“There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all. This proposed rulemaking is carefully balanced to protect and preserve individuals’ privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the public’s health and safety.” – Kathleen Sebelius, Obama Seeks Tighter Mental Health Restrictions on Guns [at bloomberg.com]

46 Responses to Quote of the Day: Carefully Balanced Edition

  1. I guess since her career is all but ruined, she’s the perfect spokesbitch for any of the Prez’s intrusive policies.

  2. Ignorance.It’s what’s for dinner in DC.

    The reason most states don’t report mental health info is because, in addition to the privacy concerns, they cannot logistically do so!

    Who’s going to stand vigil at the fax machine every time someone gets an antidepressant prescription? This plan will go down in a pile of backlogged reports. All this means is that after the next spree shooting, we’ll feel good knowing the bad guys mental history reports sat on a desk marked “outbox” instead of in a file drawer.

  3. How many people are going to seek mental health treatment if they have to worry about losing their 2nd amendment rights? This is pretty ass backwards thinking because this will just result in crazy people with guns NOT seeking treatment for fear of having their guns taken. It will probably result in more mass shootings but that’s probably what the left wants.

    • I can tell you some Soldiers have already figured out they dare not get help or lose their guns. I’m glad i’m OK or this would be a deterrent for me.

    • Not just that, but non-medical gov’t employees can, and have, convinced Judges to involuntarily commit folks for less than altruistic reasons. Having issues with the spouse and they are seeing a therapist? What about going to an ER and the Doc has issues with you? Involuntary commitment is a possibility for you if their therapist sees fit? Looks like a one way gate to me, with little recourse or expungement for malicious involuntary commitment.

      Lookie there, the DSM IV has nail biting listed… off you go!

    • I never, ever, ever would of set foot inside the VA to get help for my PTSD from from the War if I had any idea the government would of lumped me into a catagory of prohibited persons that include murderers and rapists. I did not sacrifice mind and body to have my Constitutional rights taken from me. This has, and will continue to keep away Joes that need help.

      • I am in the same boat,only I feel worse as a leader I was told and promised it would have NO negative effect. We were told to encourage our troops/sailors/marines/airmen to seek the help they need. I F-d up and believed the leaders above me and passed the info on to my men and women. I hope and pray this will not have a negative impact on any of us. I do not however have any faith in the government not F-g over veterans. We already heard Senators from CA spouting off about PTSD. This is a national shame and I hope Congress will grow some balls and stop this now.

  4. “Carefully balanced”.

    Gov. speak translates to “We, your government stooges, aren’t letting a ginned up crisis go to waste. These royal edicts give us more power over you peasants by taking away more of your privacy and increasing the surveillance power of the state.”

    “So go ahead and bend over some more, cuz we know what’s best for you”.

  5. “There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS,”

    This is the justification for the tyrant in the White House and Sebelius uses to violate the terms of his position and create law….the end justifies the means. EVERYONE needs to yell at their reps on the HIll. This subjective evaluation of a topic with subsequent unilateral law making to satisfy the whim of the rulers is a warning light to everyone in this country. Remember, this can happen to anyone or any group. Think of what could happen when a sitting president goes around his mandate to make a ruling that an existing law can be modified or ignored for what he perceives as the good of the country. Hitler killed a lot of people using the rationale that it is good for the country.
    Obama and his coterie of criminal supporters are the greatest danger this country faces.

  6. This is just feel-good action by the dems. I’ve read the same press release print all over the web, but nothing on how it will actually work or be implemented. Who is doing the reporting? Hospitals? LEO? What are the standards? What sort of checks and balance are being put into place to prevent abuse? If your name is put on by mistake, how is it removed?

    Honestly, this is the first wave of a “Terrorist No Fly List” for the rest of us. In the near future I’m guessing that hundreds of thousands of political enemies will end up on this list.

    What is to prevent a nurse or doctor with a grudge against someone they know that owns guns to add them to the “no-gun” list?

    • Just believe in the Hope and Change, my man, and let the Barry / Kathleen combo handle the details. They’ve already down such a fantastic job. What could possibly go wrong?

