New York Firearms Forum banner

41 - 60 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
So people who spar or box belong i jail then?
Im talking about consenting adults.
I thought we were being serious here. Do you really believe that boxing is a mental disorder and the participants want to harm each other and that a medical professional would contact authorities to warn them about this person danger to other?

re ****ing diculous
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,816 Posts
There was never a guarantee to begin with. This information was always reportable, it was never protected by HIPAA. Go look it up (again)
Who is a serious threat and who makes that criteria? a nurse? a government employees?. A serious threat came under such criterias as to mean a mental patient divulging to his psychiatrist that he was going to kill someone or physically hurt someone. This bill does not expound on any criteria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Hey Ray-
Ever known anybody who's gone through a bitter divorce? Give your kid a bath and a bitter spouse will tell the divorce judge that you're a child molester, say "shut up b*tch" just once and you are abusive...and it all goes into official records. THIS is what people are worried about. People have been put in jail for decades because of false accusations. Nobody is saying we want to arm potentially violent people, we are saying that the system, as contemplated, is ripe for abuse, big time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
I thought we were being serious here. Do you really believe that boxing is a mental disorder and the participants want to harm each other and that a medical professional would contact authorities to warn them about this person danger to other?

re ****ing diculous
Homosxuality was a mental disorder too several years decades ago.
And yes boxers want to harm each other thay is the whole point of punching the other guy in the fave over and over again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
So you guys are in favor of arming people who threaten others or themselves?
You are in favor of letting arbitrary medical professionals using their subjective "professional judgement" to decide who does and does not deserve to exercise their natural right to self-defense?

These "medical professionals" have no guidance regarding what constitutes a threat, they can not answer specific questions about treatment or interaction with you to other parties due to confidentiality rules and the NY law holds them unaccountable for liability if you lose your rights as a result of them acting.

You will never know who pulled your rights card, you have no way to appeal the judgment, it never expires. Even if you did somehow figure out who reported you, they are held unaccountable in the law for their actions, even if they outright lied for their own self serving purposes.

If NYSP reports these subjective judgements to the FBI, you may also find yourself failing NICS checks also. That is a bit of a stretch, since it seems the NYSP report would not meet the "adjudicated mentally incompetent" bar in USC 18, but I do not want to be the first person to have to fight that out in court.

Is it just me, or does anybody else get the feeling that this is just a complete fail in terms of due process?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
the thing that scares me about the whole thing is look at how crazy schools are now with this zero tolerance crap I'm thinking the same thing but as adults and everywhere not just once place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,384 Posts
Here's how they do it in California. Is this what we want, hordes of gun toting cops barging thru the door?

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms - Bloomberg

Oh wait, maybe they have the wrong house...or you're not at home but your young children are....or they have the wrong Joe Smith. First California, then NY, then ........ leading to a police state all in the name of "security".

Oh, maybe your wife is "mentally ill"......poof, there go YOUR guns.

