U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Official U.S. Senate photo
Related Articles
Yesterday, we talked about the potential impact health care "reform" could have on gun rights. We looked specifically at efforts on the part of some to portray such concerns as delusional "gun nut paranoia." We'll expand a bit on that today.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke contemptuously dismissed the idea that Obamacare would ever pose a threat to gun rights--for example:
Regardless of whether it was even conceivable that health care providers could "require" disclosure of a firearm in the home under health care reform - and it never was . . .
Nearly all the rest of piece, though, chastised the Senate for adopting Senator Grassley's* gun rights amendment--presumably because Helmke is disappointed about possibly losing a weapon against gun ownership.
Doctors and health professionals asking patients about firearm ownership and safe storage practices is just common sense in the full evaluation of risks to their health.
On this issue at least, it seems clear that some Senators were more concerned with pleasing the extremes of the gun lobby and less concerned with the actual health of American children and families.
If no such potential for new gun restrictions ever existed in Obamacare, why would advocates of more restrictive gun policies care about efforts to (supposedly) remove that potential?
The fact is that efforts to frame firearm policy as a "public health" issue are well established (and gaining ground--the National Institutes of Health is again studying gun policy, with the Brady Campaign's blessing), with health care providers increasingly encouraged to invade patients' gun safes.
Just as you would go into a doctor's office, and hopefully the doctor would ask, "Do you smoke, do you exercise?" any physician or other health care provider should ask, "Do you have a gun in the home?"
Exhaustive record keeping is a huge part of the Obamacare agenda--is it realistic to believe that those records would not be kept, to potentially be used as a behavioral criterion like smoking, drinking, lack of exercise--the kinds of behaviors that have been identified as unhealthy, and thus suitably subject to "punishment" on the part of health insurance providers?
I appreciate Gun Owners of America's efforts in drawing attention to the Obamacare threat to gun rights, but like a couple of my colleagues, I have some doubts about a "band-aid" amendment to "fix" the problem. One of my concerns in that area is that we're talking about a bill whose Constitutionality is very much in question--Nancy Pelosi's incredulous (and contemptuous) "Are you serious?" in response to that very question notwithstanding. As Second Amendment advocates, we hold the Constitutional high ground. To fail to offer as vigorous resistance to other unconstitutional government agendas, we surrender a big piece of that high ground.
On an even more fundamental level, the entire idea of dramatically expanded government involvement with something as private as health care is the very antithesis of the kind of independence of spirit embodied in Second Amendment advocacy. This is a move to insert government even more deeply into our lives--hardly consistent with maintaining the capacity to resist any tyrannical impulses on the government's part.
The Second Amendment is the ultimate "tyranny insurance," and the lack of the means to resist evil has killed by the tens of millions--it's hard to imagine anything much more unhealthy than that.
*A couple of my fellow Gun Rights Examiners call it the "Reid Amendment," because it's part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's"manager's amendment" to the health care bill, but the language was actually introduced by Senator Grassley, and became part of the bill by "amending the amendment."
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Yes, as you state, "we're talking about a bill whose Constitutionality is very much in question."
Law Professor Richard Epstein over at pointoflaw.com has a great analysis of the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Deform bill. Do search for "Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional" to read it.
I, too, am of the opinion that Obamascare will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. But, not before billions of dollars in new taxes have been collected from the American Taxpayers; which the government won't be giving back anytime soon.
Therefore, it is my opinion that anything in the Health Care Deform bill, including gun control, is pretty much moot. The bill is actually just a vehicle to tax Americans for a few years before it can be ruled unconstitutional.
Cheers
"Therefore, it is my opinion that anything in the Health Care Deform bill, including gun control, is pretty much moot. The bill is actually just a vehicle to tax Americans for a few years before it can be ruled unconstitutional."
Ruled unconstitutional by whom? Sotomayor & co.?
I hope you're right, Doc, but I'm not betting on it.
The reaction expressed by the Brady Campaign to Ban All Guns is consistent with my prediction regarding concerns expressed by firearms ownership rights advocates. I had stated that, at the time of the expression of such concerns, the fear that a health care reform proposal would result in an infringement upon firearms ownership rights was not a rational fear. However, I noted also that the mere expression of such a fear may prompt civilian disarmament advocates to consider the as viable very measures that -- while not actually proposed by any legislature -- were predicted by over-reacting civilian firearms rights advocates. As this now seems to have occurred exactly as I had predicted, it would seem as though the mere expressing of a concern has subsequently necessitated a preemptive measure to address it.
everybody seems to be overlooking something in all this talk about what and is not in the proposed legislation. It doesn't matter that the bill hasn't mentioned guns or gun control, if as is to be expected the Department of Health and Human Services can incorporate them in regulations. A great many of our rights have been lost, not to legislation, but to regulation by agencies charged with administering the laws. Agencies whose leadership serve at the pleasure of whatever current administration is in office, and therefore are inclined to do by regulation what could not be accomplished by legislators who must face the voters.
While I agree that all of this current issue is unconstitutional, I do not necessarily believe it will not be declared constitutional, after all, we have plenty of precedent showing obviously unconstitutional laws being upheld. One of the most egregious is very recent. Anyone remember New London v.Kelo?
A preemptive prohibition would seem to be in order
if a doctor starts asking me about guns, cars, or anything not related to the reason as to why I am in his office he can expect a call from a lawyer and a complaint filed on him with Health Department and medical board. Might not go anywhere but the hassle will be worse for him than me and if enough people do it the AMA will get heat and things will change quickly. Start fighting back and if your doctor cares about you he won't ask those questions regardless of what the law says.
Male Doc to CIDGofOne.
“Do you own any firearms?”
“Well, doc, not that it’s any of your business but yes, I do.”
CIDGofOne to Doc.
“Not that it’s any of my business but…“Do you own any firearms?”
If the answer is “yes“ then the doc and I have something to talk about.
If the answer is “no”, then my next question is “Why not?” followed by:-
“Are you aware as a man and a U.S. Citizen it’s your moral obligation and duty to provide yourself arms for defense?
Surely you’re aware there are criminals roaming around everywhere fully capable of doing you great bodily harm and the most viable tool yet invented for self-defense is a firearm.
How are you going to protect yourself, your family or your patients if some madman tries to assault and kill you or others?
You spend your whole life taking care of other people but don’t do one of the simplest things to help protect yourself and carry a firearm? What kind of sense does that make?
Oh, and you did wash your hands right?"
Thanks Kurt Hofmann. Good to ‘hear’ from you again.
For what it's worth, the first problem as I see it with ‘debates’ over ‘GUN CONTROL’ is that there are no logical, rational, reasonable arguments for NOT carrying a firearm.
If someone’s read an article anywhere that states,
“I don’t own or carry a firearm because…”
I’d love to read it--just for the entertainment value.
Let's try it.
“I don’t own or carry a firearm because…
Uh, I’m too stupid? I might hurt myself? I’m not willing to take the responsibility? I haven’t overcome my infantile natural fear of loud noises? I’m still using round-nose scissors because I can’t trust myself with sharp instruments, let alone a GUN? Because the Brady Campaign says…I might shoot my spouse or my kids or increase my risk of suicide?
I’m too stupid to teach my kids about firearms and so irresponsible myself I don’t want them to know about tools that have been in this country since the 1600’s?
Because gov't says I'm not allowed?
My health care is none of the governments business. Gun contol is my business. I control my firearms. If a doctor ever asked me if I own guns, my come back would be, "Doctor, do you have sex with someone other than your wife"?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!