    • That will work as well as the Obamacare site. Because whatever system will be built by the lowest, best-connected non-bidder.

  7. So if you have a history of mental “issues” you can buy a car? A knife? An axe? Gasoline? Work as a caregiver in a pre-school?… Logical this isn’t

  8. Considering how many people need help but DON’T get it due to lack of resources, distrust of the system, or shame, and considering the most dangerous may fall in the distrustful category, not sure how well this plan will work. I like to ask people two questions: 1. Do you think someone who is suffering major depression should have access to a firearm? (They usually say no.) 2. Do you believe constitutional or natural rights should be revoked based on a medical diagnosis or temporary state? (Answers tend to vary, but it is the SAME question.) All this leads to some interesting discussions. Should we IQ test voters? How about candidates? Prospective parents? Should sub-standard IQs mean no voice, no office, no kids? How about sterilization? I’m always shocked some agree these things are viable, leading to the inevitable comparison to other regimes in other times who went down this path. They had a very strong gun control stance as well. No, I don’t think we will go that far, but nobody does until they have. Balance? Stealing rights is not balance. Violating established laws is not balance.

  9. “This proposed rulemaking is carefully balanced to protect and preserve individuals’ privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the public’s health and safety.”

    Carefully balanced always means: “We’re taking away something that we don’t think you should have.”
    Doctor-patient confidentiality is now gone. Even the term is gone. It’s now patient-provider relationship, with the “provider” being just another tentacle of government.

  10. It was only a matter of time that this approach would be pursued. People keep buying guns despite the bloody flag waving, despite the misinformation spread by mainstream news, despite the demonization of guns and gun owners. Now the whittling will begin. Deny gun rights individual by individual. Start with the mentally ill, then move on to people with physical disabilities and eventually citizens with so much as a traffic ticket on their records.

    • Or just define “mental illness” down, until you get to something like this:

      “You have one of those evil AR’s (or multiple guns, or legally-acquired NFA items)? You likely have a screw loose because no one I know sees any need for civilians to have such things, and you therefore must be given a psychiatric ‘evaluation.’ It’s for the children, of course. And the fact that you were required to undergo psychiatric ‘evaluation’ proves that you must be stripped of all rights to legally own such inherently evil things, as well all of your other firearms. Which are also oh so icky, by the way. And if you resist our efforts to have you ‘evaluated,’ it just further proves how paranoid and in need of help you are.”

      Paging Franz Kafka . . . .

      • Remember the USSR used mental institutions to imprison their dissidents in the 60s if they couldn’t kill or jail them otherwise.

        the pairing of govt healthcare and gun control is perfect for the same move here.

        Tell congress no and don’t see your doctor unless you are willing to be imprisoned or surrender your weapons.

        Couldn’t happen here? remember: If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance! This will reduce the cost of insurance for a family of 4 by $2400/yr. Medicaid seeks reimbursement from estate for money spent on deceased for the last 5 years…

  11. “This proposed rulemaking is carefully balanced to protect and preserve individuals’ privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the public’s health and safety.”

    BS. There is nothing in the current rule making or clarification at the federal level that has anything to do with privacy. I am no expert here but everything I see in this has to do with involuntary commitment. Involuntary commitment, whether inpatient or outpatient is a matter of public record. Any mental heath issue used to deny a right must be a matter of public record or we lose our right to due process.

    So if they are talking about balancing privacy then in my opinion they are talking about future changes that would encroach on privacy and I am seriously worried about where this goes next. It has already gone too far in some states where things that should be private can be used to deny your right to own a firearm.

    Saying that involuntary outpatient commitment qualifies as a prohibiting reason doesn’t make sense to me. I get especially worried when we also consider the following statement from the linked article. “The administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun,” Anyone may pose a danger to themselves or others. That is not the proper standard. It should be anyone who has a high likelihood of posing a danger. What they are saying is someone is not dangerous enough that we should lock them up and we trust them enough that they can roam free in society but we don’t trust them to have a gun. That is not logical to me. It is saying that the gun is the only reasonable tool that can be used to harm themselves or others so by taking away the tool you are preventing the possible harm. If someone is so dangerous that we must permanently deny their right to own a firearm then they should be removed from society until they no longer pose that danger.

