(OK, EE is writing this based on a conversation that he has had with someone else. Does any else find it extremely troublesome that this dangerous legislation is apparently coming to the floor for a vote by COB tomorrow and no one seems to be able to locate a copy of the text of this bill? If you find one, please post it here, as many of us would like to be actually to read it!)

The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns
By: Erick Erickson (Diary), April 10th, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I just talked to someone familiar with the Toomey-Manchin proposal who raises a serious concern based on his understanding of the legislation.

Everyone on all sides agrees that we need better help for those with mental health problems who need treatment.

Unfortunately, the person I talked with is concerned that the Toomey-Manchin proposal could discourage people from getting help.

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.

Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.

--snip--

I found a top of the waves bullet point summary at Toomey's site, this is the item raising this particular concern:

- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).

People think that background checks are only for criminal history. This is not true. They have opened the door to accessing medical records. This is now part of your background history.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #3

---

People think that background checks are only for criminal history. This is not true. They have opened the door to accessing medical records. This is now part of your background history.

---

Ok people how do you determine who the nuts are? ?? This issue has to be addressed they are the ones killing people.

Quote: nerd wrote in post #5

---

Ok people how do you determine who the nuts are? ?? This issue has to be addressed they are the ones killing people.

---

Hang it in your ear, you are always on the personal attack and off topic. Everyday you attack two are three people on this board and your mommy never slaps your little childish azz.

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #8

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #5

---

Ok people how do you determine who the nuts are? ?? This issue has to be addressed they are the ones killing people.

---

RED HERRING ALERT

The question is are we accurately able to identify the criminally murderous insane in advance?. If the answer is yes, how. Certainly not by ceding our 2nd amendment rights to a bureaucracy with an open ended mandate, and ever evolving guidelines

Think on this, has ceding the right to be secure in our person by choosing whether we are irradiated or molested in order to fly made us any safer. No way. There are daily stories of 'security breaches'.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety…

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.
Benjamin Franklin

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #10

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #8

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #5

---

Ok people how do you determine who the nuts are? ?? This issue has to be addressed they are the ones killing people.

---

RED HERRING ALERT

The question is are we accurately able to identify the criminally murderous insane in advance?. If the answer is yes, how. Certainly not by ceding our 2nd amendment rights to a bureaucracy with an open ended mandate, and ever evolving guidelines

Think on this, has ceding the right to be secure in our person by choosing whether we are irradiated or molested in order to fly made us any safer. No way. There are daily stories of 'security breaches'.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety…

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.
Benjamin Franklin

---

Double red herring alert , this stuff did not happen when I was a kid and we had crazy houses for the nuts. Yes, there was mass killings, and we all know about them, but not like today.

So your vote is do nothing, ok that is an acceptable position.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #10

---

Double red herring alert , this stuff did not happen when I was a kid and we had crazy houses for the nuts. Yes, there was mass killings, and we all know about them, but not like today.

So your vote is do nothing, ok that is an acceptable position.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #12

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #10

---

Double red herring alert , this stuff did not happen when I was a kid and we had crazy houses for the nuts. Yes, there was mass killings, and we all know about them, but not like today.

So your vote is do nothing, ok that is an acceptable position.

---

Nerd, you've got to think back to what was different when we were kids... The civil society (with a primary emphasis on the basic building block -- the family) was much stronger and more operative than it is today.
(This is the primary reason why the Founders did not hesitate in using the very specific wording "shall not be infringed" (which means by government) in the 2A text, they knew at that time that the civil society would take care of any "infringements" necessary on a case by case basis. Was it 100% foolproof (then, or even 100 years ago)? No, but it worked much better than government could ever "hope" to.)

Families, churches, synagogues, the local medical community (operating without the heavy hand of government), etc. would ensure two things:
1. That mentally ill, deranged individuals would not have access to firearms (or any other life threatening potential "weapons")
2. These individuals would be placed in the proper care facility based upon their inability to function in the civil society.

Related to this as well, when the family and the rest of civil society was intact and functioning properly, there were far fewer of these nuts walking around. Just consider the childhood (as best as we are told about it) of all of these "crazed, lone gunmen" that have supposedly perpetrated all of these recent crimes -- virtually all of them come from broken homes, absent or estranged fathers. Additionally, prior to the gradual infringement of our 2A rights that have crept in during our lifetimes, more citizens were armed and in a position to at least diminish, if not completely stop, these mentally ill shooters.

Beyond that, we have a judicial system that is supposed to handle the commitment process for the mentally ill. Absent corruption, it should function to provide a fair hearing for those individuals that may need to be committed for everyone's sake. This is far superior to a compromised medical community that is heavily swayed against individual freedom and liberty.

Some may argue that none of this was ever "foolproof" and my answer to that is "no, it wasn't." There are no guarantees in life and bad things happen.

Ceding our rights to be usurped by the corrupt government working hand in glove with a highly compromised medical community is still not a valid answer to the problem.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #12

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #10

---

Double red herring alert , this stuff did not happen when I was a kid and we had crazy houses for the nuts. Yes, there was mass killings, and we all know about them, but not like today.

So your vote is do nothing, ok that is an acceptable position.

---

Nerd, you've got to think back to what was different when we were kids... The civil society (with a primary emphasis on the basic building block -- the family) was much stronger and more operative than it is today.
(This is the primary reason why the Founders did not hesitate in using the very specific wording "shall not be infringed" (which means by government) in the 2A text, they knew at that time that the civil society would take care of any "infringements" necessary on a case by case basis. Was it 100% foolproof (then, or even 100 years ago)? No, but it worked much better than government could ever "hope" to.)

Families, churches, synagogues, the local medical community (operating without the heavy hand of government), etc. would ensure two things:
1. That mentally ill, deranged individuals would not have access to firearms (or any other life threatening potential "weapons")
2. These individuals would be placed in the proper care facility based upon their inability to function in the civil society.

Related to this as well, when the family and the rest of civil society was intact and functioning properly, there were far fewer of these nuts walking around. Just consider the childhood (as best as we are told about it) of all of these "crazed, lone gunmen" that have supposedly perpetrated all of these recent crimes -- virtually all of them come from broken homes, absent or estranged fathers. Additionally, prior to the gradual infringement of our 2A rights that have crept in during our lifetimes, more citizens were armed and in a position to at least diminish, if not completely stop, these mentally ill shooters.

Beyond that, we have a judicial system that is supposed to handle the commitment process for the mentally ill. Absent corruption, it should function to provide a fair hearing for those individuals that may need to be committed for everyone's sake. This is far superior to a compromised medical community that is heavily swayed against individual freedom and liberty.

Some may argue that none of this was ever "foolproof" and my answer to that is "no, it wasn't." There are no guarantees in life and bad things happen.

Ceding our rights to be usurped by the corrupt government working hand in glove with a highly compromised medical community is still not a valid answer to the problem.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #13

---

A droctor already has the right to bave you committed and they have been able to do thst for longer than I have been alive, it is the long term stuff that takes court action.

But the question remains, what can be done about the nuts?

---