Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

No Ohio push for gun insurance

Calif. proposal would require coverage

March 4, 2013

Drivers must carry liability insurance on their vehicles, so why not require similar coverage for gun owners? That’s apparently the thought behind a proposed California law that would force anyone......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

stickhauler

Mar-07-13 12:17 AM

Nascarnut, no matter the court rulings pertaining to mentally ill patients, the fact remains, 3 of the 4 mass murderers in recent memory were being treated by mental health professionals, and none of the 3 were reported. One, the shooter in Auroea, CO, even sent his written "plans" for his crime to his therapist. So, I'd wager the subject had come up in their discussions.

I notice your post states the professional "may inform." "May inform" is a long way from it being the law that they MUST inform. You state that they "may" be held responsible should their patient harm someone. Again, far from "will be held responsible."

And absent any prosecution of a mental health professional for failure to inform, that all sounds more voluntary than mandatory.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Mar-06-13 10:20 AM

In recent years, many courts have held that doctors also owe duties to protect non-patients who may be harmed by patients. For example, without a patient's permission or knowledge, doctors may warn others or the police if the patient is mentally unstable, potentially violent, or has threatened a specific person. In some states, the duty to report or warn others "trumps" the right to confidentiality or privileged communication with a doctor. Courts will decide these matters by balancing the sanctity of the confidentiality against the foreseeability of harm to a third party.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Mar-05-13 11:59 PM

asknot, call me cynical if you will, but I've come to the point that if the head of anything connected with our government told me the sky was blue, I'd be asking around for a 2nd opinion.

Stating that there is a huge backlog in adding people to the database would play into the administration's push for more restrictive laws, wouldn't it? These department heads know which side their bread is buttered on, they follow the narrative the "boss" puts out there.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jh6396

Mar-05-13 9:43 PM

I am not sure what is on the form 4473 (tried downloading but it didn't work) but I assume one would have to volunteer mental health issues since those records are protected in most, if not all, states.

This is where insurance makes sense. Insurance companies can have access to a persons medical history and deny a license if they see a risk. And anyone who claims this is denying someone of their 2nd amendment right needs to know that the alternative means mentally ill people will have guns. This is a compromise to keep the information private but keep them from buying guns.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Mar-05-13 5:24 PM

So, if mental health professionals are REQUIRED to report those who are a danger to society, explain how the shooters at Phoenix, Auroea and Newtown were NOT reported?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

irisheyes

Mar-05-13 5:07 PM

I agree that anyone owning a firearm should have to aquire insurance to do so in case they do something like SHOOT someone!

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ohioankev

Mar-05-13 12:48 AM

One last thing. While I have no desire to own a firearm I do that gun owners don't need another tax in the form of insurance. Also I'm not totally against the government compiling a database of mentally ill people but the thought that every person with mental illness is the problem is absurd and really irks me.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ohioankev

Mar-05-13 12:38 AM

And i'm bi polar with a personality disorder and never had the urge to kill someone. So how am I the problem in this issue ? I'd much rather be alone, isolated and away from people like you.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ohioankev

Mar-05-13 12:37 AM

Stickhauler you are wrong. If a therapist knows that you are a threat to others they have to alert the authorities. Of course if they feel you are a threat to yourself they'll give you a 72 hour vacation. (maybe)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Mar-05-13 12:23 AM

asknot, I find that claim very difficult to believe. The "No Fly" list has been around half the time the background check system has, and it's even filled with names of little children.

The NiCS's system depends on the FBI's criminal records division, and there are "holds" put on some transfers because the buyer has a common name, or there's somewith their name that has a criminal record. I doubt seriously that the FBI lacks the manpower to add criminals names to the data base.

There is a void of information on people with mental health issues, that one is the government's fault! Laws exist that prevent mental health professionals from reporting patients that are a danger to society, based on privacy issues.

Yet, in this entire debate, there is total push to punish law abiding gun owners, when the mentally ill are the true issue.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Mar-05-13 12:23 AM

asknot, I find that claim very difficult to believe. The "No Fly" list has been around half the time the background check system has, and it's even filled with names of little children.

The NiCS's system depends on the FBI's criminal records division, and there are "holds" put on some transfers because the buyer has a common name, or there's somewith their name that has a criminal record. I doubt seriously that the FBI lacks the manpower to add criminals names to the data base.

There is a void of information on people with mental health issues, that one is the government's fault! Laws exist that prevent mental health professionals from reporting patients that are a danger to society, based on privacy issues.

Yet, in this entire debate, there is total push to punish law abiding gun owners, when the mentally ill are the true issue.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-04-13 8:24 PM

@verymad - The National Instant Criminal Background Check System has been in effect for 20 years. Anyone wanting to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer is required to complete a form 4473 and then submits to a background check with the FBI or other designated agency. The information sought on the 4473 is more extensive than information sought for working with children or elders.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OLERETERIEDMWT

Mar-04-13 7:11 PM

LIZ U KNAILD IT

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

exofDevola

Mar-04-13 2:45 PM

Rocker and Josh- Funny-you are both good with the one liners! I think Stiff has gone underground and intends to make a screen name change!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

slogoin

Mar-04-13 2:09 PM

Rocker,now THATS funny! lol

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rocker

Mar-04-13 1:36 PM

Maybe oneill is holding WORKINGSTIFF

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JoshBrown

Mar-04-13 12:49 PM

@oldhickory WorkingStiff went duck hunting with Former VP Cheney and Joe Biden........

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

scandalous

Mar-04-13 12:21 PM

Daddy doesn't lock up his gun. Johnny has Susie over to play. Susie shoots herself in the face with the gun. Insurance invoked.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rocker

Mar-04-13 11:57 AM

I wonder if any criminals read this article. These people who say they have no guns in their house and give their names and the town they live in could surely be prime targets for local criminals.

This sounds to me like another criminal protection zone. Good luck with that!

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rocker

Mar-04-13 11:43 AM

WORKINGSTIFF

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Mar-04-13 11:41 AM

*too....oldhickory, that is an interesting theory...humorous but doubtful. :-)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Mar-04-13 11:38 AM

concernedpatriot, i have a feeling that they were removed from the site. possibly to many abuse reports. their topic in the national politics forum section was removed as well.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldhickory

Mar-04-13 11:37 AM

CP - Perhaps the Aliens took Workingstiff away????????????

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rocker

Mar-04-13 11:15 AM

Laws like this coming out of california from the cesspool of liberal nanny state meddlers who think more laws on law abiding citizens are the answer to gun crimes committed by criminals are no surprise to me.

These people are nothing but anti Constitution slimeballs who have no idea about guns other than what they've heard on the news.

Now, if authorities in california want to do something to stop gun crimes they can get their fat behinds down in these gang infested hoods and clean out the trash. That is where the problem is.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lizard

Mar-04-13 10:12 AM

3 things about this. One is, I agree with slogoin that the Constitution allows for the Right to individual arms. Driving is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege. Second, only the lawyers will benefit from any kind of additional insurance laws as proposed. Third, the politicians would exempt themselves from any new law like this because, as they have demonstrated, even locally, politicians consider themselves above the law.

NO NEW LAWS!

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web