Kathleen Parker on Gun Control Foolishness

 

"The biggest obstacle to the Obama administration’s push for tighter gun control may be its own best argument: Newtown. This is because nothing proposed in the gun-control debates would have prevented the mass killing of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and everybody knows it. At best, tighter gun laws will make us feel better."  Kathleen Parker

-----------------------------

Even I am bored with this but this column from a Pulitzer winner is so well done the I felt it should be mentioned.  It looks just possible that a Toomey/Manchin compromise on background checks might have a chance in the senate.  Their bill would propose a watered down strengthening of background checks on all "commercial sales."  This would exclude family transfers, gifts and temporary transfers for range shooting and hunting.  Gun dealers will love this law if it happens because ordinary citizens will be required to find a FFL holder (usually some sort of store) have them run the check through an ATF portal and then pay the dealer a substsantial fee for the service.  It is not clear as yet if the seller will then be required to hold the paperwork on the sale for twenty years.

I think I will apply for a Federal Firearms License.  I can run background checks on line.

And then for something slightly different, we had the spectacle of Judy Woodruff on the Newshour whining and pleading for statements of absolute support for draconian gun ownership restrictions from the Baltimore County police chief who kept trying to carefully qualify his views.  In the same segment she tried hard to discount arguments made by a man named Keane who is the GC of the gun manufacturers and  dealers trade association.  They are the "gun lobby," not the NRA.  The NRA is the gun OWNERS lobby.  The lawyer did a reasonable job and at the end insisted on pointing out that the gun massacre problem is a mental health problem.  Judy whimpered that this discussion was supposed to be about background checks.  I suppose that the voice in her ear told her to do that.

The corporate media machine is so focused on guns that CNN is devoting a whole day of braodcasting today to lobbying for the president's desiderata.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-an-impotent-gun-control-solution/2013/04/09/cb6a6770-a153-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june13/guns_04-09.html

 

Comments

[Tyler]

Sir,

Looks like the NY government is violating HIPPA to take guns away from people in that blighted state.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

[no one]

I really don't understand how this is supposed to work. I know it gets the pols off the hook by giving them the opportunity to claim a "victory", but that's about it, IMO.

So my uncle has a gun. It's been his for more than 20 years. He needs a little cash - or he wants to give his nephew a gift - and he passes ownership of the gun to me. Why would we bother with the background check hassles and cost - even if I have no felony record to worry about? I just take the gun and, if anyone asks, I say I've had it for years. Can't even remember where I obtained it it's been so long.

The only way this scheme works is if all guns are registered and, therefore, the chain of ownership can be traced; e.g. I couldn't say that I had owned the gun for 20+ years because the registration would show that it was my Uncle's a couple years ago. But then how do they get my Uncle to register his guns in the first place? Threaten a felony arrest for all unregistered guns? Probably (see NY). Register with whom, though? The Federal gov't? Ain't gonna happen. Everyone knows that's the first step on the road to confiscation.

What a hair brained accomplish nothing impossible scheme Washington has created here.

[Bill H]

A whole host of laws, the effectiveness of which is based on the assumption that criminals will obey laws when criminals, by definition, do not bother with obeying laws.

[turcopolier]

no one

The anti-gun people in the fantasy islands and New England want gun confiscation. Everything they do and say screams that this is true no matter how fervently they work on their smokescreen.

Sadly, this whole campaign on their part is illustrative of how feeble are the cultural ties that hold the country together. pl

[John Minnerath]

I was on a long trip for a few days for eye surgery, snow storms and blizzards forced us on a long round about trip through parts of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming to get back home.
Everywhere; from doctors offices, to restaurants, to grocery stores; the talk was about how everyone was so glad to live where the idea of more gun laws was being fought.
The people in this part of the US do NOT want this!

[r whitman]

While we are on the topic of gun foolishness, lets dispense with another bit of bullshit. The NRA and assorted gun owners do not want to let the USG have a list of owners for fear of confiscation. This list is available and easily obtained by other means. All you need is a tame judge to issue a handful of supoenas and a competent big data miner such as Splunk. They can easily compile a list af all credit card purchases for firearms and ammo for the last 5 years. The data exists. You can also pull all check purchases. Want the membership rolls of the NRA, if dues are paid by credit card or check,then the data is available and can be easily retrieved.

If you want a list of probable criminals that have guns you can compile a list of felons, people on probation, people out on bail for serious crimes, and people with serious juvenile records. This data exists now and can be compiled by competent big data miners.

Its a new world . Big Brother is for real

[no one]

Tyler, that is truly a disturbing development. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I have jokingly suggested it would be the next step.

God how I can't wait to get out of NY.

I am wondering how the state police could get the pharmacy records. Perhaps through Medicaid since it is a state funded insurance program. It wasn't clear from the link how the state managed that.

