New York Doctors to Decide if You Can Have a Gun

Opinion
By Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Doctors and Guns
New York Doctors to Decide if You Can Have a Gun

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- A New York gun restriction bill sponsored by James Sanders Jr. (D) 10th Senate District, is in committee. It’s called Senate Bill S7065 and if passed, “would require a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to submit to a mental health evaluation.”

This law would put an additional burden on citizens and firearms retailers by creating more barriers to exercising the 2nd Amendment. Governor Cuomo and State Democrats desperately hope to sign into law, S7065, putting doctors in the position of determining whether or not New York residents would be allowed to own guns. The most dangerous portion of the Bill reads:

“Section 3 amends section 7.09 of the mental hygiene law by adding a new subdivision (1) to require the commissioner of mental health to establish within the office of mental health an administrative process for the mental health evaluation of any individual prior to such individual's purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The commissioner shall promulgate regulations which shall include, but not be limited to, provisions relating to mental health professionals approved to perform the evaluation; the process for evaluation; and the development of a standardized form to be used by mental health professionals performing such evaluation to approve or deny an individual for purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.”

Already frustrated with their lack of ability to restrict gun-ownership, the American Medical Association has made it publicly clear that they will do whatever necessary to prevent people from having guns. Besides, what “mental health professional” (yet to be defined) would want to clear someone, knowing that they could be held responsible should that person commit a crime with a gun? The answer is…none. Facilitators of this evaluation would be much more likely to deny than approve due to fear of their own culpability.

Dr. David Barbe said, “In emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience. It doesn't have to be this way, and we urge lawmakers to act,”

According to CNN Health, “The country's largest physicians group voted to support nearly a dozen policies including:”

  • A call for banning all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets.
  • Opposing the arming of teachers in schools and keeping schools gun-free zones.
  • Requiring all gun owners to complete a gun safety course and register all firearms.
  • Increasing the federal legal age limit for all firearms and ammunition from 18 to 21.
  • Opposing federal laws that allow “concealed carry” permits to cross state lines.
  • Supporting laws that prohibit individuals who are under domestic violence restraining orders or who are convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime or stalking from possessing or purchasing firearms.
  • Requiring that domestic violence restraining orders and gun violence restraining orders be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
  • Allowing family members and partners and law enforcement officials to petition courts for gun removal from individuals considered at high risk for violence.

The question is, how can Doctors be trusted with this level of responsibility knowing how politically-biased many of them are on the topic of guns? This is exactly what gun-grabbing legislators in New York want; an organization, already deeply intertwined in the most intimate portion of our lives, to carry out the actions of gun-restriction. Maybe Republicans should appoint the Catholic Clergy to determine the necessity of abortions.

Knowing that 93% of inmates surveyed in prison avoid background checks altogether how likely is it that they will follow Democrat orders and schedule their own mental health evaluation? This law would put an additional burden and risks on citizens and firearms retailers by making them susceptible to any number of system failures and politically-biased mental health reviews while making them vulnerable to unnecessary felony violations in the process.

Rather than work on mental health issues in New York, Democrat legislators continue to avoid any attempts at fixing the problems that cause human violence and use the issue of mental health as an excuse to attack lawful gun owners and limit their ability to purchase firearms.

At the same time, New York Democrats are setting criminals loose in our communities, the new mental health gun proposal would further ensure New York residents would be left unarmed and helpless when they come face to face with Cuomo’s newly-freed law-breakers. What could possibly go wrong?



Dan Wos
Dan Wos

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

www.goodgunbadguy.net

Subscribe
Notify of
34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EdGlaze
EdGlaze
14 days ago

Partisan bias and a variety of other concerns would render such mental health testing inconsistent between examiners. …have those who want to buy a gun undergo a mental health examination? What standards would be set for the exam and what would the failure requirements be? Who would bay for the exam costs? How long would it take to do such an exam? With about 2 million guns a month being sold how many psychologists would be needed and how much delay would occur? What about the hundreds of millions of existing gun owners? Would such testing be available in the… Read more »

Wass
Wass
23 days ago

If the state gets to select the doctors to do the evaluating (as opposed to your Dr. Vinnie Goombatz), you’ll know it’s only a scam to deny your rights and pay selected doctors.

Carl up North
Carl up North
1 month ago

Thankful I don’t have to live in a slave state.

Will
Will
1 month ago
Reply to  Carl up North

@Carl,nobody has to! I’m in TEXAS, and all is damn good too!

Sisu
Sisu
1 month ago

To place this responsibility on doctors is wrong on many levels (good points below). But there is an even broader issue which in NYS (I understand) began with the SAFE Act and was extended by “Red Flag”/ERPO laws (now also in many other states) – Physician / Patient Privilege has been and would be further violated / eroded. … This follows too many violations of “attorney / client” and “Priest / Parishioner” privilege. All gross violations of Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 month ago

How about all Shrinks have to complete a study in the Bill of Rights?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago

Totally unconstitutional. Hopefully the democrat socialist party will get cleaned out in the next election.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

, the antifatheads might do the job for us … even before the election.

Can you imagine sitting in one’s fashionable and breathlessly expensive Manhattan high-rise apartment waiting for … antifa to start a gasoline fire on the first floor?

Knute
Knute
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

After having previous blocked all the fire halls? It couldn’t happen to a nastier bunch of tyrants if it was planned that way! Ahh, the choice of being burned alive or jump to their death. Quite fitting, in my opinion.
Ten to one says they’ll ALL jump! Bright yellow cowards to the bitter end…. 🙂

Revwarnut
Revwarnut
1 month ago

One more thing… It says.. “…to approve or deny an individual for purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.”
Notice where it says… “rifle”
“rifle” is listed in addition to “firearm”.
So, then would this also apply to…..,Air powered/Co2 Pellet rifles, airsoft rifles, etc.?
And it doesn’t say it doesn’t apply to spring powered airgun/rifles either.
What is the definition of a “rifle”?? Would a smoothbore BB “rifle” apply? How about a smoothbore air or Co2 powered shotgun? (they exist)

Doszap
Doszap
1 month ago

I feel for the northern NY state folks, but if the people there won’t get the couch,and drive out the Dems they will continue to be Subjects to the Fascists in power.

chocopot
chocopot
1 month ago

As I have stated so many times, gun control is not now, and has never been, about crime or criminals. Gun control is all about disarming the citizenry so they cannot represent a threat to the government once the Left establishes the dictatorship they have been working toward for more than half a century. The Left could not give a rat’s behind about crime or criminals. The key word in the term “gun control” is not “gun” – it is “control.”

StLPro2A
StLPro2A
1 month ago

A politician, or their Useful Idiot Doctors, with a law never stop a bad guy with a gun.
They only control the good guys which is their true agenda.

Get Out
Get Out
1 month ago

These buffoons are always targeting the law abiding citizens in their gun control schemes. If this BS passes you’d have to sign a HIPPA waiver to release their findings. If you fail your mental evaluation is your name and info put into a prohibited database list? How many criminals will be making an appointment to get evaluated? none.
How long before the law is amended to include current gun owners who require their permits to be renewed?

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 month ago

My daughter and son-in-law are physicians in Tulsa, where they are ruining my two grandsons regarding firearms. And being 100 miles away from me is a very good thing… family get-togethers (Thanksgiving, etc) are nightmares. Drives my wife to tears.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

@JoeUS, You are in the perfect “Grandpa” situation. Talk the physicians into letting the kids spend a week on the farm “so that they can broaden their horizons by experiencing country life.” And it would mean so much to grandma!
Then when you show the kids a good time, that their parents can never hope to compete with, tell them what is what. Show them guns are not bad and that exams are what school is about.
You are a clever guy, and in the perfect position. They will remember you their entire lives.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Thanks, WB… I have been doing exactly that since the elder grandson was 9 years old (he’s 13 now, and a safe and excellent marksman). I have an unbelievably good relationship (rapport) with both of them, and I love them dearly. All indications are that they return the sentiment. Two problems. First, I only get to see them about once every 60 days, so the parents have time to undo whatever advances we make… and they are occasionally ruthless in that “undoing.” Second, those years of advances had to be made (and must at least temporarily continue to be made)… Read more »

Get Out
Get Out
1 month ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

Get the boys a lifetime membership to a pro-gun group of your choice.

2WarAbnVet
2WarAbnVet
1 month ago

“Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what it used to.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  2WarAbnVet

@2WAV, Oh yes it does.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

Would that same premise be applied to all LE? When, where and who would they start with?

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

Looks like this would apply to any individual purchase, rather than issued firearms. Read the law at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s7065

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

Ah, a loophole. Thanks!

joefoam
joefoam
1 month ago

This from the people who kill 250,000 annually with medical malpractice.

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago
Reply to  joefoam

Exactly. My profession is highly misdirected in its direction of attention. We should focus on the log in our eye before pursuing the mote in our neighbor’s.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago

@RBY, The movie and TV show was propaganda directed at a whole generation of physicians!

MS-Steve
MS-Steve
1 month ago

Hey Doc……… I got a little sumthim for ya, RIGHT HERE !!!!

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago

From the Editor of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and frequent Ammoland contributor: My colleague Dan Wos has perfectly described the problems with any such move to require medical (let alone mental health) clearance for firearms purchases, entirely aside from the fact that exercising a natural or Constitutional right is not supposed to depend on anyone else’s routine permission. As New York physician (specializing in psychiatry) I not only don’t want anything to do with that role, I don’t have any time to deal with people who do not present for treatment of their illnesses. I promise that the vast… Read more »

An-Old -One
An-Old -One
1 month ago

First off, I don’t think anything is “too far” for NY (or Cali.). IF, this were to pass, it could be used for the 1st as well. ” You have to be sane” to have an opinion on anything you say or write. Ridiculous you say? Just as ridiculous as needing a Dr. to sign off on your right to purchase or own a weapon

If it were to pass as proposed, might it be made to be retroactive to current owners? Just asking.
Rick

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago
Reply to  An-Old -One

I believe it would only apply to new purchases.

gregs
gregs
1 month ago

excellent reply dr. it seems like the ny legislators are the ones with mental health issues if they cannot read and understand what the Bill of Rights says and means. it also seems like they may be suffering from psychological projection.
how many people who really need mental health care will harm themselves or others while others are being evaluated for firearms purchases?

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago
Reply to  gregs

Good mental health treatment is still in insufficient supply, so anything that diverts practitioners from our primary purpose risks leaving others less stable.

Hankus
Hankus
1 month ago

Might it not also result in legal headaches for a provider who signs off on someone’s mental fitness, if they go off the deep end sometime down the road or use their firearm illegally?

Robert B Young, MD
Robert B Young, MD
1 month ago
Reply to  Hankus

That is a primary reason than no one will want to get involved doing these assessments. The risk of clearing someone is far higher to the doctor than of denying them, as that decision would presumably be protected from suit by the law. I doubt if allowing the purchase would be protected as well when someone misuses the firearm. An example: Some years ago, NYS authorized judges to require psychiatrists to clear sex offenders for release once their sentences were served. This was an attempt to shift responsibility for not foreseeing future offenses from the state to the doctors. Judges… Read more »