Right to privacy
ACLU opposes the Reid gun bill due to privacy concerns and the potential for a database. Also, the mental illness checks I’m hearing bandied about probably run afoul of privacy oriented health care laws.
5 Responses to “Right to privacy”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 8th, 2013 at 7:42 am
The ACLU doesn’t mind seeing the 2nd Amendment destroyed – as long as my privacy is protected. And they don’t understand why I despise them.
April 8th, 2013 at 11:15 am
I agree.
The ACLU regards the 2A as a “collective right.”
I went to a Federalist Society conference in Washington, DC 4 or 5 years ago which featured a debate between an ACLU representative (whom I had seen on various talking head political shows) and Phyllis Schlafley.
I asked the ACLU rep after the debate why the ACLU didn’t seek to protect 2A rights.
It took him completely by surprise (that I would ask about the 2A) and he rather tepidly stated that the ACLU relied on the NRA to protect our 2A rights.
He was completely unaware of his organization’s position on the 2A.
April 8th, 2013 at 11:53 am
I understand the ACLU is “reconsidering” their collective rights position in re: Heller v DC.
Don’t rush into anything fellers. The Catholic Church took a while on that earth-orbits-the-sun thing too.
April 8th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
In my office, mere talk of breaching patient privacy is already having a negative impact on frank mental health discussions. I’m frequently asked if what they’re about to say is “off the record” before they’ll open up to talking about depression, anxiety or traumatic events.
Once Feinstein raised PTSD as an exclusion criteria for firearms ownership, things became interesting. There’s not a cop with more than a few weeks’ experience who can’t be diagnosed with multiple elements of PTSD and the rendering the diagnosis is highly subjective. Once everyone’s medical records are open for discovery, exempting law enforcement from a PTSD-based disqualification creates a problem with civil liability. Keeping LEO records exclusively private will certainly lead to an unacceptable double standard before the law.
Unlike misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence, a medical diagnosis can’t be expunged from the record to allow a prohibited person to carry.
Legislators had also better be very careful about what they wish for. I’d point out that Feinstein’s much-touted firsthand experience with a mass shooting could easily lead to a PTSD diagnosis, making her a prohibited person.
April 12th, 2013 at 12:02 am
Thanks Moriarty. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw thru the whole “efficiency of electronic medical records” scam as a sinister way of depriving any citizen who ever told a doctor he was feeling a bit down of his god-given, constitutionally protected right to arms . Look to New York to see it has already started.