posted right now but will later.

They don't expose results. They approve that the person needing the test done receives the 'OK' or 'Not OK' summary of the test.

If that is in fact why having mental evaluations for gun ownership was shot down, then whoever brought HIPAA into it didn't know what HIPAA protects.



If an employee at McDonalds needs to get a drug test done, they sign a form to OK it.

The med express tests their piss for drugs, then tells McDonalds that the employee had drugs, or had no drugs in their system.

They DO NOT tell Mcdonalds that the employee had weed, crack, mushrooms, or anything else in their system, even if they did. THAT is PHI, which is protected by HIPAA. That is what is NOT shared. That is NOT what the third party is going to be told



-----


Likewise, if you want to buy a gun, you should sign off that you are going to take a mental evaluation.

The Phych doctor tests you, then tells the dealer that YES you are mentally sound to own a gun, or NO you are not mentally sound ti own a gun.
They don't tell the dealer that you are depressed, schizo, violent, racist, have multiple personality disorder, are retarded, or anything else you may have. THAT is PHI, which is protected by HIPAA. That is what is NOT shared. That is NOT what the third party is going to be told






And if anyone wants to be damned to report me for hijacking the thread or being off topic, I am replying to the comment of mental health evaluations for gun ownership, with examples that already exist in the real world. I'm not off topic

[Devo]

Well, I think some people need to have a psych test to post on the internet, but, you know, those pesky amendments, like the first, prevent that.

Shall not be infringed, not, shall not be infringed unless people want it to be.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by berryberry

And just who decides someone's disposition, background, and mental health gives them even a tiny chance that they will become the aggressor in a fight.

And just what criteria and due process is involved in that.

When you can answer that perhaps you understand why it is a big deal to some people to stand up for their rights under the constitution

Crickets as expected

[berryberry]

Here is a good video of the 2nd Amendment in action against someone with shit for brains.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1538517856408805376

[Devo]

Originally Posted by berryberry

Here is a good video of the 2nd Amendment in action against someone with shit for brains.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1538517856408805376

That almost mirrors my road rage incident, and the latest one, in both cases, the idiots kept approaching even after I warned them to stop, and wait for the cops or to leave.

Both cases left me believing that were in some way inebriated.

WTF do they think? That nobody is going to shoot them?

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by berryberry

Here is a good video of the 2nd Amendment in action against someone with shit for brains.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1538517856408805376

Already linked to that a few days ago, if you'd bother to check it out. Likewise with a video explaining what had happened.




I don't see any logical reason why you would post it for a second time

[Devo]

Supposedly, there was also a violated restraining order in the case of the posted shooting.

Double fucking dumb.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Already linked to that a few days ago, if you'd bother to check it out. Likewise with a video explaining what had happened.




I don't see any logical reason why you would post it for a second time

When I tried to view your link it didn't work.

Perhaps that?