    • I agree. “Anyone who may pose a danger……” is an infinitely elastic standard. Over the course of a lifetime, who’s to say that any given person might not as some point in the near or distant future fit into that category? How do you distinguish today, beyond a reasonable doubt, between such people and those who will live peacefully? It’s sufficiently difficult to determine guilt of a past crime, based on evidence and testimony. Now the rickety system is supposed to pinpoint who is guilty of pre-crime?

      I’m not even just talking about a hypothetical person who “just snaps”, but what about self-defense? Suppose this new standard of “may pose a danger…..” all of a sudden applies to self-defense situations? Well. There are millions and millions of people out there who do indeed pose a clear and present danger to……..rapists/murderers/home-invaders………right now. This self-serving, anti-standard of “may pose a danger….” could apply to anyone and everyone, everywhere and anytime, and constitutes no standard whatsoever.

  12. Now, awkwardly dancing around that offensive, intrusive question by your doctor of “So, do you have any firearms in your home?” takes on a new level of importance and caution. If you catch that flak from your G.P., find another general practitioner. If you get that invasive of privacy from some specialist, just remind them why you’re there. “Dude, I’m here for tennis elbow. Just give me my steroid shot and let’s leave the gun debates for another time, another place, ok?” You don’t want an official record, a de facto gun registry masquerading as your medical records, where you’ve volunteered your own firearms ownership status to the police state.

    Just be sure to say it with a smile, lest you get a “Seems hypersensitive and overly defensive regarding firearms. Submit to NICS as a mental defective” notation in your file.

    Just remember, folks, with Obama and his minions running around snatching up your medical records, reading your mail, and listening on your calls, anything you say can and will be used against you in a kangaroo court of law.

    • Yes.
      I picked my doc long ago based on him being a fisher/hunter. And a rep as a good doc.
      They are easy to find. Local gun clubs, etc.
      my dentist, pharmacist and my doc are all folks that are welcome in my home, on my boat or in elk camp.

  13. In the presser from the other day, His Majesty (or one of his Propaganda Ministers) made the comment that the proposed rule was written AFTER a public comment period. Was I asleep when that happened? Was notice only published in the Federal Register or CBD? Or was the announcement pure, unadulterated fantasy?

  14. More overreach by the Feds. The reporting issue is something that states themselves should be handling as they see fit. Mental health records are not uniformly kept in each state, so they can’t hope to be reported uniformly. Should it be uniform? Possibly, but it shouldn’t be up to the Feds.

    This is more anti-liberty activity that could be easily solved by good guys with guns in current gun free zones where the bulk of these shootings take place. The feds are ignoring the logical solution and attempting to go after low hanging fruit.

    The most the Feds should be able to do in this situation, is make a ‘recommendation’ to states, not any kind of law, ‘rule’ or (defacto) code changes. Let’s face it, the Admins (past and present) use ‘rule change’ to skirt actual Congress driven codification, which is what the Constitution requires. The Admin and Judicial branches were never meant to codify laws.

    By doing this and getting away with it (presumably Congress will stand idly by per normal) a legal precedent is set for the Judicial branch to apply the technique to other areas. Let’s face it, legal precedent is what drives law these days as much as proper codification. Law classes (seemingly endless reading of case after case after case…) and current ‘state of normalcy’ WRT the courts bear this out.

  15. The fallacy is that this invasion of privacy that the President wants to implement via bypassing Congress will stop with gun ownership.

  16. Why in the hell isn’t this Gorgon sporting a new coat of tar and feathers and riding around town on a rail, to the jeers of her countrymen and -women?

  17. The fail in this thread is massive. The federal law disenfranchising those who are a threat to themselves or others due to mental defect or disease has been on the books for many years, as has the federal law requiring reporting of involuntary mental health commitments to the NCIS. the fact of the matter is that many states, mostly due to a lack of a reporting infrastructure, simply do not report at all, or only sporadically. The regs are intended to effectuate prior law. The only thing new and concerning is the inclusion o an “involuntary outpatient commitment.” I’ve never heard of such a thing.

