Your doctor could put you on no-gun list!

[ihunt49]

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

WND Exclusive ON CAPITOL HILL
Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Congress fast-tracks plan to let physicians ban weapons ownership
Posted: June 21, 2007
11:04 pm Eastern

By Naomi Laine
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




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.

The plan is the first congressional effort to curtail gun ownership rights in a decade, but by being put on the fast track was exempted from the ordinary committee hearings and public scrutiny most proposals are sent through.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns

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.

The plan is the first congressional effort to curtail gun ownership rights in a decade, but by being put on the fast track was exempted from the ordinary committee hearings and public scrutiny most proposals are sent through.

(Story continues below)

"Millions of criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions others are missing critical data," said McCarthy. "Each year, tens of thousands of barred individuals slip through the cracks of the system and gain access to firearms. Simply put, the NICS system must be updated on both the state and federal level."

If the Act passes in the Senate, it would provide grants so states can add the names of criminals to the NICS system, which would label them as unable to own firearms, but it also flags those with medical or psychological issues as unfit to possess a gun.

The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None.

Gun Owners of America is one of only a few organizations alerting consumers to the implications.

"Under this bill, based solely on a diagnosis of a psychiatrist, an American's name could be dumped into the National Criminal Instant Check (NICS) system," said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who called the plan "conviction by diagnosis."

The organization, which launched a campaign to lobby the Senate to reject the plan, said the McCarthy plan "dramatically" expands the "dragnet" used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers.

"So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists," the organization said in a statement on its website.

The legislation requires states to better share records that would disqualify individuals deemed unfit for gun ownership by inputting those names into the FBI’s Instant Criminal Background Check System.

"This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, 'No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me.' But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill," the gun owners group continued.

"Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'" said the gun owners.

"Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step," the group said.

The Act is a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Tech student Seung-Hui Cho was not flagged when he purchased guns, although the state of Virginia knew Cho had been ordered to undergo mental health treatment. No evidence indicates that Cho could have been stopped from opening fire on classmates had the new changes been in place at the time of the shooting.

The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

[incynr8]

superficially benign in letter, with such potential to be malicious in spirit.............

[s.vermeire]

"Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'" said the gun owners.

"Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step," the group said.

The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.

Maybe I'm glad I'm not a member yet. Doesn't sound like supporting the 2A. I'd urge all members to let the NRA know you disagree with this bill.

[mikepro8]

First off, "your doctor" in the thread title is a little misleading... I right away thought my family doctor.

If you read closely, the diagnosis can be made only by a psychiatrist. That is actually in line with the Heller decision, and I think most of you can agree may not be a bad thing. I dont want people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia to have access to firearms.

The downfall is, if you are diagnosed with depression because of a recent tragedy (both parents die in a car accident, you lose a son or daughter in a robbery/murder, etc. etc.) will the diagnosis, albeit temporary, preclude you from owning firearms for the rest of your life?

[incynr8]

The downfall is, if you are diagnosed with depression because of a recent tragedy (both parents die in a car accident, you lose a son or daughter in a robbery/murder, etc. etc.) will the diagnosis, albeit temporary, preclude you from owning firearms for the rest of your life?

That's the scenario I was envisioning.

[noofus]

If some provision were made such that this restriction is not based solely on a doctor's reccomendation, but has to go through a court I might be OK with this.

IE: Doc says "I dont think this guy should own a gun" and it gets kicked into a court where a judge and lawyers are present and can make a case both for and against the person in question, then it might work.

This would also allow a time limit on the restriction, or a revisitiation of the restriction by a human being, not a computer...

But under no circumstances should a doctor decree someone's rights null and void and be the sole arbiter of such things...

[pex]

The government makes it incredibly hard to trust health care professionals.

Although the mantra is 'make sure you ask your doctor no matter what you're doing' or even just 'mental health month blah blah blah' it's really a self-fulfilling trap.

I envision a situation where you, being interested in your health, admit to your doctor that you use marijuana and want to make sure you minimize health risks, so you ask your doctor about what you can do to achieve that, and if there are any interactions...blah blah, well, some law forces doc to report that, it gets sent to the ATF or FBI or whoever, and now you're an unlawful user of narcotics so no more guns. You don't even have to have ever used marijuana, just the mere mention and the requirement to report puts you at a disadvantage. (I think I've actually read this situation, replacing marijuana with alcohol, and the revocation of driver's privileges, in some state?)

The same problem exists with lawyers...the ethical or legal responsibility to report crimes or whatever. There is and should be no complete trust. With all things in life, there is the marginal better outcome by choosing between any two things.

[Sebastian]

This is old news, the bill has already passed, and it does nothing like is described in this article. World News Daily is a rag... it lines the internet equivalent of the supremarket checkout lines.

[ThomasJ]

This doesn't pass the smell test. Doctors would not be able to have that authority, even if Congress said they could.