Dr. Garrett (courtesy directmdaustin.com)

I pay a fortune for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas health insurance. As my alcoholic ex-wife is on my plan, I reckon I’m getting the better part of that deal. But I don’t rely on Blue Cross for health care. I pay Dr. Garrett of Direct MD Austin [above] $100 a month per family member for concierge service. He’s an ER doc who’s there for me 24/7, via phone or text. He’s pro-Second Amendment. If and when the Black Dog nips at my heels I know I can turn to him for treatment without any chance that he’ll rat me out to the feds. And I worry about that . . .

Gun control advocates would like nothing better than to add millions of Americans — you might say all Americans (save police ) — to the prohibited persons list. They aren’t satisfied with current laws banning new gun purchases for people who’ve been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. As reason.com reported. . .

The SAFE Act requires physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, and licensed clinical social workers to report any patient they deem “likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to self or others.” The report goes to a county mental health official, who is supposed to review the clinician’s determination and, if he agrees with it, pass the information on to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, which checks to see if the subject has a gun permit. If he does, local officials are required to confiscate any firearms he owns.

While no one wants violent people to own guns, it’s equally true that confiscating firearms from people deemed potentially violent is a slippery slope towards widespread civilian disarmament. Consider the fact that some 40 million Americans are taking anti-depressants. By the same token, leaving that assessment to doctors — notorious for their anti-gun views — opens the door to government infringement of Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

usatoday.com tells us that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, “which advises the federal government on health,” is now recommending that “primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression.” If implemented, the health care system will collect the results. Call me paranoid, but that information could be used to restrict or remove patients gun rights. Read between these lines . . .

Depression also can be life-threatening. More than 41,000 Americans commit suicide each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More Americans now die from suicide than from car accidents. About 90% of suicides are related to mental illness.

Gun control advocates recommend removing guns from the homes of depressed people to combat suicides, which accounts for two-thirds of all firearms-related deaths in the United States. A stat that anti-gunners lump in with criminal homicides and negligent discharges to decry the number of Americans who die from “gun violence.”

I don’t know the answer to this danger. But it is not placing the health care system under the control or even supervision of the federal government. The relationship between a doctor and his or her patient should be sacrosanct. Absent a working knowledge of the enormous health care industry, I consider my “extra” $100 check to Dr. Garrett the best insurance against this threat to my gun rights. I recommend that all gun owners explore the possibility of concierge medicine.

Recommended For You

3 Responses to Task Force Highlights Mental Health Dilemma for Gun Owners

  1. So do you pay $100/month per family member PLUS health ins every month? Yikes. I’m wanting to learn more but i would think that is a high pain point for most POTG.

  2. From my voluminous reading on the militia concept and practice, I know that mental instability was considered a cause for being designated as “incompetent to arms”. But the decision was not made by some impersonal bureaucracy, it was made by family, neighbors, and ultimately the locally-chosen leaders of the local militia. That’s where any such decision belongs.

    “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is used to excuse impersonal bureaucracy meddling in our private affairs. But at root that phrase doesn’t mean the sum of all the people, but the sum of the people who are interested and familiar with matters as a course of daily life. The moment a bureaucracy from afar begins telling locals what to do with what is local, it is no longer government by or for the people, but by and for strangers. That may not make it tyranny, but at best it is one very tiny step removed.

Leave a Reply

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