Go to the Hospital in Illinois and Lose Your Gun Rights

There appears to be a lack of due process in the law. Also the FOID law in and of itself seems excessive.

As for comment #2. One would have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to not admit that that was slur. Enforcement of COH seems pretty spotty to me. The COH might as well just be removed if it is not going to be enforced evenly.

Hey Ed Wood

Nice to see you my friend.

The COH is not fairly applied, of that there is little doubt... but then again, like my Papa says "Life is not fair Kid".

Hope all is well in your spot on this rock. :^)

Aloha

There is no legal obligation to tell health care workers anything. Yet.

That's partially the point. Those with enough presence of mind to be careful what they say around medical professionals are also more likely to have the presence of mind to continue to be careful how they use firearms. However those who have lost their presence of mind enough to drive drunk or to need medical treatment for mental stress such that it requires an emergency room visit probably do not have the presence of mind to possess firearms and be trusted to use them safely. How many times has a gun crime occurred involving an individual who needed mental health treatment and the general public responded "Didn't anybody know they were that bad off? Why didn't someone put them in a mental hospital or at least prevent them from buying a gun?". You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Just wishing to clarify the ER nurse's intent. . .

Such questions are asked (and should be asked) to everyone who walks into the ER room. It is directed toward the patient visiting the ER to ensure his or her safety. In other words, when you were asked if you were ". . . involved in any kid of Domestic Violence. . . ", the ER nurse wanted to make sure that you, the patient, was safe at home; that no one was threatening you or causing you any harm. (Maybe that nurse could have presented that question better???)

Such assessment questions are usually asked by all nurses when admitted to the hospital. It's just that the ER nurse is usually the first to ask such questions. Although not often, a patient may decide to confide to the healthcare professional to being hurt (verbally, physically, economically) by their "loved one" at home. It is sad when such unsafe situations are discovered.

What does this have to do with gun ownership? Nothing really, except if some kind of domestic violence is discovered. It's my opinion that all perceived "rights of gun ownership" go down the toilet, and a generous amount of time should be spent in jail, if domestic violence is confirmed.

Now. . . onto the article. . . It's an interesting read. I know a lot of gun owners who are nurses and doctors. To be sure, the last thing on anyone's mind where I work is "How can us healthcare professionals act to deny people ownership of guns?" Such thinking just does not exist where I work. And, I would wager to bet that such thinking also does not exist by other healthcare professionals at most other healthcare facilities as well. (Although, to be honest, I work for a very rural hospital which services an area where gun ownership is very common.)

However, the first and foremost thing on the minds of healthcare professionals is patient safety. Anything less would be neglect.

Such questions are asked (and should be asked) to everyone who walks into the ER room.

Such questions are an invasion of privacy and as health care professionals we should take the greatest care with our patients' privacy. Such questions are asked by nurses because they are required to by various institutional rules, and local and state laws. As a believer in evidence based health care I can state unequivocally that there is no evidence that asking every patient whether or not they have weapons at home has or will lead to an improvement in the health of the public.

However, the first and foremost thing on the minds of healthcare professionals is patient safety. Anything less would be neglect.

As an RN, who has a wife who is an ER RN, and occasionally works there himself, I feel that in most cases my responsibility legally, ethically, and with a clear conscience ends when the patient exits the hospital. My wife and I often discuss the issue of ethics in our job and we agree on this. In my opinion as professionals it is our duty to make judgement calls and then ask appropriate questions. Admitting a patient for suicidal ideation, then yes a question about firearms at home is appropriate. Your average flu victim? Not appropriate. I will not invade someones privacy without a reason.

Is there a fuzzy line somewhere in between? Of course. However it is not worth invading an individual's privacy because I, as a professional, am fearful of relying on my judgement.

It does have something to do with gun ownership when seen in the light of attempts to address gun violence as a public health issue endorsed by the NIH, the AMA, and Nurses Unions. You may agree with these efforts, but it seems to me like Freedom Writer's concerns are relevant to the debate.

Now. . . onto the article. . . It's an interesting read. I know a lot of gun owners who are nurses and doctors. To be sure, the last thing on anyone's mind where I work is "How can us healthcare professionals act to deny people ownership of guns?" Such thinking just does not exist where I work.

You would probably be surprised what your coworkers think. I am constantly. Granted, most of your coworkers aren't going to overtly try to have guns taken away from people. There is always some anti-gun crusader, or vindictive jerk who will do it if they can. It may be less than five percent of the doctors, nurses, and social workers in Illinois, but that is still a lot of doctors, nurses, and social workers with the ability to exercise power they should have no rights to.

That's partially the point.

It is definately not a screening question.

Just a question, why would anyone answer the questions at all? Silence is golden. Do you really think they will withhold medical treatment? Do they ask all these questions to unconscious admitted patients? If you don't answer, who cares? No one on the planet can force you to answer anything in this country, so far, but maybe soon, at the rate our rights are being taken away.

maybe soon, at the rate our rights are being taken away.

What rights have we lost since Jan 20,2009?

None

He didn't say anything about since Obama became prez, did he?

