The forcible citizen disarmament lobby is well aware that they're unlikely to win the War on Guns in the immediate future. That's alright with them, though, because they have the patience to fight the long war. One of the fronts on which they fight the war on private gun ownership is the push to make gun ownership less, well . . . private.
We see it with the efforts to close the mythical "gun show loophole," which is not only not a "loophole," but is also not confined to gun shows--they want to ban all private sales, whether at gun shows or not.
Heading off another manifestation of this attack on gun owners' privacy is the purpose of a bill introduced in Florida, by Florida State Senator Thad Altman. Here's a summary of S. 530:
Prohibits an adoption agency or entity from making suitability determinations based on, requiring disclosure relating to, or restricting the lawful possession, storage, or use of a firearm or ammunition. EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon becoming law.
The need for such legislation became apparent when a Florida couple attempted to adopt a child, and was asked by the adoption agency if there were guns in the house.
NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said adoption agencies are violating gun-owners' rights by asking about firearms in an adoption form. She said any request about gun ownership from an agency connected with government was tantamount to establishing a gun registry.
``Gun registration is illegal in Florida,'' Hammer said. ``An adoption agency has no right to subvert the privacy rights of gun owners.''
The issue flared up in Brevard County where a gun-owning couple took umbrage at a request from the Children's Home Society that they disclose if they had firearms before adopting a child.
I can only assume that a revelation that there are indeed guns in the home would constitute a point against a prospective adoptive couple--that children are better off in a defenseless home--and that's without even getting into Ms. Hammer's excellent point about the implications of agencies with government connections demanding information about citizens' guns.
Newspapers, in publishing lists of people with firearm carry permits, are also in on the efforts to chip away at gun owners' privacy--a point I've discussed before, and one that is even now receiving attention in Tennessee.
Perhaps most disturbing to me, though, is the fact that family physicians are increasingly asking their patients about gun ownership. Just over a year ago, I discussed that on my blog, where I linked to this video.
About halfway into the 100 second video segment, Doctor Jud Richland, Executive Director of the American College of Preventive Medicine, says:
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?"
From there, it gets worse:
Narrator: The ACPM [American College of Preventive Medicine] is also pushing a licensing system.
Jud Richland, MPH (Executive Director ACPM): We'd like to see, uh, people get licenses before they can purchase guns, so that would require them to demonstrate that they know how to use a weapon safely, maybe by taking just a very short safety course.
Even without such a licensing scheme, there is much to object to in physicians' growing nosiness about guns in the home. With the accelerating trend to push all medical care providers to compile all their patients' health records in an electronic database, to which the government has access, this, too becomes a de facto gun registry.
The bottom line is that one's ownership of firearms is no one else's business, and an attack on gun owners' privacy is an attack on private gun ownership, anathema to anyone who cherishes the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--the right that shall not be infringed.
Update: Anchorage Libertarian Examiner Kevin Wilmeth reminds me of some excellent material National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has written about this: First Do No Harm. In it, he helpfully includes a link to the Physicians Qualifications and Liability Form (pdf file) that he and former LA County Deputy Sheriff Joe Horn put together, for patients to present to their "gun-inquisitive" physicians. An essential resource.
Comments
"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?' "
Why should my doctor ask if I smoke or exercise? I don't go to him because I'm too stupid to make lifestyle decisions. I go to him because there are bones sticking out of my leg, or because I've cut myself while cutting down weeds. If I'm in bad enough shape to be going to the doctor, he has more pressing things to worry about that nosy questions about what I inhale, ingest or shoot.
Kurt, recall an article from David Codrea a few years back now, waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/11/first-do-no-harm.html. It contains a link to a marvelous document which I have carried with me to every medical appointment I have had since, just in case something like this comes up (hasn't happened yet, but I now have a baby girl, and I'm expecting it some day). The brilliance of this document is that it lays out the problem in terms that even the most rabid statist can understand--LIABILITY. It essentially says, "you want some-a this? Very well, here's what it'll cost you. Now, let's try this again: you want some-a this? Yeah, I didn't think so."
Kevin, thanks for reminding me of that article of David's--it was foolish of me to forget. I've updated my article to include that information.
Thanks again.
How about what's best for the child? Abandoned/orphaned/adopted kids are at higher risk for suicide. So are all those in households with guns. It doesn't take a genius to see it's unwise to mix the two.
John, the decision of whether or not to render one's household effectively defenseless when adopting a child is one for the adoptive parents to make--not the adoption agency, not lawmakers, not physicians, and not you.
Never had a doctor ask me if I own a firearm and till now hadn’t thought about what my reply might be.
I’d first ask the doctor the same question.
If the answer is yes, then we’d have something in common to talk about.
If his answer is no, my question would be along the lines of how is it that as a doctor, you’ve assumed so much responsibility for the lives of other people, but don’t think enough of yourself to provide a firearm for your own defense? Then I'd go on to say that in more cases than not, merely displaying a firearm is enough to stop a person from an assault or robbery. Worked once for me.
Even if you had to shoot, you know exactly where the vital spots are so you can shoot around ‘em and then start patchin’ up the hole the dumb perpetrator caused you to have to make while you’re dialing 911.
Besides all that, you owe it to your patients to protect yourself.
Finally, I’d say that in addition to a firearm, I also own a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit.
And a sincere note of appreciation to Marion Hammer and the fine folks at the NSSF for all the great work they've done over the years protecting and preserving the RKBA.
My doctor saw me reading a gun mag while my wife was being treated and asked "What kind of gun...?" When I admitted I was a 9mm kind of guy, he asserted that his wife was having problems with her .40S&W and he was sorry he hadn't gotten her a 9mm instead.
I would not challenge the doctor's right to question me -- that just tells him that I have guns. I would simply tell him "of course there are no guns in my household." So far, it is not a crime to lie to your doctor. But that is probably buried somewhere in the 1,992 pages!!
Kurt, I disagree. Firstly, suicide is a bigger threat to adopted children than home invasion, statistically. Secondly, it's not *your* child (yet). He or she is a ward of the state, and therefore the state is responsible for making sure he or she is safe in the adopting family.
Now. With all of that said, it's also worth mentioning that an orphan may be in a statistically worse predicament if a gun owner is *not* allowed to adopt. Likely, kids who don't get adopted are at even higher risk than those in the homes of gun owners. I'd hope this consideration would be included in policy decisions.
John,
I strongly suspect that you are in error with the second assumption in this statement:
"Abandoned/orphaned/adopted kids are at higher risk for suicide. So are all those in households with guns."
Households with guns are not at higher risk of suicide.
Suicides with guns take place in households where there are guns available, but your claim is not sustainable.
With narrow exceptions -- an admittedly suicidal patient for example -- a physician asking about gun ownership is committing a boundary violation. A doctor is licensed to practice medicine and if he steps outside that boundary in his professional capacity, he risks liability for any adverse effects of his advice.
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!