HIPPA and mental health reporting.

woodstock · Oct 11, 2015

as some of you may have noticed, i have become somewhat of an activist in terms of instructors reporting people who would otherwise be considered "prohibited persons" due to mental health issues. unfortunately i have not struck a cord with many here regarding their staunch support of the second amendment. i pose the following question, based on my observation of our politically powerful folks.

HIPPA is interesting. no FOIA's can be submitted and the mental health records are basically off limits to everyone except the patient and "doctor". government passed this law because some folks found that divulging their mental health records could preclude them from a job consideration and/or being able to gain custody of their kids, etc., with little consideration in regards to gun purchases. i find this a fatal flaw, as many would agree. why can't we tie NCIS checks with a mental health data-base? oh, thats right, the 4th and 14th amendment. um, did anyone here ever consider that half the people who made this law could have made the law to cover their own asses? many of our career politicians on camera and off remind me the the "stepford wives", in that they seemingly are on something that makes them acceptable in public but at the same time slowed and deliberate in their remarks. not practiced, but they look into a far away [place while looking at you, when speaking.

we must do something about gun violence <what a sham>

if our leaders would work on a system that would allow for the reporting of unstable folks trying to get a gun, could help stem the tide of "gun violence". oh and that nasty little law that tacks on additional time for using a gun in the commission of a crime being pled down during sentencing should go away too, plus, how about prosecuting those prohibited persons caught in the attempted purchase of a gun?

maybe this HIPPA SHIT is protecting those who are responsible for crafting our laws. why wouldn't they create a law to protect them under the guise of protecting WE THE PEOPLE?

teratos · Oct 12, 2015

NICS should have that information, I agree. Some States report it, some don't. The only people who will be in there are those who have been committed or those who have spent more than 30 days in a hospital for mental health related issues. It will still miss a lot of folks. None of the shooters of any mass shootings (except the VA Tech shooter, who should not have passed a NICS check) would have been reportable to NICS. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, it wouldn't have mattered since he killed his mother and stole her guns.

I will again reiterate that people with mental illness are statistically no more likely to commit violent acts than the general population UNLESS there is concomitant drug/alcohol abuse. They are also more likely to be victims of violence because of their mental illness. While some of these folks may appear quite odd, their judgement is intact and they have no ill intentions. These people deserve to exercise their 2A Rights. Nobody should have access to anyone's medical records. Especially mental health. There is no quicker way to make sure people stop getting the help they need.

Jim12 · Oct 12, 2015

HIPAA -- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

Jaybeez · Oct 12, 2015

the vast majority of "gun violence" in md occurs in baltimore city, where 80% of homicide suspects and victims have prior criminal records. mental health is but a tiny fraction, and labeling people without providing treatment and care is not a solution.

you can google all the articles that claim even wanting to own a gun should be considered a mental illness. good luck with that

PapiBarcelona · Oct 12, 2015

I'd guess for 1 hard working tax paying city resident there are 20-30 more unemployed and recipient of some sort of scammed .gov assistance check claiming "mental" issues or whatever gimmick they can work

Mightydog · Oct 12, 2015

Jaybeez said:
the vast majority of "gun violence" in md occurs in baltimore city, where 80% of homicide suspects and victims have prior criminal records. mental health is but a tiny fraction, and labeling people without providing treatment and care is not a solution.

you can google all the articles that claim even wanting to own a gun should be considered a mental illness. good luck with that

But its funny how that tiny fraction grows when mama says "he never ment it, he gots mental issues, he's a good mamas boy." Just like the one that set fire to her mothers house and then dared the cops to kill her or the latest shooter who had no issues until "I can't find a girlfriend.". Mental health has suddenly become a convenient excuse for failing personal responsibility. But then you always have the lawyer that says " a sane person wouldn't do what my client did therefore he must have mental issues". You can't win for losing.

teratos · Oct 12, 2015

Mightydog said:
But its funny how that tiny fraction grows when mama says "he never ment it, he gots mental issues, he's a good mamas boy." Just like the one that set fire to her mothers house and then dared the cops to kill her or the latest shooter who had no issues until "I can't find a girlfriend.". Mental health has suddenly become a convenient excuse for failing personal responsibility. But then you always have the lawyer that says " a sane person wouldn't do what my client did therefore he must have mental issues". You can't win for losing.

You will notice that the courts do not find people "not guilty by reason of insanity" very often. Even the Aurora shooter, clearly quite mentally ill, was not allowed to hide behind that. Most schizophrenics are not dangerous and know right from wrong.

BigDaddy · Oct 12, 2015

HIPA is govenment run amok.

Example:
Giant Pharmacy calls: We have your prescription ready.
Me: I didn't renew any prescription
GP: Are you Mr. Big Daddy
Me: Yes
GP What is your date of birth?
Me ##/##/####
GP We can't tell you the name of the drug but if you guess we can tell you if that's the one.
Me: You know all the drugs I been prescribed for the last 25 years, and I still have to guess?
GP Yes.
Me: Don't call me ever again.

jrumann59 · Oct 12, 2015

woodstock said:
as some of you may have noticed, i have become somewhat of an activist in terms of instructors reporting people who would otherwise be considered "prohibited persons" due to mental health issues. unfortunately i have not struck a cord with many here regarding their staunch support of the second amendment. i pose the following question, based on my observation of our politically powerful folks.

