Defensive Carry banner

Medical screening for just owning firearms, not even for dangerousness

3K views 36 replies 30 participants last post by  gr8shooter 
#1 ·
This a new one on me. I have heard proposals for doctors screening people who own guns and may be a danger to themselves, but this one proposes that Massachusetts Health and Human Services establish a program where doctors to screen all patients for the mere presence of guns in the home and then give those patients who "screen positively" for firearms in the home to get safety counseling from the doctor.

Now, I know this is just another crackpot piece of legislation, but since it is a real bill up for consideration in a real state legislature and it has been referred to the House Committee on Public Health and it has been concurred by the Senate, this one might have legs. The MA legislature has veto proof Dem majorities in both chambers and the gov. is a "Liberal Republican." Even if it doesn't fly, it is another example of the anti-gun ideas that are out there.

Bill H.2005
SECTION 1. Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 236 the following section:-

Section 237. The director shall establish a program for firearm screening and counseling. Such program shall systematically screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home. The director shall, after consultation with recognized professional medical groups and such other sources as the director deems appropriate, promulgate regulations establishing (1) the means by which and the intervals at which patients shall be screened for the presence of firearms in the home and (2) guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms in the home.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
jmf552, that's not good news, but thanks for the alert.
 
#7 ·
I wouldn't read too much into that. It doesn't seem all that "anti-gun", really. A medic asking me if I own firearms won't suddenly make me reconsider owning guns.

It's pathetic that the state feels the need to direct how physicians (or whomever) practice medicine. I suppose Big Brother needs to feel relevant. But, as I read the bill as quoted above, it just puts pressure on "the director" [of what?] to establish a screening program, accompanied by some safety tips to be given to firearm owners. It essentially does.....nothing.
 
#11 ·
The bill enlists every physician in the state to make a record of firearm owners. Probably not a big deal, since I'm sure that information is kept reaaaaaaly private. Except, you know, if the state deems it necessary for the safety of the public.

On an unrelated note, does Massachusetts have any unreasonable gun or gun accessory bans?
 
#8 ·
I wonder how they would handle this if the patient said, "That's none of your business" or "refused to take any sort of counseling from a doctor on this topic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51
#10 ·
Section 237. The director shall establish a program for firearm screening and counseling. Such program shall systematically screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home. The director shall, after consultation with recognized professional medical groups and such other sources as the director deems appropriate, promulgate regulations establishing (1) the means by which and the intervals at which patients shall be screened for the presence of firearms in the home and (2) guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms in the home.
Safety counseling paid for by the gun owner I presume. I wonder if Medicare will cover any of that :rolleyes:. Some of this stuff gets sillier by the day.
 
#12 ·
I can see this bill as laying the groundwork for an extremely aggressive red flag program, such that if someone is on any medication that could have mind-altering or psychological side effects (like even those quit smoking drugs, for example) they are flagged and their guns are bagged and tagged. IMO this proposed bill is hardly innocuous.
 
#23 ·
I share the same concern, my friend.
 
#15 ·
More sideways attempts to achieve multiple progressive goals: establish a government list of gun owners; set up an ongoing program to update said list; propagandize gun ownership as dangerous both individually and to society; establish authority to declare a citizen unfit to exercise their 2A rights; eliminate access to ALL Bill of Rights protections for weapon ownership.
 
#16 ·
Correct.. and then if a gun owner wants a prescription for anxiety medication, such as Xanax or Klonopin or an anti depressant such as Zoloft or something, the doctors office is directed to instantly notify the state/county/local/ police, and bang- weapons confiscated permanently, NO due process at all . In the name of " the safety and well being of the individual in question, as well as the community at large"..
See how nice that sounds.. Its all about "keeping us safe"....bob
 
#20 ·
Always tell them that you don't have any guns, and do it with the most straightforward face you can manage. Don't add any embellishments -- don't sneak in a wink -- just say "no" and move on.

I would concede that saying "none of your business" should be the honest and non-disclosing answer, EXCEPT in the reality that we find ourselves, "none of your business" will be interpreted to mean "I have an arsenal -- and since I am not being submissive to THE AUTHORITY, that arsenal is probably being amassed for nefarious reasons."

A person who asks such a question is of a different mindset than you. To them, a clever quip or evasive answer is the same as saying "I have a hidden arsenal".


Question: Do you have any firearms in your home?
Response: Why do you ask?
Translation: I have a hidden arsenal.

Question: Do you have any firearms in your home?
Response: That's none of your business.
Translation: I have a hidden arsenal.

Question: Do you have any firearms in your home?
Response: I fail to see how that is medically relevant.
Translation: I have a hidden arsenal.


You don't know what will happen to that information next week or next year. You don't know what the next person down the line is going to do with it. You don't know if the next election will bring new rules that betray the old paradigm.

Already we have seen attempts by the VA and Social Security Administration to take away guns from people who have financial guardians. Trump has taken solid steps to reverse those policies, but the next election would reverse them back again.

Maybe the information you willing provide will never leave the doctor's office, or maybe after the next election, the Attorney General will ask the Surgeon General to put pressure on doctors to share that information. Even if you like your doctors and want to keep your doctors, do you trust them to risk their medical licenses (and a short stint for contempt) to protect what you thought was confidential information?

Privileged communications aside, psychiatrists, and physicians, and priests are required to inform on their charges who might hurt themselves or others. This is going on today. Tomorrow, you may say something to a shrink that you both think is confidential and later find out that new rules negate that confidentiality.

In 1975, Cleveland banned guns under .32 Cal with less than a 3" barrel. The ban was overturned as unconstitutional in 1976. A registration program was then instituted. Eventually, the small gun ban was ruled constitutional -- and notices were sent to those who registered their small guns.

When Morton Grove enacted its famous handgun ban, it made a request to the State of Illinois for a list of all applicants of the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card. Under enormous political pressure, Illinois denied the request -- but the attempt was still made.

CITY OF CHICAGO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS | FindLaw
For the third time in four years, we consider whether the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) entitles the City of Chicago (the “City”) to information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) databases regarding the sale and tracing of firearms. In our two previous stabs at the issue, we affirmed the district court's ruling that ATF must provide the City access to the databases ...

On Christmas Eve, 2012, the New York Journal News published the names and addresses of all the registered gun owners in three counties.

People on gun forums are very aware of slippery slopes. We know how one thing leads to another. Again, you may trust your doctors, but do you trust the next Attorneys and Surgeons General who will one day lord over them?
 
#21 ·
I had to go to the emergency room for an uncontrollable nose bleed thanks to taking blood thinner. While I was there being treated the for bleeding the doc asked me if I wanted to kill my self or anyone else. WTH! What would have been the consequences of answering yes to either question? I can only guess about and imagine the black hole I'd have been sucked into.
 
#24 ·
I had to go to the emergency room for an uncontrollable nose bleed thanks to taking blood thinner. While I was there being treated the for bleeding the doc asked me if I wanted to kill my self or anyone else. WTH! What would have been the consequences of answering yes to either question? I can only guess about and imagine the black hole I'd have been sucked into.
The doctor I’ve had for many years recently retired and a medical group bought his practice, I was given a stack of papers to fill out and that was one of the first questions asked.
 
#22 ·
To the anti gun folks the saying:

"The ends justify the means"

translates to whatever (emphasis on whatever! from any angle!) can be used, abused, misused, and corrupted is justified as long as taking guns from the commoners is the result.
 
#25 ·
I am not a lawyer, but I can tell you that until they pass a general law that makes ALL lying (to anyone and everyone) a crime, there is a simple way to deal with invasive requests for information. Of course, when they pass that, most politicians are going to wind up in jail, as are a majority of adults in the country when asked about cheating on their spouse.

Realize also that it is one thing to THINK someone is lying, it is something altogether different to PROVE it.

Most people don't realize that it isn't a crime to lie to a police officer about things other than your name. So...the simple answer to these questions is: NO!

Or for those so inclined..."me no habla inglés."
 
#27 ·
These things always remind me of that joke by deadpan comedian Stephen Wright. He said he was driving across the border into Canada. The Canadian border agent asked him, "Do you have any guns?

Wright took on a very confidential voice tone and facial expression and answered, "What do you need?"

I'd give that response to a doctor!
 
#29 ·
The legislation's intent is an egregious violation of individual privacy. No one could be legally required to make any disclosure to a doctor even if the doctor is compelled by law to ask a question. And who would train the doctors about how to counsel patients who have guns? It is absurd legislation but like the OP states this is happening in MA, and that means it actually could pass.

If my Doc asked me if I owned a gun, he would get a simple answer: Doc, it is not your business. Take care of by body. I'll take care of my mind.
 
#31 ·
My Doctor hasn't asked me about owning firearms YET, but he also knows I DO OWN a collection. I've known him personally for over 15 years now, and although he's not a "gun guy" he knows I will respond "NO" to any and all questions he may have to ask to CYA on his behalf....
Massachusetts is a whole different wad of mush....Beacon Hill (the Statehouse) thinks they can do anything they wish to their people..... Funny thing is, the place where the Revolutionary War started is now the SAME area where it's People are still being oppressed by the Lawmakers, Hacks, and Moonbats.
 
#32 ·
EXACTLY why I left Massachusetts 30 years ago, and NOW, these same types are coming into New Hampshire, and beginning to try to convert NH and Maine into a Northern Mass
Progressivism behaves exactly like a pathological organism - it infects previously healthy surrounding tissue.
 
#36 ·
I saw a great post on one of the news feeds about how to handle doctors asking about firearms ownership:

"I’m pretty sure I’d be compelled to file a complain using the red flag laws and inform local law enforcement that the doctor seems obsessed with guns. I’m extremely worried about his state of mind, he might be thinking of hurting himself or others."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Struckat
#37 ·
This a new one on me. I have heard proposals for doctors screening people who own guns and may be a danger to themselves, but this one proposes that Massachusetts Health and Human Services establish a program where doctors to screen all patients for the mere presence of guns in the home and then give those patients who "screen positively" for firearms in the home to get safety counseling from the doctor.
Sure... The 3rd leading cause of death (study by John Hopkins Univ) in this country back in 2016 was medical malpractice and legislators want doctors to screen and give gun owners safety advice. Hahahaha... How stooopid is that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...rs-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top