Personally, I don’t like this at all. Just tick off a doctor or fail to pay your doctor’s bill and suddenly, you will lose a constitutional right. You may want to start asking your physician which party he belongs to before you visit that doctor.

Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Congress fast-tracks plan to let physicians ban weapons ownership

The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to “improve” the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms.
The proposal, H.R. 2640, was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., in the wake of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, when a gunman shot and killed more than 30 people, then killed himself.
McCarthy, whose own husband was killed in a random shooting on a commuter train in New York City in 1993, introduced the “NICS Improvement Act,” which sailed through the House in three days.

Your Doctor May Soon Be Able to Take Away Your Second Amendment Rights
Tagged on:         

3 thoughts on “Your Doctor May Soon Be Able to Take Away Your Second Amendment Rights

  • I haven’t read this bill and don’t know if it goes quite that far or not.

    I will say that there were obvious concerns, when it came out that Cho had gone through psychiatric treatment before, and there were a plethora of notes on file of his being listed as unstable and a danger to himself and others.

    There were already rules on the books in Virginia (a very second-amendment-friendly state) that say if you’ve been committed to a mental institution for psychiatric therapy (inpatient) that it would be a red flag on your gun background check.

    The fact that Cho had only been recommended for OUTPATIENT treatment, it didn’t show up. I believe closing THAT little loophole might not be a bad idea.

    But simply closing that loophole would (should) make NO CHANGE to how the Doctors diagnose their patients, but simply how that information is reported to NCIS.

    However, this bill looks like it goes a little further than that, without even really addressing the issue. They make it a Interstate communications issue, when Cho’s situation had nothing to do with that.

    The debate given the Cho situation (and there should be a debate, and none of this “fast tracking” nonsense) should be nothing more than: Should someone committed to OUTPATIENT psychotherapy who has been designated by a psychiatrist as a danger to himself and others be barred from having a gun.

    My hunch is yes, but as usual, Congress throws together and pushes through a bill that does little of what they intend it to do, and instead throws together pet projects.

  • If it does pass, this bill could easily be found unconstitutional because a constitutional right is taken away without due process under the 14th Amendment.

  • A little thing like unconstitutionality did not stop the supreme court from upholding McCain-Feingold. The court is a little better now, but there are no guarantees with Justice Kennedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *