misleading news peice on weapons cache arrest

[bossy22]

http://www.wptz.com/video/18689518/index.html

a man in upstate new york was arrested on federal gun charges, and the link to the news video is posted above. 31 seconds into the clip the officer handling one of the weapons says "military and police use only, this is what our boys in iraq are carrying" This makes it seem like he is talking about the gun, but in truth he is not. He is talking about the sighting system on the gun- an EOTECH holosight, which commonly have the words "restricted law enforcement and military use only" stamped on the sides of them (for what god knows reason why- its not illegal to have a holographic weapons site). The gun itself is an MSAR STG-556....not used by our military

just another example of how sound bites are misleading

[krispos42]

1. Don't give the anti-gunners ideas...

"deadly assault holo sights" must be banned! There is not legitimate sporting purpose to own a parallax-free holographic sight! Only people that want to kill other people buy them!


Well, okay, you can have them but we're going to limit the battery size to #571 button-cell batteries. There's no legitimate reason to have a high-capacity lithium cop-killing battery!


:crazy:


(psst! "i" before "e" except after "c")

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Misleading news report??? Noooo, your joking right?

[Iktomiwicasa]

4. Naw, they'd never do that....

[Hoopla Phil]

3. I love the comment about the barret with a rang of 2 miles. Yeah sure

lets see someone actually make that shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Hey now with a lot of practice I could hit a large building at the range.

[jeepnstein]

18. Possible...

I spoke to a vendor at work today who did something like that with an M2 during his time in the Marines. It's called "indirect fire" and you have to have a spotter to call in the shot. In his case he said they walked the fire onto the target beyond their line of sight. No, it's not safe to do that but the Marines do all sorts of things that "normal" folks wouldn't even consider.

[jody]

6. Seems there is no end to reporters pushing the gun-grabber meme with novel ideas.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

49. oh well

same old same old.

[Control-Z]

65. Fitting image

Happy V-Day!

[iverglas]

75. allo allo!

Happy to see you, and Happy V-Day to you too!

Glad I caught you when your old name was still showing. But I liked it. :(

You didn't give me that heart thingy, did you?

I'd hate to think it was somebody down here. ;)

[ManiacJoe]

8. When did Eotech start stamping their sights with

"restricted to LEO/military use only"? They have been selling to civilians for ages, long before the military started using them.

[bossy22]

9. since the beginning

they sell to whoever though...i think its a marketing tool- people like things that are military/police like

Ruger for awhile did that with their mini-14 (put a restricted LEO/military) on their tactical version...they still sold it to civilians

[gorfle]

12. Marketing gimmick. n/t.

[russ1943]

10. It's not a sound bite and it's not misleading.

It’s a video!
You linked to a video.
Did you watch the video? While a sound bite from an audio only source might inadvertently be misleading, your link is to a video which includes sound. There isn’t even any accompanying ambiguous news article (text) to read.
As the person in the video says what you call misleading, he is clearly pointing (watch his finger, hand gesture)to the add on, what you recognize as the sighting system. I didn’t know what it was but anyone watching the video would see he’s pointing to something, (more than once) not the “gun” but the thingamajig.
The point of the news piece is this guy has been selling firearms illegally, even to a murderer.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_041232716.html?keyword=topstory

Michael Moccio, 61, is an unlicensed gun dealer who has been selling weapons - one of which turned up at a murder scene - illegally to convicted felons, according to Federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents and state police.

http://www.wptz.com/download/2009/0211/18690902.pdf

Unlicensed sellers of firearms are a problem and although difficult, law enforcement sometimes seem to accomplish their job.

[tburnsten]

11. Many people who are not familiar with guns might not realize they are separate

[Taitertots]

13. The solution:

Is to make the NICS open to private transfer inquiries. How can you know if someone is a prohibited person if the government won't let people check.

[tburnsten]

14. Or how about a little mark on everyone's state ID/Licenses

indicating whether or not they are eligible to possess firearms? Most people would be eligible, and a small, discreet mark certainly wouldn't give away any personal informationto people who don't need to know.

[ManiacJoe]

15. The concealed weapon permits often get used for this purpose.

[tburnsten]

16. And it is the best way to show that you are perfectly legit

Not everything needs to be run through an active background system like the NICS, I think using IDs as a means of positive ID is a great idea.

[iverglas]

17. we've been through this one at great length here

The problem is the same as with reporting medical info to NICS:

You people just do not seem to care about privacy.


Let's say I live in Michigan and have a Michigan state driver's licence.

I don't own a firearm. I don't want to own a firearm. Ever. I do not intend to ever be in possession of a firearm in my life.

I suffer from a delusional mental illness. (This is all let's say, we understand.) This illness would disqualify me from possessing a firearm. However, I take medication and I see a psychiatrist regularly, and I am generally living a happy, healthy, productive life.

Do I want a "discreet mark" on my driver's licence announcing to anyone who might see it that I am ineligible to possess a firearm?

No. I do not. I do not want my *private* medical info made available to any discount store clerk or bank teller who might want to see my driver's licence so that I can conduct a transaction. (I actually happen to think that's an improper use of a driver's licence, but it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.)

The real perfect answer would be a special machine-readable card with all kinds of private info on it -- firearms eligibility, prescription drugs being taken, whatever -- each bit of which can only be read by an authorized person with the right device. But nobody's going to take to that very kindly.

If you want an arrangement to make it possible to know who is and isn't eligible to acquire a firearm, get yourself a licensing scheme.

The idea that it is acceptable to store an individual's private and often sensitive medical history in a database somewhere that has nothing to do with his/her healthcare, i.e. the NICS database, is abhorrent to anyone who gives a damn about individual privacy.

Just as a discreet little mark on the driver's licence of someone who is ineligible to possess firearms and has no intention or desire of acquiring a firearm, announcing to the world that s/he is not permitted to do so whether because of criminal or medical history, is abhorrent.

If somebody wants to acquire a firearm, let him/her get a licence for that purpose. That's why I got a driver's licence. If I don't want to drive a car, I don't get a driver's licence. (Actually, I only got one in the first place after I got called to the bar because I still could write cheques at retail without photo ID, but you see my point). If I don't want to own a gun, I don't get a firearms licence. If I don't want to sell hot dogs on the street, I don't get a hot dog vendor licence. And if I were Typhoid Mary and ineligible for a hot dog vendor licence, I would not want that fact plastered on my driver's licence or my firearms licence, or sitting in a hot dog vendor licensing database somewhere on the off chance that I might one day apply for a hot dog vendor licence.

If I want a driver's licence, I take the test and renew the licence periodically. If I want a firearms licence, I complete the requirements for that and renew it periodically. If I want a hot dog vendor licence, I have the necessary medical exam at that time.


Yes, it's a giant step forward for some of you to acknowledge there's a tiny problem here - that there are no controls on non-dealer firearms transfers, and that this makes it impossible to enforce straw purchase laws, for one thing.

But all you're wanting to do is take that step on the backs of people whose rights just don't seem to matter at all to you.

[tburnsten]

19. It's still a hell of a lot less intrusive than the alternative

And the only time health history is added to the NICS database is when it directly affects an individual's legal eligibility for firearms ownership. It isn't like every single heart condition or trip to the psych for ADD meds goes into it.

[iverglas]

24. for YOU

So the only sense in which storing an individual's private, sensitive medical information in a non-health-related database is "a hell of a lot less intrusive than the alternative", i.e. a licensing scheme, is if YOU are all you care about.

An individual who DOES NOT WANT to possess a firearm, and whose private, sensitive medical information is being stored in a database for which s/he has not authorized disclosure may well feel different.

I know I do.

[NewMoonTherian]

20. Another perspective.

I identify with you very strongly on your concern for privacy. It's why gunners are so opposed to licensing in the first place.

The first thing I thought of when the "discreet mark" conversation came up was an optional mark to denote an approved purchaser. When you file for renewal, check the little "firearm" box. A background check confirms you're good to go, and you get your little discreet mark under your mugshot. Try to purchase a gun without this mark, and you go through NICS.

Better than the "no-go" mark, but it's far from perfect. It leaves a giant, gaping hole for bureaucrats to single out gunners, and is essentially a reader's digest version of licensing. On the other hand, if you can forgo the mark and stick with NICS, you can retain some privacy at the expense of a few minutes' inconvenience.

It bears more discussion, for sure. That's what we're here for, right?

[jeepnstein]

21. Why add more complexity to the system?

NICS checks don't take that much time and are useful in determining if the buyer is lying on the 4473. I don't have a problem with a NICS check.

I don't have a problem with private face to face sales being required to be done with a version of the 4473. Of course, the government won't allow private parties to take part in the NICS check system which I suspect is a plum for the dealers and the NRA.

[iverglas]

25. hmm

It really is an abridged version of licensing. In fact, it's exactly the same. ;) It does seem to solve the privacy problem in that regard, although it still leaves the whole NICS problem intact.

It doesn't solve the problem of people who are ineligible to drive or disqualified from driving -- there are things that will make people ineligible drive but not to possess firearms or disqualify them from driving but not from possessing firearms. Speeding tickets. Unpaid child support (in jurisdictions that withhold driver's licences on that ground, something I don't necessarily agree with).

So it just seems a wee bit pointless to me. Let driver's licences be for drivers, and firearms licences be for firearms owners!

(Just for info, it not being relevant here: in Canada, driver's licences are under provincial jurisdiction, and firearms licences under federal jurisdiction -- Alberta having lost that constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court years ago. So it wouldn't work here!)

[tburnsten]

28. We use driver's licenses for other things all the time.

[iverglas]

32. sigh

You use driver's licenses for other things all the time -- by choice.

Mainly, you use them to identify yourself to people in the private sector.

That is because the private sector considers them reliable, because you have had to identify yourself to the govt agency that issues them, they contain a photograph so you can be identified visually, and you are required by law to report changes of address to the govt agency that issues them so that info on the licence can be assumed to be reliable.

That is all up to you and the private sector actor you are dealing with.

Government agencies do *not* use driver's licences to identify you, *except* in relation to driving.

(And here, where we have just instituted a requirement that people voting in federal elections identify themselves, a driver's licence is accepted as one item of ID. So is a telephone bill.)

Driver's licences are not used *by government agencies* for anything else. They don't show your social security number so you can use them for getting benefits, for instance. You have a social security card for getting social security benefits.

[tburnsten]

35. Every government agency I am aware of accepts Driver's Licenses as a form of ID

And we are talking about ways to help private citizens identify other private citizens as eligible to possess firearms, not government agencies selling people firearms. In other words, totally voluntary.

[iverglas]

41. I'm going to have no hair left soon

Every government agency I am aware of accepts Driver's Licenses as a form of ID

We ARE NOT TALKING about a form if ID.

We ARE TALKING about a driver's licence being used FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE.

NOT for ID.

For RECORDING AND REPORTING information about something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVING.

I may have confused the issue.

Driver's licences may be used as ID -- but they are not used for proving ELIGIBILITY for social security benefits, for instance.

That was the analogy I was proposing.

For social security benefits, you use your social security ID. Not your driver's licence. Driver's licences aren't coded with something to show whether you are eligible for social security benefits.


And we are talking about ways to help private citizens identify other private citizens as eligible to possess firearms, not government agencies selling people firearms. In other words, totally voluntary.

For the love of fuck.

Read what you wrote, with emphasis:

And we are talking about ways to help private citizens identify other private citizens AS ELIGIBLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS.

Why in the hell would a DRIVER'S LICENCE be an appropriate method of identifying someone as ELIGIBLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS????

And in any event, it IS being used to identify the person to a government agency. It is THE GOVERNMENT to whom the person is being identified when a NICS check is requested. The firearms dealer is merely the agent submitting the query, with the consent of the individual.

There is actually no way to control such queries. A firearms dealer who wanted to know whether I was eligible to possess a firearm, for reasons purely of his/her own, could presumably do just that, without my knowledge or consent, as long as s/he had sufficient information to identify me.


In other words, totally voluntary.

If the proposal that was the original subject of this discussion, and of the earlier one I referred to, were adopted, there would be NOTHING voluntary about it.

Everyone who obtained a driver's licence would have a discreet little black mark on it to show that s/he was not eligible to possess firearms, if that were the case. Nothing voluntary about that whatsoever.

If the opt-in alternative were used, that problem would be solved.

It would still leave people disclosing the information that they have been cleared for firearms possession to anyone who looked at their driver's licence.

Including, for instance, the cop who stops them for speeding.

Hmm. So much for that anonymous firearms ownership.

[tburnsten]

recording data and records

like your identity?

[tburnsten]

53. recording data and records

like your identity?

[iverglas]

60. if I knew what you were talking about

I would attempt to help you out.

[gorfle]

22. How to handle your problem.

we've been through this one at great length here

The problem is the same as with reporting medical info to NICS:

You people just do not seem to care about privacy.

Let's say I live in Michigan and have a Michigan state driver's licence.

I don't own a firearm. I don't want to own a firearm. Ever. I do not intend to ever be in possession of a firearm in my life.

I suffer from a delusional mental illness. (This is all let's say, we understand.) This illness would disqualify me from possessing a firearm. However, I take medication and I see a psychiatrist regularly, and I am generally living a happy, healthy, productive life.

Do I want a "discreet mark" on my driver's licence announcing to anyone who might see it that I am ineligible to possess a firearm?

No. I do not. I do not want my *private* medical info made available to any discount store clerk or bank teller who might want to see my driver's licence so that I can conduct a transaction. (I actually happen to think that's an improper use of a driver's licence, but it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.)

Here's the thing. If you make such ID marking opt-out, that is, everyone gets the mark by default, but anyone can opt out for any reason, then just because you don't have the firearm owner approval mark on your ID does not mean you have a disqualifying mental or criminal background. It could be simply that you voluntarily opted out of the program, as you would, since you don't intent to ever own one.

The real perfect answer would be a special machine-readable card with all kinds of private info on it -- firearms eligibility, prescription drugs being taken, whatever -- each bit of which can only be read by an authorized person with the right device. But nobody's going to take to that very kindly.

I don't have a problem with "smart" IDs, but I do have a problem with storing the data on those cards, as it is hard to keep the data on them up-to-date. A smarter plan would be to scan the card to obtain the persons ID number, and then the device checks into a central database for the requisite information about the person.

If you want an arrangement to make it possible to know who is and isn't eligible to acquire a firearm, get yourself a licensing scheme.

We also have to preserve anonymous firearm ownership, which a licensing scheme negates.

I like my proposed system better. Everyone has a state-issued ID that either has or does not have a firearm approval code on it. If you have the code, you are authorized to own firearms. When you conduct a private sale, make it mandatory, by law, for the seller to write down a record of that firearm approval code and keep that record for 10 years.

The idea that it is acceptable to store an individual's private and often sensitive medical history in a database somewhere that has nothing to do with his/her healthcare, i.e. the NICS database, is abhorrent to anyone who gives a damn about individual privacy.

Remember, no actual medical data is stored in the NICS database. Merely an indication of a disqualifying event. Could be medical or criminal, but no details are provided.

Just as a discreet little mark on the driver's licence of someone who is ineligible to possess firearms and has no intention or desire of acquiring a firearm, announcing to the world that s/he is not permitted to do so whether because of criminal or medical history, is abhorrent.

But if the system is opt-out, then you might not have the mark either because you chose to opt out or you are disqualified, but no one could tell the difference.

If I want a driver's licence, I take the test and renew the licence periodically. If I want a firearms licence, I complete the requirements for that and renew it periodically. If I want a hot dog vendor licence, I have the necessary medical exam at that time.

This destroys anonymous firearm ownership, and this is not acceptable.

[tburnsten]

23. Ten years is an awfully long time for a private citizen to keep a piece of paper

[iverglas]

27. that;'s why

real property deeds are now registered publicly, and not kept in shoeboxes anymore. ;)

[tburnsten]

29. And that's why

We don't do firearms registration. It goes against the nature of our second amendment. Anything public can and does get accessed by people who shouldn't, like Tennessee's Commercial Appeal newspaper, which has just published a list of everyone in Tennessee with a concealed carry permit. If that doesn't totally fuck personal privacy rights and every basic element of concealed carry, I don't know what does.

[gorfle]

34. Oh well.

Ten years is an awfully long time for a private citizen to keep a piece of paper

I've managed to keep track of my Social Security card for over 20 years.

[tburnsten]

37. You also need to use your social security card from time to time

How often do you need a bill of sale from a gun you sold eight years ago?

[iverglas]

43. I haven't

I've managed to keep track of my Social Security card for over 20 years.


My social insurance card, the equivalent, was stolen with my wallet in 1974 when I was on placement at a legal aid clinic and left my purse in the waiting room while I attended an interview. (Yes, put me on the dunce list.) The thief was apprehended when he tried to cash a largist govt paycheque (my billings for a month's summer contract work) made out to me. Some criminals really aren't smart.

Anyhow, I've never had one since. I just knew what my number was and have never forgotten it. Here, it's illegal for any private party (other than someone paying you income) to request your social insurance number anyhow.

My health insurance card was stolen at the same time. I was gobsmacked to realize, next time I went to a doctor, that I remembered that number too. I probably still could, if I thought about it. But we switched to a new card system a few years ago, and then photo ID, so it changed. Had to find a way of dealing with all the fraudulent use of provincial health cards by people coming up from the US to get healthcare here ...


In any event, one might surmise that your social security card is of slightly more importance, and slightly more use, to you than the piece of paper in question.


For the love of fuck, just require that private transfers be approved through NICS! Dealers could easily be authorized and required to provide access to the system for private transfers, and to retain whatever record is kept, for quite a small regulated fee.

[tburnsten]

56. $30 is what my local FFL charges

In some states the bastards get away with charging people as much as $75 or $100 to do a transfer. What encouragement will people have to use a system like that again? Oh and I'm not talking about jailtime, fines, and restitution if someone buys a gun from them then hurts someone else, I am talking about benefits. The stick never works as well as the carrot after all.

[iverglas]

58. sometimes the stick is all there is

The carrot is just knowing one did the right thing.

Tell me again now; why don't you embezzle from your employer when you get the chance?

Most criminal law works this way.


As for the fee: that's why I said regulated fee. Dealers would have to have an obligation do provide this service imposed on them, and be allowed a fee that covered their costs.

They'd get the side benefit of potential customers flocking to their premises. ;)

[tburnsten]

69. Why I don't embezzle from my employer

Because I never want to see Fort Leavenworth!



And dealers charge a variety of fees for the service because it is basically just a telephone call, the reason they charge is because it takes up some of their time, and they do have to pay for their FFL license and overhead, some FFLs that do it from hom don't have as much overhead but they still have all the same storage requirements as any other dealer.

[gorfle]

63. How do you enforce it?

For the love of fuck, just require that private transfers be approved through NICS! Dealers could easily be authorized and required to provide access to the system for private transfers, and to retain whatever record is kept, for quite a small regulated fee.

Centralized databases of firearms transfers would be too easily data-mined by the government to get a list of all firearm owners. This compromises anonymous firearm ownership.

No, the only way to insure that all private, anonymous firearm sales are run through NICS is to pre-screen everyone with a state-issued ID, allowing for voluntary opt-out. If your ID doesn't have a valid mark, you either have a disqualifying condition or you voluntarily opted out. By requiring the seller to keep a record of the sale, it creates a decentralized, un-minable database of firearm transfers, BUT it provides traceability of any firearm found in a crime by allowing the tracking of that firearm from initial sale all the way to its last sale with dedicated police work, within the 10 year limitation.

[iverglas]

74. rrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Centralized databases of firearms transfers would be too easily data-mined by the government to get a list of all firearm owners. This compromises anonymous firearm ownership.

And the vast majority of reasonable decent people don't give a shit.

In any event, what I was talking about was using the NICS system, which I understand does NOT create a "centralized database", and which in any event IS already used for transfers by dealers.


How do you enforce it?

How do you enforce speed limits? How do you enforce laws prohibiting murder and shoplifting and fraud and dumping toxic waste?

By charging, convicting and sentencing people who do otherwise. And hoping that anyone tempted to do what they did will be deterred by seeing what happens.


By requiring the seller to keep a record of the sale, it creates a decentralized, un-minable database of firearm transfers, BUT it provides traceability of any firearm found in a crime by allowing the tracking of that firearm from initial sale all the way to its last sale with dedicated police work, within the 10 year limitation.

Yeah. It also ensures that the system won't work, because ordinary members of the public simply are not going to comply with that onerous requirement, whether because they simply refuse or because it's not possible. Many people just don't live lives that organized.

Of course, why you would want your personal information in the hands of strangers, I wouldn't know. There aren't exactly any effective controls on what *they* might do with it.


Also, please let's not forget that traceability is secondary, to my mind. Prevention is uppermost. Oversight on transfers, and compliance with the oversight mechanism by ordinary people of goodwill who don't want to break the law, is a way to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, thus obviating the need for tracing.

[gorfle]

80. Well, that's fine by me, like I said.

If all you want is a law that requires NICS background checks for private sales, that's fine by me. NICS doesn't report the firearm being purchased, so there is no record of who owns which firearms.

Of course this also means there is no way to enforce compliance with such a law.

[iverglas]

83. that's why licensing & registration ...

Of course this also means there is no way to enforce compliance with such a law.

... in whatever form, even rudimentary as with your NICS checks and licensed dealers' record-keeping, tend to go hand in hand.

The registration for traceability/accountability (or dealers' record-keeping, in your case) is the teeth in the licensing scheme (or NICS check, in your case).

The thing is that extending NICS checks to private transfers wouldn't be effective w/o the teeth for traceability/accountability.

I understand and take your point in that regard perfectly.

It's the onus placed on members of the public who are not set up for record-keeping, and forced disclosure of personal information to members of the public who are not subject to oversight (while such a system would include a prohibition on disclosure, there would be no public knowledge of their possession of the information and so no way to enforce it), that make the system proposed ineffective to my mind, and unpalatable to my taste.

I think you'd find the same objections from anybody subject to it, buyer and seller, who thought about it for long.

[gorfle]

87. The onus of responsiblity.

It's the onus placed on members of the public who are not set up for record-keeping,

I'm not terribly sympathetic here. If you want to sell a weapon off to someone else, it is then your responsibility to be able to prove, for 10 years, that you sold it to someone authorized to buy it.

and forced disclosure of personal information to members of the public who are not subject to oversight (while such a system would include a prohibition on disclosure, there would be no public knowledge of their possession of the information and so no way to enforce it),

Again, I'm not sympathetic here. The only people who would be having personal information disclosed about them are people who have a disqualifying condition. Such people should already know they have such a condition, and consequently, they should know better than to try and buy a gun if they don't want that information disclosed.

The only information I envision being kept is the FOID number of the person who bought the gun.

I'm not sure what harm could come of knowing someone else's FOID number. I suppose they could use the number to say they sold other weapons to that person. I'll have to think that through.

[iverglas]

88. look, I really don't believe this

I simply do not believe that you do not grasp these points.

I said, and you quoted, in reference to your proposal that members of the public who sell firearms to other members of the public be required to retain information about the purchaser for 10 years:

forced disclosure of personal information to members of the public who are not subject to oversight (while such a system would include a prohibition on disclosure, there would be no public knowledge of their possession of the information and so no way to enforce it)

You replied:

The only people who would be having personal information disclosed about them are people who have a disqualifying condition.

For the fucking love of fucking fuck.

You are proposing that EVERYONE who purchases a firearm from a member of the public PROVIDE THE VENDOR WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION -- their IDENTIFICATION -- and that the seller of the firearm KEEP A RECORD OF THAT INFORMATION for 10 years.

This has NOTHING to do with whether the purchaser is disqualified.

A QUALIFIED purchaser would be required to provide personal information to the seller, and the seller would be required to retain that information for 10 years.

No one other than the seller and buyer would know that the seller had that information.
There would be no oversight of what the seller did with that information.
The seller might have a flood or house fire.
The seller might have a burglary. The burglar would then have personal information about someone who purchased a firearm from the seller.
The seller might just be a crook him/herself, and use the personal information provided to go and steal the firearm back from the purchaser.

There is no way in hell that *I* would agree to be bound by such a proposal. *I* will not give my identifying personal information to strangers. *I* am not an idiot. Are firearms owners in the US idiots?


But:

The only information I envision being kept is the FOID number of the person who bought the gun.

Aha. So your proposal is predicated on there being a licensing system. I don't think this was apparent to everyone, and I don't think many will agree with it.

In any event, that proposal is really inadequate. The seller could simply make up a number and then claim error. Hell, my secretaries used to give me messages with 6-digit telephone numbers all the time.

And *I* would still object to being FORCED to provide that information to any member of the public. That IS personal information; it would exist for a purpose that involved me and the state agency that issued it, and it is NOT something I would ever disclose to anyone else, let alone a stranger. Precisely because, among other things:

I suppose they could use the number to say they sold other weapons to that person.

Indeed.

[gorfle]

97. More on licensing and such.

You are proposing that EVERYONE who purchases a firearm from a member of the public PROVIDE THE VENDOR WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION -- their IDENTIFICATION -- and that the seller of the firearm KEEP A RECORD OF THAT INFORMATION for 10 years.

This has NOTHING to do with whether the purchaser is disqualified.

A QUALIFIED purchaser would be required to provide personal information to the seller, and the seller would be required to retain that information for 10 years.

No one other than the seller and buyer would know that the seller had that information.
There would be no oversight of what the seller did with that information.

There is no way in hell that *I* would agree to be bound by such a proposal. *I* will not give my identifying personal information to strangers. *I* am not an idiot. Are firearms owners in the US idiots?

What I have proposes is that all state-issued IDs include a firearm owner ID number, that indicates that a person is qualified to own a firearm. You could use the regular ID number if you wanted to, but people might not want that number given out and recorded. So a separate FOID number printed on the ID would suffice.

Yes, you would have to give this number to a private citizen if you bought a gun from them. Yes, there are problems with this. This is still preferable than giving this information to the government, as it would enable them to track all firearm sales and identify all firearm owners.

If you don't want to be bound by such policies, don't sell your firearms to private citizens. If you won't give your FOID number to a private citizen as part of a private firearm sale, then don't buy from private citizens.

Either you are going to give your identifying information to an FFL dealer, or you are going to give it to a private person.

The seller might have a flood or house fire.
The seller might have a burglary. The burglar would then have personal information about someone who purchased a firearm from the seller.
The seller might just be a crook him/herself, and use the personal information provided to go and steal the firearm back from the purchaser.

I could see an exception in the law that said if you could demonstrate, by insurance claim or such, a flood or fire that destroyed your records, you'd be off the hook.

The FOID number would be useless to anyone unless they could get access to the government ID database and link the number to an actual person and their contact information.

Aha. So your proposal is predicated on there being a licensing system. I don't think this was apparent to everyone, and I don't think many will agree with it.

Yes, of course. Every person when they get a state-issued ID would be pre-screened through NICS unless they opt out. Their state-issued ID would then also come printed with a FOID number. This number would be meaningless to anyone except the state government, who could like the number with a particular person.

Since most people would not bother opting out, most citizens would be licensed to own a firearm, whether they actually choose to do so or not. This makes the licensing system unable to identify actual firearm owners, thus preserving firearm ownership anonymity.

If a firearm is found in a crime, they could link it, from its serial number, to it's first sale through an FFL, go to that person, and if they had sold it within 10 years, they could provide the FOID number of who they sold it to. The state government could then, through their database, identify who it was sold to. They could then go to that person, and so on, until they arrived at the last legal owner of the firearm. If the last legal owner claims to no longer own it, and it can be easily demonstrated that they bought it within the last 10 years, then it is their ass if they cannot provide documentation as to who he sold it to or demonstrate that it was stolen, through a police report, insurance claim, etc.

In any event, that proposal is really inadequate. The seller could simply make up a number and then claim error. Hell, my secretaries used to give me messages with 6-digit telephone numbers all the time.

This is a good point. I would impose steep penalties for such errors to try and insure accuracy. Perhaps instead of a simple hand-written transcription, a photo or scanned copy would have to be maintained. In this day and age nearly every cell phone has a camera on it capable of doing the job. Of course now you'd have to make sure that no other private data was on the back side of the ID.

Of course another problem here is when a firearm is tracked to a person that person could claim they never purchased a firearm from the previous owner. Now the question is, did the previous owner make a mistake or lie, or did the current owner lie?

This problem needs to be worked out.

And *I* would still object to being FORCED to provide that information to any member of the public. That IS personal information; it would exist for a purpose that involved me and the state agency that issued it, and it is NOT something I would ever disclose to anyone else, let alone a stranger. Precisely because, among other things:

If a person were unwilling to provide their FOID number to a private individual, then they could simply decide not to purchase a firearm from a private individual and instead purchase one through a Federally Licensed dealer, whereupon they would give their private information to them instead.