HIPPA is interesting. no FOIA's can be submitted and the mental health records are basically off limits to everyone except the patient and "doctor". government passed this law because some folks found that divulging their mental health records could preclude them from a job consideration and/or being able to gain custody of their kids, etc., with little consideration in regards to gun purchases. i find this a fatal flaw, as many would agree. why can't we tie NCIS checks with a mental health data-base? oh, thats right, the 4th and 14th amendment. um, did anyone here ever consider that half the people who made this law could have made the law to cover their own asses? many of our career politicians on camera and off remind me the the "stepford wives", in that they seemingly are on something that makes them acceptable in public but at the same time slowed and deliberate in their remarks. not practiced, but they look into a far away [place while looking at you, when speaking.

we must do something about gun violence <what a sham>

if our leaders would work on a system that would allow for the reporting of unstable folks trying to get a gun, could help stem the tide of "gun violence". oh and that nasty little law that tacks on additional time for using a gun in the commission of a crime being pled down during sentencing should go away too, plus, how about prosecuting those prohibited persons caught in the attempted purchase of a gun?

maybe this HIPPA SHIT is protecting those who are responsible for crafting our laws. why wouldn't they create a law to protect them under the guise of protecting WE THE PEOPLE?

Simple so you can sign a waiver when they think it benefit the "greater" good. I am willing to bet that in the name of "compromise" Congress will allow the ATF make changes to background check form that will have a box you check that is a HIPAA/Family Geneology/4th and 14th amendment waiver and failing to do that you will not be allowed to purchase a gun.

BeoBill · Oct 12, 2015

jrumann59 said:
Simple so you can sign a waiver when they think it benefit the "greater" good. I am willing to bet that in the name of "compromise" Congress will allow the ATF make changes to background check form that will have a box you check that is a HIPAA/Family Geneology/4th and 14th amendment waiver and failing to do that you will not be allowed to purchase a gun.

I can see Zero using his pen to try to do that. Why not? He doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

BradyWarrior · Oct 12, 2015

woodstock said:
as some of you may have noticed, i have become somewhat of an activist in terms of instructors reporting people who would otherwise be considered "prohibited persons" due to mental health issues. unfortunately i have not struck a cord with many here regarding their staunch support of the second amendment. i pose the following question, based on my observation of our politically powerful folks.

HIPPA is interesting. no FOIA's can be submitted and the mental health records are basically off limits to everyone except the patient and "doctor". government passed this law because some folks found that divulging their mental health records could preclude them from a job consideration and/or being able to gain custody of their kids, etc., with little consideration in regards to gun purchases. i find this a fatal flaw, as many would agree. why can't we tie NCIS checks with a mental health data-base? oh, thats right, the 4th and 14th amendment. um, did anyone here ever consider that half the people who made this law could have made the law to cover their own asses? many of our career politicians on camera and off remind me the the "stepford wives", in that they seemingly are on something that makes them acceptable in public but at the same time slowed and deliberate in their remarks. not practiced, but they look into a far away [place while looking at you, when speaking.

we must do something about gun violence <what a sham>

if our leaders would work on a system that would allow for the reporting of unstable folks trying to get a gun, could help stem the tide of "gun violence". oh and that nasty little law that tacks on additional time for using a gun in the commission of a crime being pled down during sentencing should go away too, plus, how about prosecuting those prohibited persons caught in the attempted purchase of a gun?

maybe this HIPPA SHIT is protecting those who are responsible for crafting our laws. why wouldn't they create a law to protect them under the guise of protecting WE THE PEOPLE?

This is an interesting post. I'm not sure I understand it though so I have some questions.

Are you suggesting that the 4th and 14th amendment were ratified by men whose intent was to cover their asses? I'm not mocking you, I just haven't heard that theory before.

You mentioned being an activist for instructors reporting people who would otherwise be considered prohibited persons. What does that mean exactly? What would that entail? How would, I presume a firearms related instructor, make the assessment that someone is a threat to themselves or others?

What would a system for reporting unstable folks look like? What boundaries would be drawn to make an objective assessment and formal adjudication that someone is a threat to themselves or others? Would the adjudications be subject to judicial review? I bring this up, because what (I think) you are proposing could potentially subject anyone and everyone to being labeled a prohibited person outside of judicial oversight.

alucard0822 · Oct 12, 2015

Medical records should be private, the government has no right to view them, or to create a database with them to restrict anyone's 2A right. The bar is set Federally at adjudication or commitment, both are court ordered, and those court records should be reported, not a person's mental health reccord. To restrict a person's rights, there MUST be due process, they must have an opportunity to defend themselves, and should have the right to appeal and expungement. A doctor's or instructor's opinion of people aren't good enough to restrict a right, it's a really bad idea to head down that slippery slope both because it would be abused and subjective, and because it could prove an obstacle for good people looking for help. Realistically though adding new categories of people to the "prohibited" list will do nothing to prevent crime, won't prevent murder, or any of the other felony statutes that are ignored by criminals. For every potential criminal that would simply obtain a firearm by other means, or use another tool there would be thousands of harmless law abiding people stripped of their rights, and left to be defenseless victims.

john_bud · Oct 12, 2015

I don't know of any qualified firearms instructors that are also certified to pass judgement on the mental state of their students.

teratos · Oct 12, 2015

john_bud said:
I don't know of any qualified firearms instructors that are also certified to pass judgement on the mental state of their students.