"They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
I am relatively confident lawsuits are forthcoming regarding the mental health provision in UNSAFE. I smell 5th Amendment self-incrimination issues here. People will now be able to incriminate themselves through doctors and other healthcare professionals. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to keep an eye out for crazies that are a blatant danger to society and blow them in, as long as it's not abused. If a Dr. for example has strong anti-2A sentiments, and a patient of his admits to having a large arsenal of guns, who's to say that Dr. won't blow the patient in on a whim because he doesn't feel that anyone except law enforcement should possess firearms?
That's it exactly. Now we need to watch out for activist doctors, counselors, social workers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Wrong, go look it up
Actually, this is partially correct. HIPAA sets a floor on state law. If a state law conflicts with HIPAA a pre-emption analysis is required, the stricter of the two laws (in terms of patient confidentiality) trumps the weaker law. HIPAA places special restrictions on the confidentiality of mental health PHI (protected health information). As NYSAFE stands now, a provider who submits information per NYSAFE would, I believe, be in violation HIPAA. Penalties for that violation are substantial, but do not jeopardize the provider's license. (Wllful negligence is the highest potential penalty tier. It is a minimum $50,000 penalty for *each* violation (capped at $1.5M for the same violation/year). The Department of Justice (Federal) has commented that "willful" means you knew about the act which is classified as a violation, not that you were aware that it was, in fact, a violaton. There is a mechanism to reconcile the state law with HIPAA, which requires the state seeking an exemption from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary. I haven't seen that yet, so absent that DHHS determination, complying with NYSAFE - for mental health professionals - violates HIPAA and subjects them to HIPAA's civil/monetary penalties. This is just more evidence that that state was clueless as it wrote this law. Had they bothered to consult with mental health professionals they might have found this out. Note too a) mental health professionals do not have a crystal ball to predict who is going to become homicidal, b) if they did, such persons are most likely to snap when placed under stress (read police showing up unannounced at your door to confiscate guns), c) in the scenario of successful police 'snatch' of guns from the homicidal individual, who do you think they'll blame at the next therapy session? The law should add mental health professionals to the penalties for killing first responders, and d) patient *trust* is key to successful therapy. This law assults and demolishes that trust. Truly, there was no competent adult in the room when this provision of the law was discussed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
So you guys are in favor of arming people who threaten others or themselves?
You know that's not the issue so stop throwing gas and standing back to watch the chaos. You can be part of the solution or part of the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
Actually, this is partially correct. HIPAA sets a floor on state law. If a state law conflicts with HIPAA a pre-emption analysis is required, the stricter of the two laws (in terms of patient confidentiality) trumps the weaker law. HIPAA places special restrictions on the confidentiality of mental health PHI (protected health information). As NYSAFE stands now, a provider who submits information per NYSAFE would, I believe, be in violation HIPAA. Penalties for that violation are substantial, but do not jeopardize the provider's license. (Wllful negligence is the highest potential penalty tier. It is a minimum $50,000 penalty for *each* violation (capped at $1.5M for the same violation/year). The Department of Justice (Federal) has commented that "willful" means you knew about the act which is classified as a violation, not that you were aware that it was, in fact, a violaton). There is a mechanism to reconcile the state law with HIPAA, which requires the state seeking an exemption from the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary. I haven't seen that yet, so absent that DHHS determination, complying with NYSAFE - for mental health professionals - violates HIPAA and subjects them to HIPAA's civil/monetary penalties.
What i am saying is that the information that NY wants reported has always been reportable and not protected. Correct or no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
What i am saying is that the information that NY wants reported has always been reportable and not protected. Correct or no?
No. HIPAA took effect in 2003. The preemption analysis applies to each new law. I have seen no evidence that NYSAFE has been run past DHHS, or that DHHS has granted an exemption to permit this reporting. HIPAA does allow DHHS to grant an exemption if there is reasonable expectation of addressing public safety issues. However, until the exemption is granted, providers cannnot provide this information (unless they want to be subject to HIPAA penalties). NYSAFE tries to act like it is not asking for HIPAA regulated PHI by calling it "non-clinical" information, but under HIPAA, a name and/or an address, from a health care provider is PHI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
What i am saying is that the information that NY wants reported has always been reportable and not protected. Correct or no?
As an ex"HIPAA expert" from the security and privacy side, I agree with few others that the answer here is "no". You can't just hand over PHI to external entities like this.

It looks as though the exemption you reference may allow reporting if imminent danger is present. (e.g. "My patient brought a gun to my medical office and has a plane ticket to washington d.c. to shoot the president") But, you can't create a list of high risk mental patients to be referenced or checked. Nor could you report your patient to the police, if a psychologists finds that a patient with a severe case of mental illness has a gun permit, unless if he specifically exhibits credible intention/action to do harm to others.

Having said that KarsEutoksur seems to knows more than I will ever know about legal issues; and from pieces I can understand, probably correct. Just wanted to lay things out in layman terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
As an ex"HIPAA expert" from the security and privacy side, I agree with few others that the answer here is "no". You can't just hand over PHI to external entities like this.

It looks as though the exemption you reference may allow reporting if imminent danger is present. (e.g. "My patient brought a gun to my medical office and has a plane ticket to washington d.c. to shoot the president"
The weird thing is mental health professionals could already do this for threats etc

It seemed like the SAFE act extended being able to pass judgments to everyone in the medical field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
The weird thing is mental health professionals could already do this for threats etc It seemed like the SAFE act extended being able to pass judgments to everyone in the medical field.
This is the problem: HIPAA permits disclosure for Treatment, Payment, Operations and "Health Oversight" (i.e., to DOH). The new element here is disclosure to law enforcement folks. That's beyond the inclusion bubble permitted by HIPAA (absent DHHS exemption).
 
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
Top