[gorfle]

99. On the government having your private data.

I've been thinking about your reluctance to have a government agency having access to your medical data without your consent.

The way I see it is this:

One way or another, with your consent or not, there is going to be a government agency that has your private medical data.

In your case, it is your health ministry, in our case, it is our NICS database.

So there is no privacy problem at this stage of things, other than the inherent problems of data security for databases.

So then the question is do you have a problem with this medical database being queried and details of it being made public when you attempt to purchase a firearm. And as I have pointed out, since you would already know if you had such a disqualifying condition, if you didn't want that condition made public don't attempt to purchase a firearm and the database will never be queried.

[rrneck]

100. If I missed something

ignore this post, but I was wondering something.

What would happen if all personal information was routed through the owner of the information through the use of a specially generated "point of sale transaction number"?

Say I wanted to buy a firearm. I would query NICS myself (nowadays you could do it through a cell phone). At the point of sale I could give NICS my personal information, be it something as simple as my SSN with a password or a special number designating me as a legal firearms owner, and the serial number of the firearm I want to purchase. NICS says yea, nay, or wait. If yea, NICS gives me a "PO number" which I give to the seller of the firearm. The seller in turn gives that number to NICS along with his/her personal or FFL information. The sale can then be completed.

I think that does a few things:

It keeps personal information between the individual and the approving agency between them only.

It tags the movement of an individual firearm.

It tags the firearm to both the seller and the buyer.

It gives the powers that be a look at both the seller, the buyer, and the firearm.

If the seller is a private individual, a time lag can be created by putting a hold on the sale (isn't there a waiting period anyway?), to "control gun show parking lot hookups" for firearms sales by creating at lest a nominal relationship between buyer and seller.

Of course this does nothing for anynomous firearms ownership. If you want a cold piece you'll just have to report it lost or something.

[tburnsten]

101. three of those are severe negatives

"It tags the movement of an individual firearm.

It tags the firearm to both the seller and the buyer.

It gives the powers that be a look at both the seller, the buyer, and the firearm."



All of those are bad things.

[rrneck]

102. Yep. Like I say,

it does nothing for anonymous firearms ownership. I was just thinking about dealing with personal information and firearms purchases.

If the government has any information at all they can use to connect an individual with a firearm, they can, and will, use it. I don't think there is any possibility for a system to keep a government from using information against people if they really want to. So if I filled out the forms to buy the gun, I'm already in the system and they could track me down if they wanted. At that point, it's just a question of whether I want to RLH or fight when Blackwater - er, pardon me - Xe comes to my door to pick up me and/or the weapon.

I still consider the possibility of a government run amok and the need to defend myself against it a pretty remote possibility, but in light of the last eight years it is more of a possibility than in, say, 1999. I've been telling liberals in my liberal community for quite a while that it might be a good idea for them to start burying guns in the back yard instead of the right wingers.

Cheap bastard that I am, even I have indulged in retail therapy. Early in the Bush aberration, every time they did something particularly stupid or venal, I would stop by the store and pick up a box of 00 Buck shotgun shells. Who knew they would be that stupid and venal? Now I have more 00 Buck than I know what to do with.

[gorfle]

107. Nope.

So if I filled out the forms to buy the gun, I'm already in the system and they could track me down if they wanted. At that point, it's just a question of whether I want to RLH or fight when Blackwater - er, pardon me - Xe comes to my door to pick up me and/or the weapon.

Today, you have plausible deniability. Regardless of whether or not you purchased the weapon through an FFL dealer and consequently are on a registry for buying that firearm, you can always claim you sold it to a private individual.

Sure, they might search your place for it, and they might even find some guns, but they will never find them all, and they have no way of knowing where they all are today.

I still consider the possibility of a government run amok and the need to defend myself against it a pretty remote possibility, but in light of the last eight years it is more of a possibility than in, say, 1999. I've been telling liberals in my liberal community for quite a while that it might be a good idea for them to start burying guns in the back yard instead of the right wingers.

Just so. Anyone who believes we have reached the pinnacle of representative government that could never betray the interests of its governed is dangerously optimistic.

Cheap bastard that I am, even I have indulged in retail therapy. Early in the Bush aberration, every time they did something particularly stupid or venal, I would stop by the store and pick up a box of 00 Buck shotgun shells. Who knew they would be that stupid and venal? Now I have more 00 Buck than I know what to do with.

With the price of ammo doing what it's doing, that may not have been an unwise investment. I wish I had bought more 7.62x39 when it was $90/1000 rounds, instead of today when it's $250/1000 rounds.

[gorfle]

106. Problems with your approach.

Say I wanted to buy a firearm. I would query NICS myself (nowadays you could do it through a cell phone). At the point of sale I could give NICS my personal information, be it something as simple as my SSN with a password or a special number designating me as a legal firearms owner, and the serial number of the firearm I want to purchase. NICS says yea, nay, or wait. If yea, NICS gives me a "PO number" which I give to the seller of the firearm. The seller in turn gives that number to NICS along with his/her personal or FFL information. The sale can then be completed.

I think that does a few things:

It keeps personal information between the individual and the approving agency between them only.

It tags the movement of an individual firearm.

It tags the firearm to both the seller and the buyer.

It gives the powers that be a look at both the seller, the buyer, and the firearm.

If the seller is a private individual, a time lag can be created by putting a hold on the sale (isn't there a waiting period anyway?), to "control gun show parking lot hookups" for firearms sales by creating at lest a nominal relationship between buyer and seller.

Of course this does nothing for anynomous firearms ownership. If you want a cold piece you'll just have to report it lost or something.

Anonymous firearm ownership is a prerequisite of any system I can support.

In my opinion, the NICS Form 4473 should not have any information regarding the actual firearm(s) being purchased. There is no reason for the government to have this information when processing a background check. Either a citizen is eligible to own a firearm or they are not. The only reason I do not complain to much about this requirement presently is because there are no such checks performed on private sales. Thus every firearm purchaser, even ones who's purchase has been recorded by the government, have plausible deniability in that they can claim they have since sold the firearm.

Likewise, there is no reason for the government to keep track of who sold the firearm. A background check is merely a check of the prospective buyer's suitability for owning a firearm. Who is doing the selling has no bearing on this.

In short, any background check should do one thing and one thing only: report whether the prospective buyer is eligible to own a firearm or not. No information about the firearm or the seller is required nor should be provided.

[iverglas]

103. rrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I've been thinking about your reluctance to have a government agency having access to your medical data without your consent.

My "reluctance" is about my personal info of any nature being disclosed to anyone without my consent.

Nothing to do with it being a government agency.


One way or another, with your consent or not, there is going to be a government agency that has your private medical data.

If I do not use the universal healthcare system in my province, my personal medical data is not disclosed to the public health insurance system. There actually are various ways of doing this. Health care can generally be purchased privately here; it simply cannot be insured privately.

As I explained, what is disclosed to the health insurance plan is a billing code. If I consult my doctor for 15 minutes, the insurance plan has no idea what I consulted about. If I get a mammogram, the plan knows that the service provided by the x-ray lab was a mammogram. If I see an ENT about an ear infection, the plan may know what service the ENT provided (I assume that when I had my ear vaccuumed, ew, there was a special code for that), or may not.


In your case, it is your health ministry, in our case, it is our NICS database.

In my case, it is the agency that pays for the service I choose to obtain for my healthcare purposes, and the agency is told only the billing code for that service, which may or may not identify the specific service provided.

Compare and contrast:

In your case, it is an agency that is totally unrelated to anything having to do with the health or healthcare of the individuals in question, and the information is disclosed without the consent of the patient.


So there is no privacy problem at this stage of things, other than the inherent problems of data security for databases.

Lordy fooking jayzus.

I use the provincial health insurance plan to pay for healthcare that I voluntarily seek out, and so the health insurance plan is informed of the general nature of the services it is paying for, with my knowledge and very obvious implied consent. By presenting my OHIP card to the provider, I plainly consent to the provider submitting a billing code to the insurer, and disclosing whatever info is necessary in order to obtain payment for the service. The insurance plan does *not* have access to individuals' medical records unless an audit of the physician is undertaken, for example, and there are stringent procedures for that.

Compare and contrast:

An individual is involuntarily committed for medical care, and that information is reported to an agency with which s/he has no dealings, which is totally unrelated to his/her health care, and to which s/he has never consented to having his/her medical info disclosed.

And you are still claiming to think these are not apples and oranges.


So then the question is do you have a problem with this medical database being queried and details of it being made public when you attempt to purchase a firearm.

I don't know of any such "medical database". As I said, in the near future it will be possible for physicians to consult a patient's medical history electronically (both here and in the US). There will be a database accessible BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS who require access in order to treat a patient.

If it were a condition of applying for a firearms licence that I authorize disclosure of medical info -- say, by obtaining a report from a physician that s/he has consulted my medical history file and found no disqualifying events -- then no information would be "made public". It would be provided to the licence-issuing agency AT MY REQUEST, by the physician, and with my consent, for a purpose that I myself decided.

Oh, and - the report would state only that there were no disqualifying events (or that there were disqualifying events, I suppose, if I authorized the physician to submit such a report, which I likely wouldn't, if I were such a person -- in which case I wouldn't get a firearms licence because my application would be incomplete).

I am very certain that, here at least, no arrangement would ever be made to permit the licence-issuing authority to have direct access to anyone's medical records. The access would come through a physician's report, just as in the case of physicals required by employers and schools, workers' compensation boards, disability insurers, etc.

It's not at all a bad idea, and the advent of electronic medical records will make it possible. No one could doctor-shop and avoid having his/her medical history discovered. Maybe I'll suggest it to my political party ... that the firearms officer must be provided with a physician's certificate saying that the individual has no history of x, y or z. Good idea.


And as I have pointed out, since you would already know if you had such a disqualifying condition, if you didn't want that condition made public don't attempt to purchase a firearm and the database will never be queried.

And I will point out, if I haven't already, that your ongoing pretense here -- that the disclosure I am talking about occurs at the point of the NICS check -- has grown old, tired, boring and beyond the point where I will believe that you actually do not grasp the real issue.

The situation, if rights were being respected, would be that no one's medical history would be disclosed to the NICS database if s/he never attempted to purchase a firearm.

[iverglas]

104. just let me add

The system *I* have devised:

If it were a condition of applying for a firearms licence that I authorize disclosure of medical info -- say, by obtaining a report from a physician that s/he has consulted my medical history file and found no disqualifying events -- then no information would be "made public". It would be provided to the licence-issuing agency AT MY REQUEST, by the physician, and with my consent, for a purpose that I myself decided.

Oh, and - the report would state only that there were no disqualifying events (or that there were disqualifying events, I suppose, if I authorized the physician to submit such a report, which I likely wouldn't, if I were such a person -- in which case I wouldn't get a firearms licence because my application would be incomplete).

would work perfectly well within your rudimentary licensing system, the NICS system, i.e. substituting "consenting to being entered in the NICS database" for "applying for a firearms licence". If someone had not been entered in the NICS database by previously submitting such a physician's certificate (yeah, with 5-year updates or some such, in both systems - or simply express consent to the subsequent reporting of disqualifying events by authorities with that information), no NICS report could be returned and no firearm purchased.

Sometime in the relatively near future anyway, we hope.

Canada is lagging way behind in computerizing medical records. Behind the entire world of comparable nations, except for one. Guess which one. ;)

[gorfle]

109. Can't happen.

The system *I* have devised would work perfectly well within your rudimentary licensing system, the NICS system, i.e. substituting "consenting to being entered in the NICS database" for "applying for a firearms licence". If someone had not been entered in the NICS database by previously submitting such a physician's certificate (yeah, with 5-year updates or some such, in both systems - or simply express consent to the subsequent reporting of disqualifying events by authorities with that information), no NICS report could be returned and no firearm purchased.

We can't have a licensing system as this instantly provides a government database of all firearm owners. This is unacceptable and I will never comply with such a directive. We can discuss lots of ways to screen private firearm sales, but anything that involves licensing or registration is a non-starter.

If you've got a government database of health information, all you need is people you trust to be able to access some of it, with the consent of the prospective firearm buyer, and render a decision concerning the suitability to own a firearm. With a properly constructed health information database, no human need even be involved in the screening process.

Canada is lagging way behind in computerizing medical records. Behind the entire world of comparable nations, except for one. Guess which one.

I suspect that medical records are highly computerized here in the United States. They are just all in private, uncoordinated databases. Every time I go to the doctor or deal with an insurance company all the records are accessed electronically. Since computerized records are far more efficient to create and maintain then paper records, and since our entire medical industry is predicated on profit, there is a huge drive for such efficiency gains. I guess that's the silver lining to the greed cloud.

[iverglas]

113. now try reading what I said

If someone had not been entered in the NICS database by previously submitting such a physician's certificate (yeah, with 5-year updates or some such, in both systems - or simply express consent to the subsequent reporting of disqualifying events by authorities with that information), no NICS report could be returned and no firearm purchased.

If you want a firearm, you submit the certificate.

If you don't, you don't.


I suspect that medical records are highly computerized here in the United States.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/records.html

The terms electronic health record (EHR) and electronic medical record (EMR) are often used interchangeably, but many in the medical field distinguish between them this way: EMR refers to a record kept in a single physician's office while an EHR is usually found in a hospital and is accessible by more than one practitioner.

But it's not quite that simple, because EMRs in doctors' offices can provide access to the shared information in EHRs, notes Richard Alvarez, president and chief executive of Canada Health Infoway, a non-profit organization set up by Canadian federal and provincial health ministers to promote the use of electronic health records.

A simpler way of thinking about an electronic health record is that it's a system that helps ensure anyone who deals with a patient has access to all the information about that patient.

That can be a lifesaver, Day says. He notes that 7.5 per cent of people admitted to hospital experience some kind of adverse effect while undergoing treatment. Many of these — caused by drug interactions, allergies and the like — could be prevented if information about the patient were more readily available, he said.

... According to a Commonwealth Fund study conducted in 2007, only 23 per cent of Canadian physicians use some form of electronic medical record. That compares to 98 per cent in the Netherlands, 92 per cent in New Zealand, 89 per cent in the U.K. and 79 per cent in Australia.

Canadians can take some comfort from the fact that our pitiful adoption rate of EMRs is matched by one other country in the study: the United States.

Canada is "leaps and bounds" ahead of the U.S. in this respect, Alvarez said, although we still fall far behind countries such as the United Kingdom.

[gorfle]

118. I did read what you said.

You said:

Canada is lagging way behind in computerizing medical records. Behind the entire world of comparable nations, except for one. Guess which one.

Now it seems what you meant to say was shared computerized medical records.

[gorfle]

105. I fail to see the difference.

If I do not use the universal healthcare system in my province, my personal medical data is not disclosed to the public health insurance system. There actually are various ways of doing this. Health care can generally be purchased privately here; it simply cannot be insured privately.

Obviously if you take actions to hide your health care from your government, such as opting out of the government health care system by purchasing private health care, your government cannot keep track of your health information.

I suspect that most people in Canada, however, get public health care and, consequently, the government has records of their health issues.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/PrivateCare_Canada.html
"At the 1995 CMA meeting, one speaker noted that "the majority of people could not afford private care, and they are the vast majority requiring the most care." Members of the Prime Minister's National Forum on Health concur with that view."

As I explained, what is disclosed to the health insurance plan is a billing code. If I consult my doctor for 15 minutes, the insurance plan has no idea what I consulted about. If I get a mammogram, the plan knows that the service provided by the x-ray lab was a mammogram. If I see an ENT about an ear infection, the plan may know what service the ENT provided (I assume that when I had my ear vaccuumed, ew, there was a special code for that), or may not.

I don't know precisely how the Canadian insurance system works, but my wife has worked in medical insurance billing here in the US and I assure you there are codes for everything. I've got a copy of the "2006 Professional ICD-9-CM" text here in my hands and I won't bother typing examples, but trust me, there's a code in here for everything including "Carter's little pills" and I'm not joking. It's probably true that the insurance company has no idea what you talked about with the doctor during a consultation, which will simply be billed as "consultation", but you can be certain that there is enough billable information in code to paint a pretty good picture of your health care issues.

The bottom line is, you have a government agency that has your health information, and it's probably extraordinarily detailed if it's anything like American insurance companies.

In my case, it is the agency that pays for the service I choose to obtain for my healthcare purposes, and the agency is told only the billing code for that service, which may or may not identify the specific service provided.

I'm about 99% positive that the billing codes for your services fairly accurately reflect the services rendered, which paint a pretty good picture of your health issues. Undoubtedly, your insurance agency contains far, far more health information than our NICS system contains, which is basically two things: 1) have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent and 2) have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Compare and contrast:

In your case, it is an agency that is totally unrelated to anything having to do with the health or healthcare of the individuals in question, and the information is disclosed without the consent of the patient.

Like I said, it's basically the same situation. If you use government health care in Canada, as I expect most people have no choice but to do, you have a government agency that has your health information, whether you consent or not, and so do we. The only difference is your firearm-approval people can't access the information to see if there are disqualifying medical reasons for owning a firearm. The fact that our agency doesn't have anything to do with health care doesn't materially matter. It's still a government agency maintaining a government health care database about its citizens.

I use the provincial health insurance plan to pay for healthcare that I voluntarily seek out, and so the health insurance plan is informed of the general nature of the services it is paying for, with my knowledge and very obvious implied consent. By presenting my OHIP card to the provider, I plainly consent to the provider submitting a billing code to the insurer, and disclosing whatever info is necessary in order to obtain payment for the service. The insurance plan does *not* have access to individuals' medical records unless an audit of the physician is undertaken, for example, and there are stringent procedures for that.

I'm quite certain that your insurance agency has more detailed medical information about you than our NICS system ever will.

Also, most people don't voluntarily seek out health care. Under your system, if you want health care, unless you are rich enough to afford private health care you really don't have any choice but to consent to the billing information being sent to the insurer - your government.

So again - you have a government agency that holds health care data about your citizens with some level of granularity, while we have a government agency that also holds health care data with a lower level of granularity (probably much, much lower).

Specifically, our agency only contains data about people who have been adjudicated mentaly defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or found incompetent to handle own affairs.

It is highly likely that your government agency contains far more health care information about citizens than ours does.

Compare and contrast:

An individual is involuntarily committed for medical care, and that information is reported to an agency with which s/he has no dealings, which is totally unrelated to his/her health care, and to which s/he has never consented to having his/her medical info disclosed.

And you are still claiming to think these are not apples and oranges.

Again, most medical care is involuntary. The fact that you have dealings or not with the agency doesn't materially affect the situation. Your data is still being sent to a government agency without your consent. The fact that the agency isn't related to your health care also doesn't materially affect the situation. You still have a government agency with your health care information.

And at the end of the day, that's all that really matters here. You've got a government agency maintaining a database of the citizens' health care information. Now the only question is do you allow the people who are in charge of screening people for firearm ownership access to the data or not. In Canada, the answer is no. In the USA, the answer is yes.

I don't know of any such "medical database". As I said, in the near future it will be possible for physicians to consult a patient's medical history electronically (both here and in the US). There will be a database accessible BY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS who require access in order to treat a patient.

I think we've pretty well established that your national insurance agency has a pretty good medical database of the citizens who can't afford or otherwise don't use private health care, which is probably nearly everyone. While the billing codes may be somewhat ambiguous for some things, I'd be willing to bet money that those codes reveal far, far more information about your health than is sent to our NICS system.

In any case it's great that there will be an electronically accessible database for health care professionals to use.

It would be silly not to use such a database to screen out people who should not own firearms. Don't you want to keep crazy people from owning firearms? Why rely on interviews which might only hint at mental problems if you're lucky when you can have the real data?

If it were a condition of applying for a firearms licence that I authorize disclosure of medical info -- say, by obtaining a report from a physician that s/he has consulted my medical history file and found no disqualifying events -- then no information would be "made public". It would be provided to the licence-issuing agency AT MY REQUEST, by the physician, and with my consent, for a purpose that I myself decided.

Oh, and - the report would state only that there were no disqualifying events (or that there were disqualifying events, I suppose, if I authorized the physician to submit such a report, which I likely wouldn't, if I were such a person -- in which case I wouldn't get a firearms licence because my application would be incomplete).

So basically, you don't have any problem with a government health care database being interrogated and the results made known on your behalf when you go to buy a firearm.

Sounds just like our NICS system, just with a different agency maintaining the database.

I am very certain that, here at least, no arrangement would ever be made to permit the licence-issuing authority to have direct access to anyone's medical records. The access would come through a physician's report, just as in the case of physicals required by employers and schools, workers' compensation boards, disability insurers, etc.

That's fine, and I'll point out that our NICS system doesn't have direct access to anyone's medical records, either. In any case, it fundamentally makes no difference who the gatekeeper is. Effectively, you've got a government database of health care information, and it will be interrogated, with your consent, when you attempt to buy a firearm.

If you want NICS to go through a physician to access the data, that's fine, I'm sure they can be put on the staff, though doctors make expensive secretaries.

It's not at all a bad idea, and the advent of electronic medical records will make it possible. No one could doctor-shop and avoid having his/her medical history discovered. Maybe I'll suggest it to my political party ... that the firearms officer must be provided with a physician's certificate saying that the individual has no history of x, y or z. Good idea.

Like I said, I guess in the grand scheme of government expenditures it's no big deal if NICS hires physicians to go access applicants' medical database histories, but it's nothing a minimum wage secretary, or hell even a computer couldn't do. I mean if the proper flags are set in your medical history database, no person is required to make an analysis at all.

And I will point out, if I haven't already, that your ongoing pretense here -- that the disclosure I am talking about occurs at the point of the NICS check -- has grown old, tired, boring and beyond the point where I will believe that you actually do not grasp the real issue.

Well originally you seemed upset that there was a public disclosure of your medical and criminal history when you attempted to buy a firearm. Obviously the guy you are trying to buy the gun from is going to find out you have a mental or criminal disqualification. So I'm glad we agree that I have put that objection to bed. There will be no public disclosure of any information that an applicant is not already aware of, and if they don't want it publicly disclosed they simply need not attempt to obtain a firearm.

The situation, if rights were being respected, would be that no one's medical history would be disclosed to the NICS database if s/he never attempted to purchase a firearm.

As I have said, it seems to me our NICS database contains far less information about people that your national insurance agency possesses. Both agencies acquire your medical history without your consent, except for the few people who can afford private health care and thus stay off the government's radar.

Now if you want to have a different government agency be in charge of the health care database, and have NICS go through physicians to interrogate and filter the results, that's fine by me, though it is a completely unnecessary expense. If the health care database is properly constructed there need only be a a few relevant fields such as "Adjudicated mentally incompetent (Y/N)?" and "Involuntarily committed to mental institution (Y/N)?" and NICS, or whatever authorizing agency would only be authorized to query those few fields of your health records to render a decision about your fitness to own a firearm. No physician, or even a person, is needed to do that.

[iverglas]

108. and I don't give a flying fuck

The bottom line is, you have a government agency that has your health information, and it's probably extraordinarily detailed if it's anything like American insurance companies.

The bottom line is that you are perfectly happy to have those private actors in possession of all that personal information about yourself, and that would give me the willies.


It is highly likely that your government agency contains far more health care information about citizens than ours does.

Than your what? Do you have a publicly operated health insurance scheme?

I didn't think so.


You are the one whinging on about it being THE GUMMINT that has all this information.

I do not give a flying fuck, and I am much happier with my health insurance information being in the hands of an actor that is under the kind of onerous public oversight that I know my health insurance scheme is under than I would ever be with it being in the hands of any private actor.

So on this one we break even. If you have health insurance, somebody has information about the health services you receive. WITH YOUR CONSENT.


So basically, you don't have any problem with a government health care database being interrogated and the results made known on your behalf when you go to buy a firearm.

Not if I HAVE CONSENTED TO IT, in fact REQUESTED IT, and the only access to my ACTUAL MEDICAL RECORDS is by a provider who is a member of a regulated healthcare profession who is required to maintain professional privilege, and who is acting on MY INSTRUCTIONS, I don't.

Sounds just like our NICS system, just with a different agency maintaining the database.

Do you have any idea how stupid and/or dishonest you are making yourself sound?

[gorfle]

110. But that's not the point.

The bottom line is that you are perfectly happy to have those private actors in possession of all that personal information about yourself, and that would give me the willies.

I don't know what the private sector has to do with this. No one is suggesting the government query private medical databases.

The point here is that you have a government agency with all that information.

And our government agency, NICS, has far, far less personal information than yours does. We aren't talking about private sector data, and whether that gives you the willies or not. We are talking about government health care records, not private sector health care records.

It is highly likely that your government agency contains far more health care information about citizens than ours does.

Than your what?

Than our NICS agency.

Do you have a publicly operated health insurance scheme?

I didn't think so.

No, but that's not the point here. We are talking about the appropriateness of a government agency holding private health information. You seem to be upset that our NICS agency contains private health information. I'm pointing out here that our NICS agency contains far less private health data than your insurance agency.

You are the one whinging on about it being THE GUMMINT that has all this information.

Well that's because you are the one whinging on about how our NICS agency has private health care data!

This is not about "THE GUMMINT" or some other anti-government tirade.

First you were upset because NICS revealed data to firearm sellers about a prospective buyer's mental health. We've put that one to bed.

Then you were upset because NICS contains private health information without the consent of the people. I'm trying to point out to you that our NICS agency contains far less private health information than your national insurance agency and most Canadians don't have any choice about using the national insurance and so they have no choice but to consent to the government having their health information, either.

I do not give a flying fuck, and I am much happier with my health insurance information being in the hands of an actor that is under the kind of onerous public oversight that I know my health insurance scheme is under than I would ever be with it being in the hands of any private actor.

Again you're going off on the tangent of the private sector. We are talking about the appropriateness of government agencies handling private health care data.

So on this one we break even. If you have health insurance, somebody has information about the health services you receive. WITH YOUR CONSENT.

Tada! I'm glad we have come to this consensus. And in Canada, this means that that "somebody" is your government. YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS YOUR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE INFORMATION. And since most Canadians have no choice but to use the government insurance, this means that your government has their private health care information whether they consent or not, unless of course they just opt to die rather than be tracked by your national insurance agency.

So if your government can have your private health care information managed by a federal agency, why can't ours??? Especially when ours contains far less information than yours does!

Not if I HAVE CONSENTED TO IT, in fact REQUESTED IT, and the only access to my ACTUAL MEDICAL RECORDS is by a provider who is a member of a regulated healthcare profession who is required to maintain professional privilege, and who is acting on MY INSTRUCTIONS, I don't.

Since you are hypothetically attempting to buy a firearm, you have consented, requested, and instructed someone to query the national medical database on your behalf. The only quibble now is that you want the querying of the database to be handled by a "regulated healthcare profession(al)" acting on your instructions.

Like I said, if you want NICS to hire regulated healthcare professionals to query the national health care database that's fine by me, but it's a totally unnecessary expense. A computer could do it far more efficiently and cost-effectively by selectively querying only 2 fields of data:

1) Has the applicant ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent
2) Has the applicant ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

You hardly need a regulated healthcare professional to do that.

Do you have any idea how stupid and/or dishonest you are making yourself sound?

No.

[iverglas]

112. nope

We are talking about the appropriateness of a government agency holding private health information.

No, we aren't.

If you want to talk about that, go find someone who raised that issue.

[gorfle]

114. Well good.

If you want to talk about that, go find someone who raised that issue.

I raised the issue.

Originally, you were upset because NICS data would reveal, to at least the seller of a firearm, private mental health information. We put that one to bed.

Then you were upset because NICS had your health data at all.

I have pointed out that our NICS agency almost certainly possesses far less private health care data than your Canadian national insurance agency.

Then you were upset because NICS had your health data without your consent.

I have pointed out that since most people in Canada probably don't have much choice but to use the national health care system, they don't really have any choice but to consent to give their health care data over to the government.

Then you were upset because NICS didn't use healthcare professionals to access your medical history.

I have pointed out that it's not necessary for a human to be involved in the health database interrogation at all, and a system could easily be designed (as it already has) to interrogate only two relevant fields about your mental health: 1) Have you been adjudicated mentally incompetent and 2) Have you been involuntarily admitted to a mental institution. You don't need a human to perform this task at all, and in fact eliminating such human interaction strengthens the security and enhances the accuracy of the database.

So I'd say I have demonstrated that our NICS agency is no more dangerous to privacy than your national insurance agency, and in fact is probably a lot less so because it contains far, far less health care information.

The only difference is you guys won't let your law enforcement people access the data to determine the suitability of an individual for firearm ownership, and we do.

[iverglas]

115. well good for you for raising an issue of your own

instead of discussing the one you have been pretending to discuss all along: the one I raised.

Originally, you were upset because NICS data would reveal, to at least the seller of a firearm, private mental health information. We put that one to bed.

Not actually. But as you know, that was never my original problem. As I said at the outset here, this has been discussed at great length in this forum already.

In this particular thread, I started by responding to a very specific proposal. I said, in post 17:

Do I want a "discreet mark" on my driver's licence announcing to anyone who might see it that I am ineligible to possess a firearm?

That isn't a NICS check. I was not talking about a NICS check. I was talking about personal information being revealed to the seller of a firearm all right, though.

And I guess we've put that to bed by everybody agreeing that discreet little marks on the driver's licences of people who have been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment would be just kinda distasteful. I mean, whatever became of the scarlet "A"?


Before going any further, let's just note that I have not been "upset" about anything, and that your choice to describe my contributions here as being a result of, or an expression of, some emotional disturbance is obnoxious, and most probably misogynist.


Then you were upset because NICS had your health data at all.

It isn't actually my data, of course, since I am neither a person with this medical history nor resident in the US, but you seem to have got the gist of it.

I would object to anyone who is not expressly authorized by me having sensitive personal information of mine, and I am not satisfied that there is adequate justification for violating the privacy rights of who knows how many people by disclosing their personal information to the NICS database.


I have pointed out that our NICS agency almost certainly possesses far less private health care data than your Canadian national insurance agency.

And I have explained both why this statement is not of the slightest relevance to the discussion.

First, there is no "national insurance agency". There are provincial plans that have records of billings on my account by health care providers.

That information is provided to my plan by my provider, with my consent, in my interests -- so that the provider can obtain payment for health care provided to ME, at my request.

The information provided to the NICS database is provided without the consent or even knowledge of the individual concerned, may or may not be provided in his/her interests (if suicidal, then possibly), and is provided in connection with no service to the individual and no request by the individual.

These are great big huge overwhelming elephantine differences between the situations and you choose to simply ignore them. The plain fact is that there is not the slightest resemblance between the two situations, other than the fact that we have

(a) health care information
(b) a disclosure of health care information

In my provincial health insurance case, the information is what my provider bills the plan for and the information is provided to the health insurance plan for the purpose of delivering health care to me, and is disclosed with my consent as a result of my choice to obtain health care.

In your NICS system, the information is the medical diagnosis of the individual and action taken on that diagnosis, and the information is provided to an agency unrelated to the individual's health care for the purpose of preventing the individual from acquiring a firearm, and is disclosed without the individual's consent as a result of the individual's medical diagnosis and involuntary treatment.

If you don't see a huge basket of mixed fruit here, you are blind. And of course, there are none so blind as those who will not see.


I have pointed out that since most people in Canada probably don't have much choice but to use the national health care system, they don't really have any choice but to consent to give their health care data over to the government.

Yes, you burbled nonsense. Everyone in Canada has every choice as to whether to seek health care or not, just as they do in the US. If private health insurance were permitted in Canada, the information that is disclosed to the public plan now -- and way, way more (the public plans in Canada do not have to be consulted to pre-approve any treatment) -- would be disclosed to the private insurance companies.

This makes absolutely no difference for our purposes. It makes not the slightest tiniest weensiest shred of difference whether the insurance scheme is publicly or privately administered. In either case, the information disclosed would be what my provider bills the plan for and the information would be provided to the health insurance plan for the purpose of delivering health care to me, and would be disclosed with my consent as a result of my choice to obtain health care.

It makes no difference for our purposes because I HAVE NEVER OBJECTED TO DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE NICS DATABASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE NICS DATABASE IS ADMINISTERED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

NEVER. Not ever. Not once, not at all, not not not.

So you can go ahead and compare the disclosure of information by your doctor to your health insurance company with disclosure of information by whomever to the NICS database if you like. The result will be the same. Disclosure of my information to my public health insurance plan IS NOT COMPARABLE to disclosure of information to NICS any more than disclosure of your information to your health insurance company is comparable to disclosure of information to NICS.


Then you were upset because NICS didn't use healthcare professionals to access your medical history.

You could at least try to pretend to be representing what I say as something that bears some vague resemblance to what I did say, you know.

I said that a disclosure of information BY a healthcare professional who was MY provider and was mandated to make the disclosure BY ME would be acceptable.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with who is querying what, when the querying is still being done WITHOUT THE CONSENT of the individual whose information is in issue.

It has to do with the fact that doctors are members of regulated professions, and a certificate from a doctor is acceptable evidence of what it says because doctors are bound, by their professional codes of conduct, to be truthful in providing such information. Why do you think your doctor won't write you a sick note if you want to play golf?

How could you even want to speak with someone who was so moronic as to object to the NICS process on the ground that it "didn't use healthcare professionals to access your medical history"?? I'd throw up my hands and walk away at that point.

Of course, the question then arises of why I'd be speaking with someone who thinks / pretends to think that I said that ...


I have pointed out that it's not necessary for a human to be involved in the health database interrogation at all

I have said
OVER AND OVER AND OVER
that
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DATABASE
is the problem.


a system could easily be designed (as it already has) to interrogate only two relevant fields about your mental health: 1) Have you been adjudicated mentally incompetent and 2) Have you been involuntarily admitted to a mental institution.

A SYSTEM THAT CONTAINS THAT INFORMATION

WHERE THE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS

IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

UNLESS THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE.

Since the same end could be achieved WITHOUT VIOLATING RIGHTS, there is no justification.


So I'd say I have demonstrated that our NICS agency is no more dangerous to privacy than your national insurance agency, and in fact is probably a lot less so because it contains far, far less health care information.

And I'd say that two cows just jumped over the moon, and you were astride one of them.



html fixed

[gorfle]

116. The saga continues.

well good for you for raising an issue of your own instead of discussing the one you have been pretending to discuss all along: the one I raised.

I was drawing parallels to the issue you raised to debunk your issue.

Do I want a "discreet mark" on my driver's licence announcing to anyone who might see it that I am ineligible to possess a firearm?

That isn't a NICS check. I was not talking about a NICS check. I was talking about personal information being revealed to the seller of a firearm all right, though.

And I guess we've put that to bed by everybody agreeing that discreet little marks on the driver's licences of people who have been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment would be just kinda distasteful. I mean, whatever became of the scarlet "A"?

And I addressed this concern. Since the system would be opt-out, not having firearm ownership clearance would not necessarily indicate that you had a disqualifying condition. It could also mean you simply opted out. Consequently, nothing is revealed by not having an FOID number, other than the fact that it would not be lawful to sell a firearm to you.

Before going any further, let's just note that I have not been "upset" about anything, and that your choice to describe my contributions here as being a result of, or an expression of, some emotional disturbance is obnoxious, and most probably misogynist.

What can I say? You seem awfully upset about it for someone who isn't upset about anything. Perhaps if you toned down the vindictive I might characterize you differently. As it is, I call it like I see it.

Then you were upset because NICS had your health data at all.

It isn't actually my data, of course, since I am neither a person with this medical history nor resident in the US, but you seem to have got the gist of it.

I would object to anyone who is not expressly authorized by me having sensitive personal information of mine, and I am not satisfied that there is adequate justification for violating the privacy rights of who knows how many people by disclosing their personal information to the NICS database.

As I have demonstrated, your national insurance agency contains far more private health information than our NICS agency does.

And while you keep making a big deal of how you consented to have your information put into your national insurance agency database, the simple fact is most people have no choice but to consent if they want health care.

First, there is no "national insurance agency". There are provincial plans that have records of billings on my account by health care providers.

Ok, so there are provincial insurance agencies. Big whoopty.

That information is provided to my plan by my provider, with my consent, in my interests -- so that the provider can obtain payment for health care provided to ME, at my request.

If you take advantage of your national health care plan, that information is going to be sent to your provincial insurance agencies whether you consent or not, right?

The information provided to the NICS database is provided without the consent or even knowledge of the individual concerned, may or may not be provided in his/her interests (if suicidal, then possibly), and is provided in connection with no service to the individual and no request by the individual.

Surely it is in the interest of everyone, including the mentally ill person, to keep them from obtaining firearms, even if they aren't suicidal.

These are great big huge overwhelming elephantine differences between the situations and you choose to simply ignore them.

But there are even larger similarities and you choose to simply ignore them.

The plain fact is that there is not the slightest resemblance between the two situations, other than the fact that we have

(a) health care information
(b) a disclosure of health care information

In both cases we have government agencies that possesses private health care data obtained with or without consent. Your agencies track far more private health information than ours does, and doesn't bother using it to screen people's suitability to own firearms. Ours does.

In my provincial health insurance case, the information is what my provider bills the plan for and the information is provided to the health insurance plan for the purpose of delivering health care to me, and is disclosed with my consent as a result of my choice to obtain health care.

Dress it up all you like, your insurance agency has your private health care data.

And if you utilize provincial health insurance, like most Canadians do, that information is going to be disclosed whether you consent or not, right?

In your NICS system, the information is the medical diagnosis of the individual and action taken on that diagnosis, and the information is provided to an agency unrelated to the individual's health care for the purpose of preventing the individual from acquiring a firearm, and is disclosed without the individual's consent as a result of the individual's medical diagnosis and involuntary treatment.

If you don't see a huge basket of mixed fruit here, you are blind. And of course, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

You have no consent in your system, because most people have no choice but to give consent if they want health care. So consent is not an issue. Your system, through billing codes, provides far more detailed information about your medical condition than our NICS system will ever have, so you can't criticize our agency on the basis of the amount of private data it contains.

The fact that it is being used to screen people for firearm ownership is of course a difference of NICS, but you guys are crazy not to use your data to so screen people.

Yes, you burbled nonsense. Everyone in Canada has every choice as to whether to seek health care or not, just as they do in the US.

Sure they do. How many people do you know who refuse health care when they can get it for free? Even here people go to emergency rooms for free health care.

If private health insurance were permitted in Canada, the information that is disclosed to the public plan now -- and way, way more (the public plans in Canada do not have to be consulted to pre-approve any treatment) -- would be disclosed to the private insurance companies.

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts when they jumped. The simple fact is, you have government agencies that keep databases of private health care information, just like we do. Now the only question is do you want to use it to screen people who should not have a firearm.


This makes absolutely no difference for our purposes. It makes not the slightest tiniest weensiest shred of difference whether the insurance scheme is publicly or privately administered. In either case, the information disclosed would be what my provider bills the plan for and the information would be provided to the health insurance plan for the purpose of delivering health care to me, and would be disclosed with my consent as a result of my choice to obtain health care.

You keep saying this as if you have said something. All this code talk of "the information disclosed would be what my provider bills the plan" is simply double-speak for your private health care information. If you don't have any choice but to use the national health care system, then you have no choice but to give your consent to your information being passed on to your provincial insurance agency.

Consequently, for every Canadian who has no choice but to use the national health care system, their private health care data is going to be stored in a government database whether they consent or not.

It makes no difference for our purposes because I HAVE NEVER OBJECTED TO DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE NICS DATABASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE NICS DATABASE IS ADMINISTERED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

NEVER. Not ever. Not once, not at all, not not not.

And I have never said otherwise. What I am doing is showing you, over and over, that you already have a government agency, just like we do, that contains private health care information. And in fact, your agencies contain far more private health care data than our NICS system does, which only contains two health-related pieces of information.

So if it's OK for you to have such a system, it's OK for us to have such a system.

So you can go ahead and compare the disclosure of information by your doctor to your health insurance company with disclosure of information by whomever to the NICS database if you like. The result will be the same. Disclosure of my information to my public health insurance plan IS NOT COMPARABLE to disclosure of information to NICS any more than disclosure of your information to your health insurance company is comparable to disclosure of information to NICS.

But the end result is the same. You have a government agency that has a database of most of the citizens private health care data.

In the end, however you get there, whether by consent or not, whether it's in your interest or not, the end result is exactly the same.

I said that a disclosure of information BY a healthcare professional who was MY provider and was mandated to make the disclosure BY ME would be acceptable.

So you would be OK with NICS calling your doctor for the information then?

If all this information is already in a government-maintained health care database, why not just query the database?

Why can't your firearm licensing people simply interrogate your provincial health care databases when you initiate a background check by attempting to purchase a firearm?

We could do the same thing by taking the medical database out of the hands of NICS and putting it in charge of, say, our Centers for Disease control. Then when you initiate a NICS background check NICS could interrogate the government health care database.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with who is querying what, when the querying is still being done WITHOUT THE CONSENT of the individual whose information is in issue.

No, the querying is never done unless you try and buy a firearm. When you attempt to buy a firearm, you are giving consent for your medical data to be interrogated.

It has to do with the fact that doctors are members of regulated professions, and a certificate from a doctor is acceptable evidence of what it says because doctors are bound, by their professional codes of conduct, to be truthful in providing such information. Why do you think your doctor won't write you a sick note if you want to play golf?

I'd trust an impartial computer to check a database field over a human, even a doctor, any day.

How could you even want to speak with someone who was so moronic as to object to the NICS process on the ground that it "didn't use healthcare professionals to access your medical history"?? I'd throw up my hands and walk away at that point.

I endeavor to persevere.

I have said
OVER AND OVER AND OVER
that
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DATABASE
is the problem.

Then before you worry yourself over our database you should worry yourself over your own, far more pervasive database.

A SYSTEM THAT CONTAINS THAT INFORMATION

WHERE THE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS

IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

UNLESS THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE.

YOUR SYSTEM REQUIRES CONSENT IF YOU WANT FREE HEALTH CARE. Since most people don't have a choice, most people consent.

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

[iverglas]

119. you know what does mildly upset me?

Having ignorant bullshit thrown at me by someone who either doesn't have a clue and refuses to get one or is bent on getting the disingenuous post of the month prize.

[iverglas]

120. but since you ask

So you would be OK with NICS calling your doctor for the information then?

IF THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION CONSENTED TO IT.

If all this information is already in a government-maintained health care database, why not just query the database?

BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY IF THE HEALTH INSURANCE DATABASE CONTAINED THE INFORMATION.

BUT THE HEALTH INSURANCE DATABASE DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.

IN FUTURE, "ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS" MAY CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.

ONCE SUCH RECORDS EXIST, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO "QUERY" THEM FOR THAT INFORMATION, BECAUSE THE RECORD WILL CONSIST OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ENTIRE RECORDED MEDICAL HISTORY.

ONLY PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF REGULATED PROFESSIONS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS, AND ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND ONLY PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF REGULATED PROFESSIONS SHOULD EVER BE PERMITTED TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS, AND ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

ANY OTHER ACCESSING OF THOSE RECORDS WOULD BE AN UNJUSTIFIED VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.

Why can't your firearm licensing people simply interrogate your provincial health care databases when you initiate a background check by attempting to purchase a firearm?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING DATABASE.

[gorfle]

122. Incorrect.

I humorously note your all capital letters must indicate you are still "upset".

So you would be OK with NICS calling your doctor for the information then?

IF THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION CONSENTED TO IT.

Anyone who tries to buy a firearm is consenting to it.

If all this information is already in a government-maintained health care database, why not just query the database?

BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY IF THE HEALTH INSURANCE DATABASE CONTAINED THE INFORMATION.

BUT THE HEALTH INSURANCE DATABASE DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.

I assure you, your health insurance database almost certainly does contain that information. Again, I've got the ICD-9-CM literally in my hands right now. This is the billing code manual used by US health insurance agencies. The codes directly relate to illnesses. Take a look for yourself:

http://icd9cm.chrisendres.com/icd9cm/index.php?action=alphaletter&letter=Li

If your insurance agencies are working on a similar code system, your health insurance databases do contain private health care information. It's almost a 100% safe bet.

IN FUTURE, "ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS" MAY CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.

ONCE SUCH RECORDS EXIST, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO "QUERY" THEM FOR THAT INFORMATION, BECAUSE THE RECORD WILL CONSIST OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ENTIRE RECORDED MEDICAL HISTORY.

You lack an understanding of how relational databases work. When querying a database, you do not have to query the entire thing if you are only interested in one particular data field. It would be exceptionally trivial to have a field for "has patient been involuntarily committed to a mental institution" and another field for "has patient been adjudicated mentally incompetent". It would also be exceptionally trivial to limit any firearm agency to querying only those two fields.

ONLY PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF REGULATED PROFESSIONS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS, AND ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND ONLY PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF REGULATED PROFESSIONS SHOULD EVER BE PERMITTED TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS, AND ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

All this does is add complexity and cost to what could otherwise be an automated procedure.

Why can't your firearm licensing people simply interrogate your provincial health care databases when you initiate a background check by attempting to purchase a firearm?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING DATABASE.

Yes, there almost certainly is.

[gorfle]

117. How about this.

How about this:

In the USA:

NICS keeps no health information database.

When you attempt to purchase a firearm, you give consent for NICS to query all insurance agency databases on your behalf for two specific mental health questions: 1) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompenent 2) Have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?


In Canada:

The Canada Firearms Centre keeps no health information databases.

When you attempt to purchase a firearm, you give consent for the Canada Firearms Centre to query all provincial agency databases on your behalf for two specific mental health questions: 1) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompenent 2) Have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

You could, as an option if you choose, require NICS or the Canada Firearms Centre to route their query through your doctor, which will no doubt take several days to process, or you could allow those agencies to interrogate the health care database directly and automatically for an instant check as we have today.

This should address all of your concerns. No private health care goes into any database without your consent, and no one can access it without your consent, and you can have your doctor be the person who accesses it if you wish.

[iverglas]

121. because

When you attempt to purchase a firearm, you give consent for the Canada Firearms Centre to query all provincial agency databases on your behalf for two specific mental health questions: 1) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompenent 2) Have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

THERE ARE NO SUCH FUCKING DATABASES.

For the love of everything you hold holy.

IF AND WHEN "electronic health records" are universal, THEN it will be possible for MEMBERS OF REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS to access them.


You could, as an option if you choose, require NICS or the Canada Firearms Centre to route their query through your doctor, which will no doubt take several days to process

Or you could do WHAT I SAID and require that individuals wishing to purchase firearms PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE FROM A PHYSICIAN stating that s/he has examined the electronic health record and found that no disqualifying condition exists.

Note that this would be both a broader and a narrower question in Canada, because THERE ARE NO DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS in Canada, apart from a firearms prohibition order made by a judge.

The question would relate to the questions on the Firearms Posession and Acquisition Licence application form, which I have previously linked to, and involve things like treatment for depression.


This should address all of your concerns. No private health care goes into any database without your consent, and no one can access it without your consent, and you can have your doctor be the person who accesses it if you wish.

It almost sounds as if you are grasping the issue. Can I hope?

[gorfle]

123. Incorrect.

When you attempt to purchase a firearm, you give consent for the Canada Firearms Centre to query all provincial agency databases on your behalf for two specific mental health questions: 1) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally incompenent 2) Have you ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

THERE ARE NO SUCH FUCKING DATABASES.

I've already demonstrated to you the billing codes used by insurance companies here in the United States.

For example, here are some of the codes I found related to mental psychoses:

http://icd9cm.chrisendres.com/icd9cm/index.php?action=child&recordid=2310

I assure you that your insurance agencies have a complete database of your medical history by these codes.

EDITED TO ADD:

I have researched and discovered that the ICD9/ICD9M coding system is used in Canada also.

http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=codingclass_icd9cm_e
"CD-9-CM

ICD-9-CM is a Clinical Modification of ICD-9 published by the United States government for morbidity coding in the US. Clinical modification was needed to better describe the clinical picture of the patient. The codes are more precise than those needed only for statistical groupings and trend analysis."

Emphasis mine. I assure you - the databases your insurance agencies keep on their patients is quite descriptive.

IF AND WHEN "electronic health records" are universal, THEN it will be possible for MEMBERS OF REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS to access them.

Or you could do WHAT I SAID and require that individuals wishing to purchase firearms PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE FROM A PHYSICIAN stating that s/he has examined the electronic health record and found that no disqualifying condition exists.

I'm fine with that choice. Of course I would also want the choice for an automated instant check for those who want it.

Note that this would be both a broader and a narrower question in Canada, because THERE ARE NO DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS in Canada, apart from a firearms prohibition order made by a judge.

But there should be, right? There should be certain mental conditions that prohibit someone from owning a gun, right?

This should address all of your concerns. No private health care goes into any database without your consent, and no one can access it without your consent, and you can have your doctor be the person who accesses it if you wish.

It almost sounds as if you are grasping the issue. Can I hope?

I grasp the issue fine, Iverglas. The problem here is that you want to a system that is far larger, more inefficient, and costly to everyone all to spare the privacy and consent of people who are mentally incompetent.

You want a nation-wide coordinated, consistent medical record system that can be queried by any doctor to do what our system already does in 30 seconds.

Our NICS system only contains the health information of people who are mentally incompetent, and I don't mind sharing that information with the government for purposes of determining their suitability to own a firearm, whether they consent or not.

[iverglas]

26. .,.,.,.,

To stupid still this morning to think of subject lines ...

edit ... jeez, too stupid to spell "too", too.

it's never
to late
to learn .............


Remember, no actual medical data is stored in the NICS database. Merely an indication of a disqualifying event. Could be medical or criminal, but no details are provided.

Criminal history information is not protected in the same way that medical information is. The fact still remains that the state is disclosing an individual's medical information -- even if it is a binary yes/no datum -- to which the individual has not consented to disclosure. Seeking treatment for an illness does not constitute consent to having that fact or any related fact disclosed for any purpose other than health care.

The NICS database is presumably composed of a list of names with the yes/no datum. That information has to be traceable somehow! There has to be an indication of where the data came from. Otherwise there would be no way, for example, for someone to have it corrected if it were wrong, or for it to be removed if the person became eligible. So there has got to be a database somewhere indicating the source of the NICS yes/no. The NICS administrators can't just receive a state's report that so-and-so is ineligible because s/he has been committed for pysychiatric care, enter the name and "no" in the database, and then shred the message. The problem remains intact, even if one step removed from NICS.


But if the system is opt-out, then you might not have the mark either because you chose to opt out or you are disqualified, but no one could tell the difference.

See my other post.


This destroys anonymous firearm ownership, and this is not acceptable.

To you. Not everyone agrees. And your opinion isn't actually authoritative. ;)

[tburnsten]

30. By initiating an NICS check you do consent to your information being shared

"Criminal history information is not protected in the same way that medical information is. The fact still remains that the state is disclosing an individual's medical information -- even if it is a binary yes/no datum -- to which the individual has not consented to disclosure."



However, the dealer doesn't hear a single thing other than "yes", "delay until xxx day", or "denied". It isn't sharing information with anyone, it is all information kept by the FBI. Sure gov't employees can see it, when running a background check on you, but that's all. Also, medical information is not as protected as firearm ownership information. Last I knew no one was robbed for having a medical condition, for drugs sure, but no one has ever been singled out for criminal attacks over a medical condition.

[iverglas]

31. and also re post 35

I just do not understand how this can be so difficult to understand.

By initiating an NICS check you do consent to your information being shared

Yes.


I am a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

I do not possess a firearm, I do not want to possess a firearm, and I die next year having never posessed a firearm or attempted to possess a firearm.

The NICS database contains the information that I am INELIGIBLE to possess a ffirearm.

That is because the government of the state where I reside DISCLOSED to the administrators of the NICS database that I was INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY.

Or, however it works. Maybe the state government only disclosed to the NICS administrators that I was ineligible because I had been involuntarily committed OR convicted of a crime, without disclosing which.

In that case, someone responsible for my health care disclosed to THAT agency that I had been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.


Can you really, really not see the issue here?

SOMEWHERE along the line, personal information has been disclosed for a purpose that is not connected with my health care, and for which I have not consented.

Being involuntarily committed to a mental health facility does NOT strip an individual of rights, including medical privilege and personal privacy.


I can assure you unequivocally that such disclosures would NOT be permitted in Canada. People's medical info simply cannot be shunted around among government agencies witout their consent.

(Several years ago, the Ontario Minister of Health was speaking in the provincial legislature about an individual with a problem with the health ministry. His problem had been discussed in the press, and he was known to her office through discussions of the problem. Her office briefed her, and when she was questioned about the matter in the legislature, she referred to him by name. It turned out that he had never been named publicly, and he had not consented to his name being used. The Minister didn't know that, and did not intentionally violate his privacy. Nonetheless, she resigned from Cabinet because of that breach.)


If a person seeking to acquire a firearm wishes to establish eligibility, that person can then consent to disclosure of medical records.

The current computerization of medical records will make it possible in practice to consent to disclosure from a source that will contain all such relevant info. That may be the link that is needed in order to be sure to catch all ineligible people through an authorized query to a complete and reliable source.


What someone needs to find out, and inform us of here, so this discussion can be informed, is exactly *what information* is given to the NICS administrators and placed in the NICS database, and by whom it is given.

I find it difficult to believe that all NICS contains is a binary yes/no datum. I understand that this is all that is disclosed to firearms dealers who query the database, but that does not meant it is all that is there.

And THAT is the source of the problem. Yes, I UNDERSTAND that medical info is not disclosed to firearms dealers. That is not what I am talking about.

[aikoaiko]

39. I'm going to split a hair -- no medical information is disclose to NICS , but adjudication of a ..

...person who was involuntarily committed is. And that is public information, no?

[iverglas]

44. you tell me

I'm going to split a hair -- no medical information is disclose to NICS , but adjudication of a ..
...person who was involuntarily committed is. And that is public information, no?

I don't believe there's any "adjudication" involved. Obviously things will vary from one jurisdiction to another, but is commitment not generally a medical rather than a judicial decision?

Even if there is an administrative/judicial process leading to or confirming commitment, I cannot imagine why that information would be available to the public. Commitment is for the purpose of treatment, or at the least to prevent someone from harming him/herself or others as a result of a mental disease or disorder. If the person continues to be dangerous to others, s/he will presumably not be released. If s/he is released, s/he has been determined not to be dangerous to others as a result of a mental disease or disorder. So why should anyone have access to the information that s/he was committed?

For that matter, if someone was once committed but has been released, why should that be a bar to possessing firearms .....?

This was all discussed before ... Where I am, there is a system for certification by doctors, which is reviewed by a board, etc. But no, I doubt very much that, where I'm at, this is public information. In fact I would confidently say that it is not. Why would it be? It's a person's personal, private business.

Adjudication of mental incompetency is another matter; obviously that needs to be public so that someone else is authorized to act on the person's behalf.

[aikoaiko]

47. As I understand it, the only way to be involuntarily committed for treatment is thru the courts

and I think those commitments are the only ones reported to NICS.

While the contents of the trial may be sealed the outcome, I think, is public domain.

But I cannot point to any documentation.

And yes, once committed through adjudication, I believe you are permanently banned. There may be an appeals process, but otherwise, no guns from the committed.

[iverglas]

48. well

But I cannot point to any documentation.

You kind of need to, if you're going to base your argument on this being the case.


And yes, once committed through adjudication, I believe you are permanently banned. There may be an appeals process, but otherwise, no guns <for> the committed.

Yes, that was what I said.

One more point on which the Canadian system is more respectful of rights.

Criminal convictions are not an automatic bar to firearms possession in Canada either, you'll recall.

[tburnsten]

55. Being committed is not a criminal conviction

[iverglas]

57. thank you; did you think someone said it was?

[tburnsten]

70. It kind of looks like you related the two actually

"And yes, once committed through adjudication, I believe you are permanently banned. There may be an appeals process, but otherwise, no guns <for> the committed.

Yes, that was what I said.

One more point on which the Canadian system is more respectful of rights.

Criminal convictions are not an automatic bar to firearms possession in Canada either, you'll recall."

[iverglas]

76. so now, we'll read it with emphasis

Criminal convictions are not an automatic bar to firearms possession in Canada either, you'll recall.

Either. As in either/or. Two things. Two different things.

There are no automatic bars to firearms possession in Canada, except (I can never remember exactly) there may be a requirement that a firearms prohibition order be made by the judge when someone is convicted of certain firearms-related offences.

Mental illness/competency-related events are not an automatic bar.

Criminal convictions are not an automatic bar.

Firearms prohibition orders are made on an individual basis by judges who sentence convicted offenders, where the judge determines such orders to be appropriate.

Firearms officers who decide applications for firearms licences are directed to consider any past convictions for particular offences, but are not required to deny a licence if a person has such convictions. Obviously, someone with convictions for robbery or drug trafficking is unlikely to be given a licence.

An automatic bar based on mental illness/competency-related events or criminal convictions would likely be found to be unconstitutional in Canada.

[aikoaiko]

67. I agree, I'll look for documentation.

[tburnsten]

54. Being committed here requires court action

And you can't just have anyone carted off to the bin because you don't like their socks. Making people go through the court system to prove that a person needs to be hospitalized for mental health issues helps keep abuses down. Generally I don't believe people who are mentally competent ever get involuntarily committed.


We might just be working off of different definitions of committed.

[iverglas]

59. ah, false dichotomies

you can't just have anyone carted off to the bin because you don't like their socks.

Please try reading what I write, and respond to that and not to some made-up shit.

I expressly said that DOCTORS make decisions about whether someone needs commitment for treatment / preventive confinement, because s/he is potentially dangerous to him/herself or others.

That is a MEDICAL determination. If commitment were ordered by a court, it could only be done on the basis of that MEDICAL determination. The court would simply be accepting the evidence of DOCTORS, and making an order based on that evidence.


Making people go through the court system to prove that a person needs to be hospitalized for mental health issues helps keep abuses down.

As I said, where I'm at, the determination is initially made by doctors -- given that situations in which this is necessary are usually emergency situations. It is reviewed by a board. Board decisions can be appealed to courts.

None of that means that any of the information is PUBLIC. I am quite sure that in any court decision on such a matter, where I'm at, the individual in question would be identified by initials only in the version of the order that was available publicly, not by name. I am absolutely certain of this.


Generally I don't believe people who are mentally competent ever get involuntarily committed.

Competency has absolutely nothing to do with grounds for involuntary committal.

A person who is committed for treatment involuntarily may be incompetent, but that is NOT why s/he is committed.

People are committed because they are considered to be a danger to themselves or other people as a result of a mental disease or disorder.

Someone might be committed because there are good grounds to believe s/he will attempt to commit suicide. That person might be given medication and psychiatric/psychological treatment. The depression may have been situational. The person may emerge not long after as someone who will never again be suicidal.

A person who is suicidal may be perfectly competent to handle his/her own affairs.

Competency has to do with one's mental faculties - whether one has the judgment and intellectual ability to handle one's own affairs so as to survive, not waste one's resources, etc. Severe developmental disability or dementia would warrant having someone else appointed to handle one's affairs.

The two grounds for disqualification under US firearms law are completely different and completely separate.

We are talking about people involuntarily committed, not people adjudicated incompetent.

Obviously, adjudications of incompetency have to be public, because someone else has to be able to handle that person's affairs legally.

Involuntary committals are mental health matters and there is no reason for that information to be disclosed to anyone.

[gorfle]

40. On medical privacy.

Being involuntarily committed to a mental health facility does NOT strip an individual of rights, including medical privilege and personal privacy.

Your concern appears to be that some government agency somewhere has your health information.

As I've said before, if someone is dangerous enough to society that they should not have a gun, I don't mind the government keeping track of those people.

Further, if we move to a government-paid health care system, it's pretty much a given that some government agency is going to have your health information anyway.

The bottom line for me is this: If I have to choose between the medical anonymity of the dangerously insane or the firearm ownership anonymity of some 40-80 million firearm owners, I'll choose the latter every time.

[iverglas]

45. duh

Your concern appears to be that some government agency somewhere has your health information.

Uh, yes.

Also, that anyone who queries NICS can learn that a person has a particular medical history *or* a criminal history. That's sufficient for a violation of privacy.


As I've said before, if someone is dangerous enough to society that they should not have a gun, I don't mind the government keeping track of those people.

And as I've said before, what you mind or don't mind is really of the utmost irrelevance when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

Hell, I think other people in this forum say the same thing from time to time, even.


Further, if we move to a government-paid health care system, it's pretty much a given that some government agency is going to have your health information anyway.

Uh, yeah. The government agency that adminsters the health care (actually, health insurance) system.

My provincial health insurance plan has information about what my doctor bills them for. (Actually, I go to a non-profit community clinic where doctors are on salary and services are paid for per capita, not on a fee-for-for service basis, so unless I go to a specialist in private practice or a hospital, it doesn't have all of that about me.)

My concern isn't that THE GU'MINT will have information about me. It's that ANYONE who doesn't have my consent to have information about me will have it.

If you read my previous post about the Minister of Health having to resign for disclosing someone's name, you'll see what kind of controls there are on disclosure of medical information by the health insurance plan.


The bottom line for me is this: If I have to choose between the medical anonymity of the dangerously insane or the firearm ownership anonymity of some 40-80 million firearm owners, I'll choose the latter every time.

If you have to choose between violating someone else's rights and having things the way they suit you, you'll choose you every time.


I do find this particular issue quite instructive when it comes to how much a lot of, uh, firearms enthusiasts really care about rights, or about anyone but themselves.

[gorfle]

62. More on privacy.

Also, that anyone who queries NICS can learn that a person has a particular medical history *or* a criminal history. That's sufficient for a violation of privacy.

First of all, I'm pretty sure criminal histories are a matter of public record here. So there are no privacy issues concerning a person's criminal background.

The way I see it, it's no secret to a person who has a disqualifying condition for owning a firearm that they have such a condition. If such a person decides to try and test the system and by so doing reveals to a prospective firearm seller that he truly is disqualified for owning a firearm, well, what did they expect?

If you know you have a disqualifying reason not to own a firearm and you don't want people to know about it, don't try and buy a firearm!

And as I've said before, what you mind or don't mind is really of the utmost irrelevance when it comes to OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

Hell, I think other people in this forum say the same thing from time to time, even.

Obviously my opinion doesn't matter. Obviously I'm talking about something that our society would enact. Our society has already decided it's OK to infringe on other people's rights in certain cases. If society has decided that it's OK to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms for people who have certain mental or criminal backgrounds, then society can decide that it's OK to infringe on their privacy in certain cases also.

Uh, yeah. The government agency that adminsters the health care (actually, health insurance) system.

My concern isn't that THE GU'MINT will have information about me. It's that ANYONE who doesn't have my consent to have information about me will have it.

One agency is just like any other as far as I'm concerned. You have a government repository of private health data. The privacy risks of such a database are going to be the same no matter which agency handles the data.

So once a government agency has such data in place, it's just silly not to inform the law enforcement branch of people who aren't allowed to own firearms.

If you read my previous post about the Minister of Health having to resign for disclosing someone's name, you'll see what kind of controls there are on disclosure of medical information by the health insurance plan.

I think it's just silly that you have people who's jobs it is to investigate prospective firearm owners and they don't have access to that critical mental health data that your government clearly already possesses. If you're going to rely on voluntary answers by the person who wants a firearm and his friends, hell, why concern yourself with mental health prohibitions on firearm ownership at all? By this logic, why bother checking their criminal background from the government? Just ask the prospective firearm owner and take them at their word.

I do find this particular issue quite instructive when it comes to how much a lot of, uh, firearms enthusiasts really care about rights, or about anyone but themselves.

What, you don't expect us to balance the rights of one group against another? I mean you want to seriously undermine a Constitutional right for everyone for the benefit of protecting the medical privacy of the dangerously insane. Well damn. Pardon me if I'm looking out for myself over the insane people.

[Taitertots]

73. Criminally insane

The criminally insane have the right to keep secret their insanity at any cost to society. To protect us from them we need to have Draconian gun laws effecting the vast majority of not insane people. The dangerously insane have every right to keep that extreme danger hidden from everyone. The gun owners who are for the most part not a grave danger to society need to be tracked and scrutinized.

[gorfle]

82. The privacy of the insane and criminals.

Like I said, it occurs to me that it should be no secret to anyone if they are disqualified from owning a firearm.

So if you know you are disqualified from owning a firearm, and you don't want anyone to know about that, then simply don't try and buy a firearm.

So there really aren't any privacy issues with NICS, other than the fact that there is a government database that contains some sort of data that indicates that you have either a criminal or mental disqualification for owning a firearm.

But this database will never be queried for your information unless you try and buy a gun, so, barring a breach of the databases' security, the information in that database will never be revealed to anyone unless you want it to.

[iverglas]

84. and what on earth is the difference

between a database of private medical information and a database of firearms possession, in your mind??

barring a breach of the databases' security, the information in that database will never be revealed to anyone unless you want it to.

There are two points here. And it is still completely beyond me how anyone could still be failing to take, or choosing to ignore, the first.

1. The disclosure HAS ALREADY OCCURRED when the information is entered in the NICS database.

The information is PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION. Such information is not, barring some exception, disclosed to anyone ever without the consent of the person whose information it is.

Seeking medical care, or being compelled to receive medical care, IS NOT implied consent to disclosure of the information. There must be some statutory exception that permits diclosure of that information. An exception that permits disclosure to a database like NICS is an unjustified violation of rights, in my opinion, and I can confidently say in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, should the question ever come before it.

2. Everything you say applies to a database of people LICENSED TO POSSESS FIREARMS.

"Barring a breach of the databases' security, the information in that database will never be revealed to anyone unless you want it to."

The DIFFERENCE is that by VOLUNTARILY APPLYING for a firearms licence, you CONSENT to being included in the database of people licensed to possess firearms.

By having a mental illness, you do NOT consent to being included in ANY database that is unrelated to your health care.

[Taitertots]

86. Opps

[Taitertots]

90. Protect the dangerously insane

By having a mental illness alone you don't get on the NICS list. You have to be adjudicated mentally unfit or committed to a mental institution.

"The information is PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION. Such information is not, barring some exception, disclosed to anyone ever without the consent of the person whose information it is."
Yes and this is one of those exceptions.

"An exception that permits disclosure to a database like NICS is an unjustified violation of rights, in my opinion, and I can confidently say in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, should the question ever come before it."
Good thing the US supreme court disagrees with you.

The NICS is cheap, efficient, and generally accepted. Why should we switch to a system that is expensive, complicated, and is going to upset millions of people?
The only reason you have is protecting dangerous mentally ill people from having that they are dangerously mentally ill released to a database that is totally confidential.

[iverglas]

91. really?

An exception that permits disclosure to a database like NICS is an unjustified violation of rights, in my opinion, and I can confidently say in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, should the question ever come before it.
Good thing the US supreme court disagrees with you.

When and where was that? I ask in all sincerity and out of genuine curiosity.


The only reason you have is protecting dangerous mentally ill people from having that they are dangerously mentally ill released to a database that is totally confidential.

Yuppers. Of course, there is the fact that not everyone who is involuntarily committed is "dangerously mentally ill", as you well know. Risk of suicide is grounds for committal.

I'm happy to have people at demonstrable risk of suicide denied legal access to firearms. I don't think all your friends will agree with me. Freeeeeeedom, let it ring, and all. But in any event, the fact that someone was once treated because s/he was at risk of suicide does not make him/her "dangerously mentally ill", and does not even mean that s/he is at risk of suicide 5 or 10 or 30 years later.

Next time you have a sensitive medical problem, you make sure it gets disclosed to an unrelated database somewhere now, y'hear?

I believe STD diagnoses are reported to such central databases. In that case, the STD itself is the danger, and the database is used for tracing contacts, who are informed of their risk without disclosing the source of the risk to them. That's how it works where I'm at, anyhow. That breach of privacy is indeed regarded as justified. And the disclosure is directly related to the need: to inform individuals identified as at risk of the risk. No analogy with the disclosure of medical information to the NICS database.

Similarly, an individual under medical care who expresses an intention to harm someone else must be reported by the health care professional who hears the threat. Children suspected of being victims of abuse must be reported. All breaches of medical privacy, all directly related to the potential harm sought to be averted, all legislation permitting or compelling such disclosures would have to be justified if constitutionally challenged, and would likely survive because of the seriousness of the potential or real harm being addressed and the direct relationship between preventing the harm and disclosing the information. Not analogous to disclosure to the NICS database.

Maybe if you're diagnosed with an STD that fact should be reported to your parents ...

[Taitertots]

92. The NICS is cheap, efficient, and generally accepted.

The NICS is cheap, efficient, and generally accepted. Why should we switch to a system that is expensive, complicated, and is going to upset millions of people?

"Of course, there is the fact that not everyone who is involuntarily committed is "dangerously mentally ill", as you well know. Risk of suicide is grounds for committal."
Yes everyone involuntarily committed is dangerously mentally ill. Even if that danger is mainly to themselves.

Your position is that we need to protect those deemed a danger to themselves and others from being in a confidential database to
stop them from buying guns.

[iverglas]

94. try again

Your position is that we need to protect those deemed a danger to themselves and others from being in a confidential database to stop them from buying guns.

My position is that people's sensitive personal data should not be disclosed without their consent unless there is an overriding public interest served by doing so.

You can't stop someone from buying guns unless s/he tries to buy guns.

If a person does not try to buy guns, there is no overriding public interest served by violating his/her privacy.

And I don't doubt that you understand that perfectly.

[Taitertots]

95. Public interest is served

The public interest in greatly served by doing so. The NICS is inexpensive, effective, and generally approved. I think inexpensive, effective, and popular approval should be the metric for deciding the public interest.

The need for a effective, inexpensive, and generally approved system for deciding who is prohibited overrides the interests of the dangerously insane to not be on a confidential database. Especially since the only information released to the NICS is whether you have been adjudicated mentally unfit or involuntarily committed.

[iverglas]

96. blah blah blah

Let me know if you ever choose to speak to the point.

[Taitertots]

111. That you think

it is private personal medical data that someone was adjudicated mentally unfit or involuntarily committed.

It doesn't matter because the public interest is served by having a means to stop them from having access to firearms that is inexpensive, effective, accepted, and not an undue burden to unprohibited people.

[Taitertots]

72. Registration has same problems

There still needs to be a list tabulated of who could and who could not own firearms. There would still need to be reporting requirements to update the list, including medical records. Otherwise what would they check against when issuing registrations. So your plan advocates just as much personal medical data being released without consent as any other plan.


Keeping a list of people so crazy they can't own guns is bad.
Keeping a list of people not crazy that have guns is good.

[iverglas]

77. yeah

There still needs to be a list tabulated of who could and who could not own firearms.

It's called the list of people who have firearms licences. Anybody on it may own a firearm, anybody not on it may not.


So your plan advocates just as much personal medical data being released without consent as any other plan.

If you don't want to release your medical information, don't apply for a firearms licence ...

Which IS NOT the same thing as the remark elsewhere in this thread, that in the US if you don't want to release your medical information, don't try to buy a firearm.

Because the disclosure of information -- to the NICS database -- happens WHETHER OR NOT you ever attempt to buy a firearm, or even dream of buying a firearm.


Keeping a list of people so crazy they can't own guns is bad.
Keeping a list of people not crazy that have guns is good.

By Jove, I think you've got it.

[Taitertots]

79. How do they decide who can get a firearms license?

They force the medical system to supply them information and form a list. Then they check against that list to decide who can get firearms licenses. Or do you expect that every license is going to be individually checked against all medical records.