One of these days I'll become a certified instructor.

BradyWarrior · Oct 12, 2015

alucard0822 said:
Medical records should be private, and should have nothing to do with restricting a person's 2A right. The bar is set Federally at adjudication or commitment, both are court ordered, and those court records should be reported. To restrict a person's rights, there MUST be due process, they must have an opportunity to defend themselves, and should have the right to appeal and expungement. A doctor's opinion, or opinion of other people aren't good enough to restrict a right, and it's a really bad idea to head down that slippery slope both because it would be abused by the government, and because it could prove an obstacle for good people looking for help. Realistically though adding new categories of people to the "prohibited" list will do nothing to prevent crime, won't prevent murder, or any of the other felony statutes that are ignored by criminals. For every potential criminal that would simply obtain a firearm by other means, or use another tool there would be thousands of harmless law abiding people stripped of their rights, and left to be defenseless victims.

Amen.

Biggfoot44 · Oct 12, 2015

[ Not meant as a inherent slam on those who provide relevent skills and useful knowledge , and also profit for doing so.]

An Instructor's mission profile is to present useful knowledge, and attempt to inculcate and delevelope useful skills in their students/ clients .

They are NOT the people who have to authority to issue peices of paper recognizing preexistying Rights/ fragments thereof. Likewise they are NOT under obligation of persecuting those they consider unworthy.

Jaybeez · Oct 13, 2015

alucard0822 said:
Medical records should be private, the government has no right to view them, or to create a database with them to restrict anyone's 2A right. The bar is set Federally at adjudication or commitment, both are court ordered, and those court records should be reported, not a person's mental health reccord. To restrict a person's rights, there MUST be due process, they must have an opportunity to defend themselves, and should have the right to appeal and expungement. A doctor's or instructor's opinion of people aren't good enough to restrict a right, it's a really bad idea to head down that slippery slope both because it would be abused and subjective, and because it could prove an obstacle for good people looking for help. Realistically though adding new categories of people to the "prohibited" list will do nothing to prevent crime, won't prevent murder, or any of the other felony statutes that are ignored by criminals. For every potential criminal that would simply obtain a firearm by other means, or use another tool there would be thousands of harmless law abiding people stripped of their rights, and left to be defenseless victims.

Roe v wade and the subsequent decisions affirming it are all based on the right to privacy in medical records.

Ganegrei · Oct 13, 2015

As a doctor I used to work with once told me, "HIPAA is the worst way to handle medical records, except for all the others."

woodstock · Oct 13, 2015

john_bud said:
I don't know of any qualified firearms instructors that are also certified to pass judgement on the mental state of their students.

i had a student who displayed these following characteristics;

* in filling out my registration form, he refused to use the pen i provided as it has never written his name.
* in filling out the registration form, he put on a pair of "glasses" that had no lenses. i informed him that they are not suitable as eye protection as there were no lenses and he smiled and said he just puts them on to help him think.

because i am a multi-faceted instructor, i offer certification for HQL, Wear/Carry for the armed citizen and for security professionals. and i also have a category called "other" for those just seeking some tips to enhance their shooting capabilities, etc. on the registration, the student is to check the box for the area of interest.

* in filling out the registration form, he checked all areas of interest. i informed him that our class is for the HQL as discussed over the phone and he reasoned that if he failed that course, he could pass one of the others.
* in filling out the registration form, he neglected to write the street address of his residence. i asked him to complete the form for my records and he said he didn't want anyone to know where he lives.

on average, most students complete the registration in about 8 to 10 minutes, it took him close to 45 minutes. in summing up how i was going to conclude this appointment, after lengthy discussion, i told him i didn't think we'd be a good "fit" and referred him to go to the state police website and seek out another qualified instructor. he then reached into his back pack and pulled out a 1911 platformed BB gun. yeah, i got a little tense and immediately but politely took the gun from him. once realized it was a BB gun, i told him i don't teach air gun classes. he smiled a distant smile and said something to the effect, "thats okay, i know where i can get a gun on preston street." that was the last thing he said when he left.

did i make the correct judgement?

Ganegrei · Oct 13, 2015

woodstock said:
did i make the correct judgement?

I think so.

HIPPA and mental health reporting.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

My hair is amazing

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

DILLIGAF

Crank in the Third Row

Banned

For great Justice

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Comblock Convert

Banned

Comblock Convert

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics