New Texas bill would forbid doctors from asking patients about guns

Via Bearing Arms. If you, like me live in Texas, get ahold of your representative and tell them to to support this!. If you live in another state with such a law, thank your representative if they supported it. If your state has no such law, then get after your representative and tell them to write such a law.

Stewart Spitzer (R-TX) has authored a bill which would essentially bar doctors from talking about guns with their patients. House Bill 2823 was introduced March 16th and not only prohibits doctors from asking if there are guns in the household, but also recommends doctors who continue to talk to patients about firearms be punished.

“Pediatricians are asking children away from their parents, ‘Do you have guns in your house?’ and then reporting this on the electronic health records, and then the federal government, frankly, has access to who has guns and who doesn’t,” Spitzer said in a recent interview about the proposed legislation. He said he experienced the phenomenon firsthand when he took his daughter to the doctor, who asked her whether there were any guns in the house.

While HB2823 has some parents breathing a sigh or relief, the medical community has had a far less enthusiastic reaction.

“We, as physicians, ask all sorts of questions—about bike helmets and seat belts and swimming pool hazards, dangerous chemicals in the home, sexual behaviors, domestic violence. I could go on and on,” Gary Floyd, a Fort Worth pediatrician and board member of the Texas Medical Association, in an interview with the Texas Tribune.

While the bill would allow doctors to discuss guns with patients deemed suicidal, Spitzer says that in most cases discussions about firearms are “not appropriate.” Spitzer, a surgeon, said he wanted to make sure that doctors “have the right not to ask that.”

Doctors are currently reporting who has access to guns and who doesn’t based on patient answers to medical questionnaires. I teach my children to never answer any questions pertaining to our household when I am not present, but with the feds wanting to weigh children at daycare facilities and public schools already dictating what foods children should eat, we need to take every opportunity we can to eliminate the government’s reach into our homes. HB2823 is a step in the right direction, but we should all speak to our children about keeping our families’ business private and out of the government’s intrusive reach into our parental rights.

The time to stop the nanny statists is now folks.

10 States Respond To Leftist Claims Of College Rape Epidemic With Push To Legalize Guns On Campuses

10 States Want To Permit Guns On Campus To Stop Rape – Sweetness & Light

.

.
From the New York Times:

A Bid for Guns on Campuses to Deter Rape

By ALAN SCHWARZ | February 18, 2015

As gun rights advocates push to legalize firearms on college campuses, an argument is taking shape: Arming female students will help reduce sexual assaults… [L]awmakers in 10 states who are pushing bills that would permit the carrying of firearms on campus are hoping that the national spotlight on sexual assault will help them win passage of their measures. “If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible,” State Representative Dennis K. Baxley of Florida said during debate in a House subcommittee last month. The bill passed.

Talk about being hoisted on your own canard [sic]. This is the kind of jujitsu that conservatives should do more often.

The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”

“Hot little girls”? That isn’t very PC. Ms. Fiore must not be a card-carrying feminist. Therefore her opinions on such matters are meaningless – even mockable.

In addition to those in Florida and Nevada, bills that would allow guns on campus have been introduced in Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

So only red (neck) states really want to protect young women? How telling.

Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.

And yet we let them vote.

Some experts in sexual assault said that college women were typically assaulted by someone they knew, sometimes a friend, so even if they had access to their gun, they would rarely be tempted to use it…

Huh? Then it doesn’t sound like rape rape. (To quote the political sage, Whoopie Goldberg.)

Other objectors to the bills say that advocates of the campus carry laws, predominantly Republicans with well-established pro-gun stances, are merely exploiting a hot-button issue. “The gun lobby has seized on this tactic, this subject of sexual assault,” said Andy Pelosi, the executive director of the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus. “It resonates with lawmakers.” …

How dare conservatives seize upon a made up crisis to advance their agenda? Only Democrats are allowed to do that.

.

.

Retired Cop/Navy Veteran Sues Leftist Governor Cuomo After Guns Confiscated Over Insomnia Treatment

Veteran And Former Cop Sues After Guns Confiscated Because He Sought Treatment For Insomnia – Daily Caller

A veteran of the U.S. Navy and decorated retired police detective is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other state officials for infringing on his constitutional rights after his pistol permit and four handguns were confiscated after he voluntarily sought hospital treatment for insomnia.

.

.
Donald Montgomery filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Rochester on Dec. 17.

He alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by New York’s SAFE Act – a law Cuomo signed in Jan. 2013 that is considered one of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S.

Montgomery’s woes began on May 6 when he sought treatment from his primary care physician for insomnia, which he said he had been experiencing following a move from another state.

Montgomery and his wife had moved from several hundred miles away in order to be closer to their adult child and grandchild. The move involved the purchase of a new home and the sale of an old one, Montgomery’s complaint states.

Several days after his initial doctor visit, Montgomery went to the emergency room at Eastern Long Island Hospital, still complaining of insomnia.

Staff there diagnosed Montgomery with “Depression; Insomnia” and he was prescribed medication and told to report back to his primary care physician if symptoms worsened over the next several days.

Montgomery went back to the hospital on May 23 with the same complaint. He stayed at the facility for 48 hours.

Though Montgomery voluntarily sought treatment, he alleges in the suit that staff at the facility erroneously listed him as an involuntary admission – a designation that appears to have put the SAFE Act’s wheels in motion.