Also if you are not a prohibited person none of your medical data goes to the NICS. So they only people any data is collected on are the dangerously mentally ill.

So as opposed to monitoring violent and dangerously mentally ill people we should monitor non-violent mentally stable people?

[iverglas]

81. what are you talking about?

How do they decide who can get a firearms license?
They force the medical system to supply them information and form a list. Then they check against that list to decide who can get firearms licenses. Or do you expect that every license is going to be individually checked against all medical records.

Who is this "they"?

I don't know whom/what you are talking about, but nobody forces anybody to do anything in a licensing system.

If somebody wants a licence, and it is a condition of obtaining a licence that access be granted to medical records, then s/he signs a release form, I would assume. I don't know of a licensing system where that is a requirement, but if there is one where it is, I guess that's how it would work. No one would be forced to do anything, since no one is forced to apply for a firearms licence.

There would be no list, for the same reason there should be no such list in your own system -- because the list itself is a violation of medical privacy. Aaargh. I just still completely fail to see how anyone can continue to disregard this point, even if s/he doesn't grasp it.

You can peruse the Canadian licence application if you like. I've linked to it before. Let me go find it again.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/pdfs/921_e.pdf

There are questions like:

During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?

During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?

During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?

There are also questions about criminal convictions, which obviously can be and are checked for independently.

Conjugal partners are required to sign off on the application. Thinking about that, I would require that all adult members of the applicants' household be required to sign off on it. I'm sure Kimveer Gill's parents, who appear to have been idiots, would have anyway, but you never know, some might be given pause for thought. And for pity's sake, surely the spouse should have to sign a separate form, although I suppose that wouldn't be much different for a spouse subject to coercion. The phone number for a spouse with concerns to call is given prominently.


I quite agree that this cannot completely eliminate everyone who ought not to have firearms, by any reasonable definition. That is one reason why my preference is that access to firearms that are currently restricted weapons in Canada - which includes handguns and some semi-automatic rifles, etc. - be further narrowed.

So is it a reasonable violation of privacy to maintain a database of everyone who has had a mental illness/competency-related event in their lives, to check firearms licence applications against?

I don't happen to think so. First, because not everyone committed for psychiatric treatment should be regarded as ineligible for firearms possession, and so the database would be overbroad in a system that does not include such automatic bars (as in Canada). Should treatment for severe post-partum depression 10 years ago, for instance, bar a woman from possessing a hunting weapon? And second, because, as I have said over and over, such disclosure is simply not justified in the case of people who never have and never will have any desire to possess a firearm.


So as opposed to monitoring violent and dangerously mentally ill people we should monitor non-violent mentally stable people?

Kinda like you monitor people who drive cars?

[Taitertots]

85. Individual inquiries

So for all the millions of people who own and buy guns you are going to conduct an individual medical history check. So the government is going to make personal checks into the medical history of millions of Americans. You don't see how that is going to be far more expensive and excessively inconvenient to millions of Americans.

The only people effected now are those adjudicated mentally defective and those committed to mental institutions. Your plan is a huge problem for millions of law abiding Americans. They are not even getting any specifics released anyway, just that they were adjudicated mentally defective or committed to psychiatric care. I'm not positive but I'm almost sure those are a matter of public record as it is anyway.

There are no laws against buying any type of car and driving it in any fashion I choose, unregulated as long as I'm on private property. Which is analogous to my stance on concealed carry. I could and have driven before I had a license on private property and it was totally fine.


Wouldn't it be better to just continue the system which is convenient, fast, effective, inexpensive, and just deal with the problem of highly unstable insane people.

[iverglas]

89. "The only people effected now"

The only people affected now are people who don't matter.

Loud and clear.

[Taitertots]

93. Effected in no perceivable way

The effect to them is not even noticeable. No one would even know the difference if the information was there or not. No one can even tell if the information is there or not. No one can find out any medical information about you from NICS.


The millions of people clearly effected by your plans don't matter.
Loud and Clear.

[gorfle]

98. By jove!

The only people affected now are people who don't matter.

By Jove, I think you've got it!

[gorfle]

36. On privacy.

-- even if it is a binary yes/no datum -- to which the individual has not consented to disclosure. Seeking treatment for an illness does not constitute consent to having that fact or any related fact disclosed for any purpose other than health care.

Well, we've been around this block before. As I've said before, if someone is too dangerous to own a firearm, I don't mind if their rights are infringed a little bit by the State knowing that fact.

Even under the Canadian system, the State is presumably going to find this information out anyway during their background check process, although in that system they will have to rely on interviewing the subject and his friends and acquaintances in the hopes of discovering such mental illness.

I would rather it be mandatory that such medical conditions be reported to the government rather than rely on interviews to try and find out if the applicant has one.

The NICS database is presumably composed of a list of names with the yes/no datum. That information has to be traceable somehow! There has to be an indication of where the data came from. Otherwise there would be no way, for example, for someone to have it corrected if it were wrong, or for it to be removed if the person became eligible. So there has got to be a database somewhere indicating the source of the NICS yes/no. The NICS administrators can't just receive a state's report that so-and-so is ineligible because s/he has been committed for pysychiatric care, enter the name and "no" in the database, and then shred the message. The problem remains intact, even if one step removed from NICS.

I have no idea how the NICS database is maintained. I only know that when someone queries the database for firearm ownership suitability they either get a "yes", "no", or "wait".

But if the system is opt-out, then you might not have the mark either because you chose to opt out or you are disqualified, but no one could tell the difference.

See my other post.

I didn't see anything in your other post about this. It seems to me an opt-out system negates any privacy concerns about having your state-issued ID marked with your firearm ownership code.

To you. Not everyone agrees. And your opinion isn't actually authoritative. ;)

What we should be able to agree on, however, is the intent of second amendment as our founders wrote it, and the impact of non-anonymous firearm ownership. I think it's pretty clear that the armed citizenry was intended to serve as a counter to federal power. If you give the federal government a list of all firearm owners, you seriously undermine the ability of the armed citizenry to fulfill that role.

[iverglas]

46. I think I have about three hairs left

Even under the Canadian system, the State is presumably going to find this information out anyway during their background check process, although in that system they will have to rely on interviewing the subject and his friends and acquaintances in the hopes of discovering such mental illness.

"The subject" is THE APPLICANT. The person who has CHOSEN to apply for a firearms licence, and has CONSENTED to the background checking being done.

AAAAAARGH.


I would rather it be mandatory that such medical conditions be reported to the government rather than rely on interviews to try and find out if the applicant has one.

I'm not thrilled about the hit-or-miss system in Canada.

But yours is equally so. For pity's sake, how many dangerously mentally ill people are there on the streets of the US who have never been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility??

Had any recent mass murderers other than Cho ever been?

Kimveer Gill, who went on a shooting expedition in Montreal, would never have been involuntarily committed. He was a weirdo who hung out in his parents' basement. There's no indication he was psychotic. He'd never even come to the attention of the mental health care system, as far as I know.


What we should be able to agree on, however, is the intent of second amendment as our founders wrote it, and the impact of non-anonymous firearm ownership. I think it's pretty clear that the armed citizenry was intended to serve as a counter to federal power. If you give the federal government a list of all firearm owners, you seriously undermine the ability of the armed citizenry to fulfill that role.

Hahaha.

I think it's very clear that the intent of the amendment was to ensure that the society had the ability to defend itself from outside forces attempting to interfere in the security of the free state, without maintaining a military.

I think your "interpretation" is entirely fanciful.

But in any event, I completely fail to see how the government knowing the identities of multiple million firearms owners is likely to do it much good if it decides to go all tyrannical.

First they tried to come for the firearms owners ... but oops, there wasn't anybody left to come for them ...

[gorfle]

61. Continuing...

But yours is equally so. For pity's sake, how many dangerously mentally ill people are there on the streets of the US who have never been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility??

Had any recent mass murderers other than Cho ever been?

Kimveer Gill, who went on a shooting expedition in Montreal, would never have been involuntarily committed. He was a weirdo who hung out in his parents' basement. There's no indication he was psychotic. He'd never even come to the attention of the mental health care system, as far as I know.

There are always going to be such people who have not met whatever metric is chosen to define people who should not own a gun who still should not own a gun. No system will catch these kinds of people.

I'm simply trying to come up with a system that 1) insures that every firearm sale goes through NICS and 2) preserves anonymous firearm ownership.


I think it's very clear that the intent of the amendment was to ensure that the society had the ability to defend itself from outside forces attempting to interfere in the security of the free state, without maintaining a military.

It wasn't that they did not want to maintain a military, because each state maintained its own military. What they did was set up a decentralized military system, which kept the federal government without a military.

This was done not only to defend from outside forces, but also from internal forces. There would be no reason to decentralize it otherwise.

I think your "interpretation" is entirely fanciful.

I am too tired to go and pull quotations again. Go read the Federalist Papers. It's quite clear why a decentralized military force was created.

But in any event, I completely fail to see how the government knowing the identities of multiple million firearms owners is likely to do it much good if it decides to go all tyrannical.

Simple: knowing who your enemies are is a prerequisite to attacking them.

[Taitertots]

33. No mark required

Just a call to the NICS. That way anyone can determine if someone they are selling a gun to is prohibited. The system is already in place, we can adopt a logical convenient system or have the gun grabbers adopt more capricious and inconveniencing rules.

[gorfle]

38. Needs teeth though.

You have to have something in place that guarantees that people will call NICS before selling someone a gun.

[jeepnstein]

42. Easy enough...

They have to have a completed form similar to a 4473 with a confirmation number they receive from NICS. What's so hard about that?

[gorfle]

50. This:

What's to stop me from just selling a gun to Joe without bothering with forms?

[iverglas]

52. Huh!

You DO have a good buddy Joe. ;)

[jeepnstein]

66. Nothing...

And nothing to stop you from going to jail if you get caught.

[jeepnstein]

68. A couple of thoughts...

I think I need to clarify that I, too, am opposed to a national "registry". The current system of 4473's makes it possible to trace the pedigree of a firearm but it is a bit inconvenient for the state to do so. That's fine with me. We have to strike a balance between some kind of free market weapons bazaar like you might find in Somalia with the need to weed out straw purchasers doing illegal sales. My scheme of using some kind of form and confirmation code would verify that the seller checked and knows that buyer is not disqualified from owning a firearm. I would add that anyone calling for maybe a dozen or so NICS checks a year might want to consider a FFL. We all know guys who buy and sell as a hobby who are on the ragged edge of being "dealers".

If the government would lay off all these silly bans and PR campaigns more citizens might trust them to do the right thing with regard to getting a handle on who can and cannot buy a firearm.

[Taitertots]

71. Sounds reasonable

You fill out a form, call the NICS and get a confirmation number. There is no onerous and capricious inconvenience to everyone and it makes private transferors accountable.

Have you noticed the people who want guns banned always advocate a national gun registry? The people who want to keep firearms have nuanced plans that are fair to gun owners and hard on gun criminals.

[iverglas]

51. the teeth are in the mind of the transferor

The requirement in Canada is that private transfers be registered.

Obviously, anybody who wants to sell a gun without registering the transfer can just go ahead and do it.

But LAW-ABIDING gun owners won't be wanting to do that.

They want to obey the law because they think it's the right thing to do, and because they generally have something to lose if they get caught breaking the law.

If those regular, law-abiding folks have a way of ensuring they are not transfering firearms to ineligible individuals, and if they are required by law to use the system that does that, many of them can be expected to do so.

Public education / information campaigns would be needed.

No, it isn't okay to sell your handgun to your good buddy Joe without a NICS check, because Joe may be a nice guy, but you don't know who Joe knows, and who he might transfer the gun on to. And if he does transfer it on to somebody who shouldn't have had it, and it needs to be traced, it might just get traced back to you. And you didn't do that NICS check, so you sold him the gun illegally.

No, it isn't okay to sell your handgun to somebody who answered your ad without the NICS check just because it will cost a few dollars. The person you sell it to may be a mother of two in a minivan, but her boyfriend may be a convicted mugger or a violent drunk with a conviction for vehicular homicide. And if he uses it to kill somebody on the street - or to kill her - and it needs to be traced ...


Few social problems can be *solved*. Many can be mitigated.

Not everyone would obey the law requiring NICS checks for private transfers. Some would. Compliance can be expected to expand over time. Some ineligible purchasers could be prevented from obtaining firearms.

All firearms are legally owned at some time.

[gorfle]

64. Well that's fine by me.

Not everyone would obey the law requiring NICS checks for private transfers. Some would. Compliance can be expected to expand over time. Some ineligible purchasers could be prevented from obtaining firearms.

I'll never go for a registration system.

But if all you want is a simple voluntary NICS check, with no record kept of what firearm was actually purchased, like today, well that would be fine by me.

My system is more stringent, though. By requiring the seller to keep a record of who they sold it to it provides traceability of the firearm.

[iverglas]

78. licensing & registration are two different things

The NICS check for private transfers is a rudimentary, ineffective licensing system, but it is better than nothing. I've long said that anyone who genuinely wanted to make it difficult for ineligible people to obtain firearms would be pushing for all firearms transfers in the US to be subject to NICS checks.

Registration -- in its rudimentary form, a method of tracing -- is a separate matter. If traceability is your concern, and you are not concerned about privacy, your private record-keeping scheme is applicable, even if it could be expected to be hugely ineffective.

The privacy concerns would prevent it from being palatable to me or people like me -- for me to have to identify myself to, and my personal info to be held by, someone who is accountable to no one, the transferor of the fiream.

Just to head off attempted counter-argument -- yes, I "have to" identify myself to a private actor in some transactions, for instance if I wish to pay by cheque. In no circumstances do I have to identify myself to anyone if I pay cash for a transaction, and if the seller is willing to sell to me on those terms.

Isn't there growing concern about the recording and storage of one's personal information, and tracking of one's lifestyle habits, when one uses debit cards to pay for purchases, for instance? Why would the same concern not apply here, with unaccountable members of the public, subject to no public oversight, being required to obtain one's personal info and keep a record of it for years? Why should anyone be required to provide that information to such unaccountable private actors in order to make a consumer purchase? Would you agree that I should identify myself and provide a record of my personal contact details when I buy a hamburger?

Registration is also -- i.e., in addition to providing traceability -- a method of deterring transfers to ineligible individuals. Relying on members of the public to obtain and retain the information necessary to fulfil that function is not exactly effective. Firearms are not the only things that can be lost in tragic kayaking accidents ... or basement floods ...


typos fixed ...