Again, I call attention to the fact that 1 in 5 Americans is on a psychiatric prescription. The figure is probably higher if we look at Americans who have *ever* been on such a prescription.

And what is a psychiatric prescription? The link brings up this question. I have difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep. Bourbon, which I like a lot, just energizes me. During one particularly rough period I had a doctor friend prescribe me Ambien (a prescription sleep aid). It kind of worked, but it also produced vivid nightmares that caused me to wake up. He then switched me to a mild benzodiazepine which did work and I took of and on for two or three months. Various psychiatric diagnoses also get benzo.s to calm down. Will they be coming for my guns? Who is immune?

[Tyler]

I know me and Fred have mentioned, but I wonder when they're going to start going after veterans with PTSD and taking their guns. Do you need to have actually been diagnosed with PTSD, or is simply talking to a counselor enough to warrant this treatment?

[no one]

Right, Tyler re; PSTD. It is a big question. My understanding - from my son - is that these days anyone returning from deployment meriting the CIB must go to counseling. Maybe the state of NY will access those records - some intergovernmental cooperation - and deny combat vets the right to own guns. I'm sure Cuomo/Bloomberg would like to do this.

I am wondering if the psych med/psych diagnosis thing applies to law enforcement as well. I'd wager that there are a lot of cops on meds and/or in counseling for various mental imbalances.

[turcopolier]

All

Yes, the scumbags have found another way to spit on us. "Thank you for your service." pl

[scott s.]

That is essentially the system here in Hawaii: background checks (permit to acquire) coupled with mandatory registration. Since registration of long guns did not become required until 1994 an unknown number of unregistered guns are out there. As far as proposed law, drafts I've seen seem to work like current pawnshop/consignment sale. Seller has to transfer firearm onto FFL's inventory (bound book) and has to do 4473/NICS to get it back if sale does not go through/redeemed from pawn. There are some exemptions for work done by licensed gunsmith. Note that getting dealer FFL these days isn't so easy due to ATF requiring evidence of business hours/storefront, state business registration, zoning compliance, etc.

[zanzibar]

"...how feeble are the cultural ties that hold the country together. pl"

Yes indeed. What does it mean to be American today?

Is assimilation desired by immigrants and the native population as it was in the 19th and early 20th century?

[Fred]

Everyone meriting the CIB must go to counseling? What the hell for, because the liberals who are now permanently exempt (no draft) from ever serving in the defense of the Republic are now safe to claim all who do are permanently scarred by the experience and must thus be classified as separate but equal citizen who can no longer be trusted with all the rights liberals enjoy - i.e. ownership of firearms?

[Fred]

According to the article and the linked references therein, "Under HIPAA, because these informational disclosures are required by law, they can be made without the patient’s consent..”

http://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/mental-health-faq

Reasoned judgement, as in you pissed of the doctor's nurse so he/she files a report; it's okay, they're 'professionals'. Not to mention any of the anti-gun medical practitioners who'll do this as a matter of course.

Fear not though, because these folks are not a threat to themselves or others with rope, knives, automobiles, baseball bats, prescription drugs, alcohol or anything else. Only guns cause harm.

Even better, the professionals are immune from any civil or criminal recourse because the used "reasonable professional judgment". I sure can't wait for a family who has a relative commit suicide find out that the 'reasoned professional judgement' didn't include the chance their medicated relative would kill themselves with a rope or kill their kids by driving their car into a ditch, kids in back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith

Needless to say there was nothing listed as saying they are required to report that you are no longer a 'threat'. The only thing I can say for sure is that just like his dad this Cuomo will never be president either.

[twv]

The Toomey-Manchin "compromise" apparently has a real ringer in it:

"The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns."

Doctors so inclined may very well find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits, or, if in a small town, worse.

[optimax]

I watched Sen Manchin and Sen. Toomey on C-span discuss their proposal to expand background checks to all commercial gun transactions while exempting private exchanges. The legislation also protects people who lawfully own guns in their own state for being prosecuted for carry guns through another state without the state's oppressive registration requirement for every firearm is said state of insanity.

Sounded very reasonable to me.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/10/1844301/in-blow-to-nra-bipartisan-duo-of-senators-to-announce-agreement-to-expand-background-checks/

[robt willmann]

Regarding the link in Tyler's comment above to the story about New York State confiscating guns because someone was prescribed medication for anxiety, this is all made easier by the unnecessary and nefarious requirement to computerize prescription drug and medical records.

I think there was some computerization of medical records encouraged or required before the Obamacare "health care" law (perhaps "legally justified" by saying that doctors being paid by Medicare had to do this), and then I read about drugs prescribed by doctors being put in a computerized database by pharmacies for "convenience" or some similar cover word. After that comes Obamacare (unconstitutionally) requiring computerized medical records everywhere and I think your doctor's computer records are now also required to be uploaded to a government database, which may or may not be part of Medicare and Medicaid.