The SAFE Act created a new section under New York’s Mental Hygiene Law which requires mental health professionals to report individuals who are deemed threats to others or to themselves to mental health directors who in turn report serious threats to the department of criminal justice services.

But none of the records or diagnoses from Montgomery’s hospital visits support that criteria, the suit claims.

“Nurse’s notes” from Montgomery’s stay show no documentation of mental health issues.

“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the notes read.

A psychological assessment labeled him “mildly depressed,” but otherwise determined “there is no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms.”

“Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good,” the assessment reads.

Montgomery’s suit also states that a hospital psychiatrist told him “You don’t belong here” and “I don’t know why you were referred here.”

Montgomery’s suit states that he was not labeled a mental defective, nor did he meet the criteria for an emergency mental health admission.

But Montgomery’s records were somehow referred to the Mental Hygiene Legal Service, which is an agency which represents and litigates on behalf of individuals receiving services for mental disability.

Four days after leaving the hospital, New York State police sent a letter to the Suffolk County clerk’s office stating “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution” and that he was prohibited from possessing any firearms.

The next day, Montgomery received a call from an officer at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department informing him that his guns would have to be confiscated.

Montgomery says that on May 30, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department showed up to his house and confiscated his pistol license and four handguns – Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.

Montgomery, a 30-year police veteran who had reached the rank of detective sergeant and had won a Bravery medal, had obtained the four guns through various means over the years.

One was issued to Montgomery by his police department; Montgomery won another at police academy for being the top recruit; he bought another in 1975; he purchased the last one two years ago.

In early June, the sheriff’s department notified Montgomery that his pistol license had been suspended. By September, he was notified it had been terminated – making it officially illegal for him to own a firearm.

Montgomery’s suit alleges that his Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections were violated and that the hospital violated his privacy rights by sharing his medical information with state police. He demands that a judge strike down New York’s Mental Hygiene Law and that the state issue written notification to all individuals whose health information has been collected under the state law.

.

.

Sandy Hook families suing Bushmaster, gun store, and a firearms distributor

This is sad. Grief-stricken families being used by greedy lawyers. The claim that any of these parties is in any way “responsible” for the acts of a mad man like A*** L**** is asinine and indefensible. Bob Owens believes this case will be tossed. I hope he is correct

…..we have to look at the frivolous lawsuit filed by fame-hungry lawyers against firearm manufacturer Bushmaster, a firearms distributor, and a gun store, and shake my head at the sheer stupidity of the case.

A law firm representing the families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher injured at the Sandy Hook Elementary School says it has filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use.

In addition to Bushmaster, the families have named Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the Bushmaster rifle was purchased in 2010. Messages seeking comment from the defendants were not immediately returned.

Of course an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, not a military weapon and of course the very idea of holding a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a product for evil committed with said product is specious. Using these frivolous lawsuits is another strategy of the gun grabbers, like taxing ammo, or any number of other tactics. I pray, as we all should that this fails. 

Krogers profits soar, Moms Demand Statism hardest hit

As I have often said, if corporations stand up to whiny Liberals, they gain costumers!

Our friend AWR Hawkins at Breitbart made me smile with his headline, Kroger Profits Up 21 Percent After Refusing To Ban Guns.

In mid-August Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched a campaign pressuring Kroger to bar law-abiding citizens from openly carrying guns for self-defense in their stores. Kroger refused to change its policy and in the third quarter–“ending Nov. 8″–Kroger saw a “21 percent increase in profit…compared with the same period last year.”

According to Supermarket News, Kroger’s “net earnings for the quarter were $362 million.”

Breitbart News previously reported that Moms Demand launched their campaign on August 18. On that day Kroger subsidiary grocer Fred Meyer said it would not change its polices and less than two weeks later, Kroger said it would not be changing policies either. Both said they would continue to honor state and municipal laws at their store locations.

Bottom line? Standing up to the Bloomberg flunkees pays off

The owners of TBonz Steakhouse in Augusta, Georgia, decided to be proactive when Republican Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law one of the most comprehensive pro-gun bills in the country this April, which allowed firearms into the state’s bars and restaurants.

The eatery hung up a “No Guns” sign on its front door.

Its customer backlash was so harsh and quick that the steakhouse immediately took down the sign and then posted a mea culpa on its Facebook page.

“The sign that was put up regarding firearms has been removed,” TBonz said in its Facebook posting this May. “It was our intention to get the attention of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners. But then we realized that irresponsible gun owners do not pay attention to signs.”

Amen

Home intruder gets it through his head that he is not welcome

Good shooting reverend!

A minister in Valley Center, Kan. defended himself and his family on Sunday morning by shooting a would-be intruder in the head.

The suspect, Cory Landon, sustained a graze wound to the forehead and was picked up by police while walking down the road in a rural area just north of Wichita.

The minister was home with his wife and three children, one of them only six months old, when he heard his home alarm going off and found Landon trying to enter the residence through a window.

The minister, who has not been named, grabbed his gun and fired, hitting Landon.

Court: Cops Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Your Guns Without A Warrant If They Feel It’s In Your Best Interest

Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Guns Without Warrant Or Charges – Daily Sheeple

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

.

.
In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.

For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:

Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.

Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.

Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.

After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.

Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.

At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.

The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.

Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.

Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:

“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.

“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”

But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”

“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”

As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:

In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention – with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.

The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.

The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.

Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

Have the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.