It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctors can report some mentally ill patients to FBI under new gun control rule

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp



I wholly reject that idea.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to know much about how the Constitution set the government up. Or what the word legislation means. Legislature...legislation...see?


Rubbish.
No. It's a fact.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp



I wholly reject that idea.

I'm not surprised. You don't seem to know much about how the Constitution set the government up. Or what the word legislation means. Legislature...legislation...see?


Rubbish.
No. It's a fact.


Unbelievable, you are saying that because they are the only legislative body, they must continually create new legislation.

I say again, rubbish.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
Like it or not. It is their job. Under the Constitution.
If they don't do it, they don't have a job.

BTW, as a reminder, this is not a law.

edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse



If they consider anyone on antidepressants or any mood stabilizer as mentally ill, then it could be a problem.

Read this:
s3.amazonaws.com...


It already says in a law passed that they have an open interpretation of mental or physical health in as to whether a person can have a gun it appears. But this law can already disqualify a third of Americans.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



But this law can already disqualify a third of Americans.

It can?
A third of Americans have been found legally incompetent? Do you understand the ramifications of that?

edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

phage is making a good point ,as it sits now you have to either

a. been declared a danger to your self or others by 5150 (involuntary, you can check your self in but if they force you on a 72 hour hold you are banned).often referred to as deemed adjudicated mentally defective( a term with much stigma) but hey its the law and it makes sense

or B. deemed unfit to stand trial IE you claim insanity in a defesne at trial or you are deemed of a level of intelegence to low to stand trial etc. others are ignoring the fact that he is right that it has been this way for a long time and to a good deal makes sense even in my pro 2nd amendment mind

the new EO's open the door to medical reccords possibly being used against you in a court of law or at least provided to people with out your express consent.they will no dobut attempt to get around this by adding a "consent form" to the 4475(not sure as exact number but here is a link www.atf.gov...) that you have to sign to purchases a weapon but again on its face i dont see Obamas EO's standing constitutional muster



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: concerned190

originally posted by: onequestion
What defines mentally ill and whose to decide?

Ding ding ding! THANK YOU that's what I'm trying to say!


According to Anderson Cooper, if you doubt what 'they' report, during media assaults on our judgment, then you are
not only mentally ill, but you should not be allowed:

to use the internet 'to reach out to other conspiracy freaks, just like themselves'.

In the next breath, Anderson posited:

Should this be allowed?
Should they even be heard from?.

That takes care of freedom of speech.

I don't believe that Anderson, or anyone so disposed, is going to be any too pleased
with the prospect of seeing these silenced freaks shoot their way out of this...evaluation.

That's the whole problem with nazis. They will always find something wrong with anyone who doesn't obey (listen to/heed) them. If I hear lies guised as truth, it is as bad as bullets, and they know it, because this neurolinguistic pairing eviscerates what is 'discernment'. This is universal, natural law.

I almost feel sorry for them, because they are responsible for their lies.
That they were paid to lie as a part of their contract makes judgment even more severe, (sorry about that Anderson).

# 571



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas



the new EO's

Executive action. Not order. And yes, both are subject to judicial review.


edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse



But this law can already disqualify a third of Americans.

It can?
A third of Americans have been found legally incompetent? Do you understand the ramifications of that?


I've been studying food and food additive chemistry for about seven years now and I can definitely say that the choices that are allowed in additives and what they say is good for us in food choices can cause problems with neurochemical balances. This means that many people will need to have this chemistry corrected with medicines. It also weakens transmission of signals in the body.

My question is whether this is intentional or whether it is because everyone is naive and believes in improperly applied scientific evidence. Food additives are approved for one thing yet their main properties are in another application.

Even food colorings have many some psychotropic effects yet they are classified as coloring's. That is just one example, there are hundreds of examples I have uncovered. The chemistry used to grow foods and process foods does not need to be listed on the label if it is approved by the FDA as long as it is approved. This includes chemistry used to extend the fresh life of stuff like veggies.

I blame it on gullibility of the FDA but maybe there is more to it.

I have Temporal Lobe epilepsy and this could be something that could be used against me.
edit on 5-1-2016 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
So everybody is a little bit crazy. That's sort of obvious.

What does it have to do with being declared legally incompetent? A little bit crazy does not equal incompetent.


I have Temporal Lobe epilepsy and this could be something that could be used against me.
As far as driving a car, maybe. Owning a gun, not so much.
edit on 1/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Logically the right thing to do.
Do you want paranoid schizophrenics walking about with guns? Thought not.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   

edit on 5-1-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: irrelevant to the thread



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Honestly, I don't have an issue with this. It seems to me that it doesn't change anything regarding who is considered mentally incompetent with regards to firearms ownership, but rather improves the reporting of such cases into the background check database.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I think the issue is doctor/patient confidentiality. If someone is under a doctors care then they are entitled to privacy. If someone is defined as being mentally ill by a doctor why should that eliminate their right to confidential issues?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: baglady333



If someone is defined as being mentally ill by a doctor why should that eliminate their right to confidential issues?
This does not do that.

The rule specifically prohibits the disclosure of diagnostic or clinical information, from medical records or other sources, and any mental health information beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor.

s3.amazonaws.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: baglady333
I think the issue is doctor/patient confidentiality. If someone is under a doctors care then they are entitled to privacy. If someone is defined as being mentally ill by a doctor why should that eliminate their right to confidential issues?


Because the HHS/Obama says so.

Your name and numbers will be registered on the same database with convicted criminals.

HIPAA has been compromised.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Your name and numbers will be registered on the same database with convicted criminals.
Guess what, that's the true of the DMV too. Got a driver's license? So do convicted criminals.

Nothing has changed about the criteria for being place in the NICS database.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The Social Security (SS) is getting involved as well !!!!!



The ban pertaining to Social Security beneficiaries is now tucked into the “mental health” aspects of Obama’s executive gun control.

According to the White House executive order preview:

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

Again, the push for a ban on gun possession for certain Social Security beneficiaries was already in the works during the summer, but it is also incorporated into the “mental health” aspect of Obama’s executive gun control.

Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Logically the right thing to do.
Do you want paranoid schizophrenics walking about with guns? Thought not.


We should take away their badges, too. No one should have to die because some paranoid schizophrenic was in "fear for their life" over a cell phone.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Most people shouldn't be allowed to drive much less own a gun.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join