Since "everybody knows" that the National Security Agency has for ages been scanning voice records and voice prints to pick out certain things and then isolate and use that data record, it is child's play to scan databases of medical and prescription drug and hospital computerized records to do the same.

Then, most recently (although I don't know if the regulations being written for the Affordable [sic] Care Act also say so or say worse), when the Obama white house launched its recent gun control campaign, he signed "executive orders" about it, one of which I think said that doctors were to be told that federal law did not "prohibit" them from snitching and informing on their patients; of course he did not say that federal law "did not require" them to snitch on their patients.

Vague language in any new law on "background checks" about "mental health" could try to be used to permit the scanning of medical and prescription drug records now in the hands of the federal government or, most likely, in the hands of a private company with a contract to do so (and making large amounts of money) as part of the background check system, and further used to say that this new federal law "preempts" the State laws that try to protect patients' records and minimize a doctor stitching on a patient.

The HIPPA federal law "to protect" medical records and the most private health matters of a person initiated during the Bill Clinton administration and made effective by the Bush jr. administration of course in reality does not protect your medical privacy but weakens it. However, that is another story.

As has become obvious, advertising slogans are created to be the names of some proposed new federal laws, and you can safely assume that the law does the opposite of what the name says. Such an advertising slogan will be used as the name of any gun control bill pushed for a vote in the U.S. Senate.

[Edward Amame]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in DC v. Heller,"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Nevertheless, with this congress one thing can be counted on. Along the way amendments will be offered that will pour even more water on the proposed already-watered-down strengthening of background checks.

On the brighter side, by exec order, Obama has thawed the 17 year chilling effect on federally funded research by the CDC into gun violence. Maybe sometime soon we might have a better handle on whether tighter gun laws just "make us feel better" (per pundit parker /NRA) or are effective (per Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research).

[no one]

r Whitman, you are correct re; databases and running queries. Always pay cash for guns and ammo - or anything else you want to keep on the down-low.

I have it from a fairly reliable source that NY is able to cross reference pistol permit holders with something called the NY prescription database (this database does, in fact, exist).

The database apparently holds a record of all prescriptions and the name and address of the recipient. So it looks like doctors and healthcare professionals had nothing to do with the situation Tyler brought to our attention up thread (first comment). Instead, what happened is that LE simply submitted a list of a registered pistol owners to the prescription database and got back the medications all permitted owners are on. They claim this is legal and not in violation of HIPAA (guns, privilege to own a handgun, public safety and all).

[harry]

Dont worry. Obama has no interest in gun control. We know this because he keeps refering to it as "gun control". You should worry when he refers to it as "Keeping Americas kids safe", or some other ridiculous euphemism. If he cant even be bothered to wheel out his disgusting PR people he really doesnt care about the issue. This effort will die on the vine.

[Edward Amame]

Health care professionals in NY opposed the requirement that they alert officials if they thought a person might engage in "harmful conduct" for a number of reasons, including because they worried it caused them to violate HIPPA's privacy safeguards.

The patient's name would then be checked to see if he/she has registered weapons. Law enforcement would then have the option of suspending or revoking any gun permits they hold.

This requirement is currently undergoing a challenge in court.

Our GOP-controlled state senate voted in favor of the gun bill, 43 to 18.

I agree with you and NY state healthcare officials and will be interested to see how it plays out in court.

I am also curious about how you guys would go about keeping guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill," which is something I've seen supported on this site and by the NRA. There doesn't seem to be any nice libertarian way of going about it that I can imagine.

[Bill H]

What happens to the doctor who "should have" put someone on the list but did not do so? What happens to the doctor if that person buys a gun and goes on a shooting spree? What happens to the doctor if that never happens?

If a requirement is made for a person to do something, then it has to be enforceable, meaning there has to be a way to detect that it has not been done, and to punish for not doing it. Does this bill have provisions for such?

If placement on the list is voluntary, why would a doctor ever do it considering that he risks lawsuit and worse for doing so?

[turcopolier]

harry

You, I and Tyler are all Catholic. I think it inaccurate to say that Hitler was a Catholic. He abandoned Christianity early in life. The same thing was true of Stalin. you are mistaken about the PR machine here on guns. Obama has fully mobilized the apparatus. pl

[Edward Amame]

no one

This proposal expands background checks to all private "commercial sales" (ie; internet, gun shows). The checks would be done by dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees) and records of sales would be kept by the dealers, just as has been the case under current law.

Personal transfers between friends and family are not affected.

[robt willmann]

Oops ... I said, "minimize a doctor 'stitching' on a patient", when I should have said "snitching on a patient", or maybe both!