"since Obama became prez" = "Jan 20,2009"

saying either one is the same as saying the other and both reflect ignorance

No one on the planet can force you to answer anything in this country, so far, but maybe soon, at the rate our rights are being taken away.

This is what Paxildog said, where does it say anything about a date? It doesn't, Jack said it. Paxil could have meant in the last 10 months, or 10 years, you don't know (unless he sent you a PM, I guess) but jumped to assume he meant since Obama took office.

and my comment (6.7) is under Jack's (6.6)

Or do you not know how to read a thread

I do not understand what it is that prompts people to repeatedly demonstrate no understanding of what is going on and do so publicly

It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to opem your mouth and remove all doubt

I was just pointing out that he didn't say anything about Obama so there is no need to go down that line, or did you guys feel the need to stick up for him even though nobody even made mention of anything he has (or hasn't) done.

I understand why you are getting so defensive though, after what happened in the other thread..

Rhep - why do you continue to repeat the same mistake over and over - referring to January 20 - what happens on January 20?

It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

Words you should live by, or do you still think a Javelin isn't a Spear?

Rhep - why do you continue to repeat the same mistake over and over - referring to January 20 - what happens on January 20?

The only time I said anything about Jan 20th is in saying that Paxil didn't, and your buddy did - then a few times in defense of my statement. You get really pissy when shown the truth.

Thanks Rhep. BTW - I didn't mean Obama, his nutty friends or the cowardly UN. I did mean over a long period of time. When I was younger, I never had to wait of fill out forms and when I got my cwp I was asked three questions now there is a class and an investigation to my background. But all over a long period of time. Eriq and Jack, chill out, I'm not attacking you or your great one in office.

Rhep - again with the childish comment - "You get really pissy when shown the truth." - yet you still haven't done so; all you have done is repeat the same errors, over and over.

Coincidentally a Javelin is also a pony car from AMC in the late 60's early 70's

In this comment you denied making comment 6.8 - go ahead look at it; we all can see it, even you. YOU were the first one to use Obama's name

Pax - he is not "my great one" and was not my choice but he is there now and deserves better than childish sniping (such as calling him "the great one")

Eriq - sorry about calling him that, he is in my opinion the worst one ever. And no, he deserves no respect at all, none that I can imagine in any way and I would go so far as to say that he actually forces people to hate him for hundreds of reasons. I'm also positive that if he were not in politics, and I met him on the street, I would probably still hate him for the individual that he is, a lying, self centered, egotistical b astard that cares only for himself and no one else and wants to have a free ride for everything to boot. Yes, I still have hope that he will do well since he's in office now, but if he caught a bad case of dead, I would not mind a bit, a five year old has more understanding of the country's problems than he does.

Just FYI - This thread is about gun control, losing your rights and forcing non ATF personnel to deal with it. That is wrong, plain and simple. And stop being so childish with everyone that doesn't see it your personal way. Grow up.

In this comment you denied making comment 6.8 - go ahead look at it; we all can see it, even you. YOU were the first one to use Obama's name

But I was not the first to refer to Pres. Obama, unless you really don't know what happened on Jan 20th, 2009?

Coincidentally a Javelin is also a pony car from AMC in the late 60's early 70's

We were talking about the small spear, unless you think you can throw an Iron Era car?

Thanks Rhep. BTW - I didn't mean Obama, his nutty friends or the cowardly UN

Seems I have vindication, yet you still call me childish and in error. Odd..

Wow. I'm getting old and my thoughts aren't being typed well. I meant Eriq is childish and in err. Sorry about that Rhep. Keep nailing me though, "I'll be quite honest with you, I could use a good ass kicking" or smack to the back of the head when things seem to come out wrong. Seriously. Take care Rhep. Later...

Lol no worries Paxil, my whole post was aimed at Eriq.

Children - I would be flattered to be the target of your CoH violations; that is if it came from someone who had demonstrated any common sense.

As this is not true; I would be remiss if I did not point out that you did thios in a "publicly viewable discussion" - we all can see it

I reread the CoH and I think you should also. No code broken although you may feel upset since many don't agree with you but by all means, turn me in and I shall answer for my ways if I am wrong. Once again, please grow up. Everyone shouldn't have your view alone or this would be a living hell. Later...

Freedom Rider-801740

You've got my vote about this here "Pissing contest".

Sorry.... I will stop.

Ed - as quoted by the author even the law states that they have to report anyone who appears to be a danger to themselves or others

This question (and most likely others) as well as the condition of the patient may be evidence of that

It's not seemingly innocuous to the victims of gun violence suffered from people who should have been noticed before - it is a necessity. This is in the same vein as bar owners who let people drive drunk when they should have stopped serving them. You could have prevented a death but took the easy way out, avoided responsibility and ignored it.

These people should not have access to guns

Ed - as quoted by the author even the law states that they have to report anyone who appears to be a danger to themselves or others

I agree with almost everything you say. I like your bar analogy because it reinforces my point. Which is, you don't have to assess every patron in the bar to have a reasonable idea who is too drunk to drive. The easy way out would be to require every patron a breathalyzer test before they leave.