    Let’s get a couple of other things straight. At least under federal law, an involuntary commitment for “evaluation and treatment” (what is known in California as a “5150” after Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150) does NOT invoke a lifetime ban (although it does trigger a ten year ban (used to be five) under STATE law). Federal law requires, in order to comply with the requisites of due process, an ADJUDICATION by a judicial officer of the existence of a disabling mental disease before firearms ownership can be banned, and furthermore, that determination MUST be the result of an INVOLUNTARY commitment. Voluntary commitments DO NOT result in a ban under the federal law. Judicial proceedings, even if held in the privacy of a mental health facility, DO NOT intrude on privacy rights.

    The taking of anti-depressants DO NOT result in a ban, and the proposed regs DO NOT require your mental health professional to report the writing of prescriptions to the federal government. In fact, your physician is NOT required to report ANYTHING to the feds, although state law may (probably) DOES require him or her to report you to the appropriate state or local authorities IF he or she has reasonable cause to believe that you are a danger to yourself or others. Restated, your own shrink can have you “5150’d” if circumstances warrant. And if he does report you, he DOES NOT violate the patient-physician privilege; your physician cannot claim the privilege in circumstances where the failure to speak will likely result in an injury or death. Which if you think about it makes perfect sense; any other conclusion would mean that the doctor could aid or abet a crime without consequence, civil or criminal.

    Now I am NOT talking about the VA. The stories I’ve read about what they have done to soldiers returning from recent engagements–blaming clearly identifiable war injuries as “pre-existing conditions” not covered by the VA and further denying disability benefits on this basis–are horrendous. I wouldn’t trust them either., It seems that agency is more concerned about saving money and kicking soldiers off their system than anything else. Understandable given the billions of dollars in costs, but that’s what the government bargained for when it hired these people, and it owes them.

    • an “involuntary outpatient commitment.” I’ve never heard of such a thing.

      Look up Kendra’s Law or AOT Law’s

      http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/solution/assisted-outpatient-treatment-laws
      SUMMARY: Forty-five states permit the use of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), also called outpatient commitment. AOT is court-ordered treatment (including medication) for individuals who have a history of medication noncompliance, as a condition of their remaining in the community. Studies and data from states using AOT prove that it is effective in reducing the incidence and duration of hospitalization, homelessness, arrests and incarcerations, victimization, and violent episodes. AOT also increases treatment compliance and promotes long-term voluntary compliance, while reducing caregiver stress. The five states that do not have AOT are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Tennessee.

      Of the 5 states without AOT laws, you can thank the ACLU. In 2009 and 2011 and early 2012 ACLU fought to ban this type of law in CT.

      • Learn something new every day. Interesting. My father in law did a study of homelessness in America, and found that a large percentage of the homeless population is mentally ill and noncompliant with taking medication. When they stop taking medication, symptomology–often schizophrenia and paranoia–return, and life on the streets begins again. If these folks get tired of being on the streets, they commit a petty crime to assure a stay in the local county jail for a period of months, where they are fed, housed and receive medical care. A repeating cycle.

  18. Riiiiight… we’re totally going to trust the person in charge of Ofailcare with anything regarding gun rights…

  19. I looked up “balanced” in the dictionary to check and see if the meaning had changed. It apparently hasn’t.

    So what we have here is political doublespeak with the intent to legalize the transparency of doctor-patient privacy with government officials.

    Whatever it takes to block a gun sale and eliminate other rights in the process (privacy).

  20. They waste their time looking a good enough reason to rob us of our rights. There IS NO REASON WE WILL EVER ACCEPT. EVER!

  21. These elected and appointed scumbags are nothing more than criminals who should be ARRESTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON.

  22. They can’t get gun confiscation through congress so they imagine they’ll take them away with dipshit laws that ensnare smaller numbers of citizens. Not happening scpincters.

Leave a Reply

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