H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

We will try to post current legislative bills that relate to Gun Control issues in this Forum. This includes bills in the Utah Legislature and U.S. Congress.

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby divegeek » Mon 03 Feb 2014 1:22 pm

bagpiper wrote:Turns out we need to pass the law, and wait 5 or 10 years to fully implement before we find out what all is in it.

+1

Sigh.
Four boxes protect our liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Use in that order.

Utah CFP Instructor; NRA Certified Instructor for Pistol, Rifle and Self-Defense in the Home; NRA RSO.

I am not a lawyer!
User avatar
divegeek
Top Shot
 
Posts: 8757
Joined: Sat 05 Jan 2008 10:59 pm
Location: Layton, Utah

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby DaKnife » Mon 03 Feb 2014 1:56 pm

divegeek wrote:
UnderratedF00l wrote:In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?

I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?

But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby David Nelson » Mon 03 Feb 2014 2:33 pm

DaKnife wrote:But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.

According to the White House Office of the Press Secretary (admittedly, not always trustworthy) statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... guns-out-p) in January:

Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

--Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.

--Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules....

So, it appears that the executive actions that the president is encouraging are limited to voluntary and involuntary commitments to mental health services. Beyond that, the statement also admits that “[w]hile the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act.” It appears that the president has gone about as far on this matter as he believes that he can legally, and he admits it.
David Nelson
Utah

Is it more treasonous to violate the Constitution or to expose the violation?
David Nelson
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004 1:47 am

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby Car Knocker » Mon 03 Feb 2014 2:39 pm

DaKnife wrote:
divegeek wrote:
UnderratedF00l wrote:In the case of a psych hold on a patient, there very well may be a hospital record or report created... but BCI doesn't subpoena our medical records when we purchase a firearm (unless the 4473 changed since the last time I bought one... :shocked: ), and hospital records are not related to (or combined with) judicial records. Heck, some hospitals (IHC) have problems sharing patient information with other hospitals (Mountain Star)... what makes us think that they'd share it with the state?

I don't recall any disclosures about sharing with the state in the HIPAA-required privacy statements, and I don't believe HIPAA has any exemptions for sharing with government.

It would be worth a more detailed look to see if my recollection/belief has any basis in reality. But I think it may actually be illegal under federal law for hospitals to provide that information to the state without patient permission.

F00l, do you know?

But isn't that one of the "Executive Actions" the President has taken? Or at least threatened to take? To remove that restriction on the sharing of such information via Executive Order.

From http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-d ... e-actions/ :
Here is the list of the 23 gun control 'executive actions' announced last year by the White House:




1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Don

-->insert witty and/or inspirational message here<--
User avatar
Car Knocker
Posse
 
Posts: 4563
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004 3:41 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby UnderratedF00l » Mon 03 Mar 2014 2:59 pm

I found some interesting information today that is related to this subject and I thought I'd share.

Previously, an involuntary commitment to a mental institution would create a record on the NICS system, which would deny that individual from purchasing a firearm. Apparently, last year, the Feds amended a rule allowing States to come up with their own procedures on how to handle this, and Utah re-he-heally took that to heart, creating a procedure and guidelines that are now in place to have that NICS record removed. It's outlined in 76-10-532.

This is a BIG deal.

I can't find any public record of this ever happening, but I would be very interested in hearing more about it.

Here's the section of law quoted for those on a mobile device:

(1) A person who is subject to the restrictions in Subsection 76-10-503(1)(b)(v), (vi), or (vii), or 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) based on a commitment, finding, or adjudication that occurred in this state may petition the district court in the county in which the commitment, finding, or adjudication occurred to remove the disability imposed.
(2) The petition shall be filed in the district court in the county where the commitment, finding, or adjudication occurred. The petition shall include:
(a) a listing of facilities, with their addresses, where the petitioner has ever received mental health treatment;
(b) a release signed by the petitioner to allow the prosecutor or county attorney to obtain the petitioner's mental health records;
(c) a verified report of a mental health evaluation conducted by a licensed psychiatrist occurring within 30 days prior to the filing of the petition, which shall include a statement regarding:
(i) the nature of the commitment, finding, or adjudication that resulted in the restriction on the petitioner's ability to purchase or possess a dangerous weapon;
(ii) the petitioner's previous and current mental health treatment;
(iii) the petitioner's previous violent behavior, if any;
(iv) the petitioner's current mental health medications and medication management;
(v) the length of time the petitioner has been stable;
(vi) external factors that may influence the petitioner's stability;
(vii) the ability of the petitioner to maintain stability with or without medication; and
(viii) whether the petitioner is dangerous to public safety; and
(d) a copy of the petitioner's state and federal criminal history record.
(3) The petitioner shall serve the petition on the prosecuting entity that prosecuted the case or, if the disability is not based on a criminal case, on the county or district attorney's office having jurisdiction where the petition was filed and the individual who filed the original action which resulted in the disability.
(4) The court shall schedule a hearing as soon as practicable. The petitioner may present evidence and subpoena witnesses to appear at the hearing. The prosecuting, county attorney, or the individual who filed the original action which resulted in the disability may object to the petition and present evidence in support of the objection.
(5) The court shall consider the following evidence:
(a) the facts and circumstances that resulted in the commitment, finding, or adjudication; and
(b) the person's mental health and criminal history records.
(6) The court shall grant the relief if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) the person is not a danger to the person or to others;
(b) the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety; and
(c) the requested relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
(7) The court shall issue an order with its findings and send a copy to the bureau.
(8) The bureau, upon receipt of a court order removing a person's disability under Subsection 76-10-503(1)(b)(vii), shall send a copy of the court order to the National Instant Check System requesting removal of the person's name from the database. In addition, if the person is listed in a state database utilized by the bureau to determine eligibility for the purchase or possession of a firearm or to obtain a concealed firearm permit, the bureau shall remove the petitioner's name or send a copy of the court's order to the agency responsible for the database for removal of the petitioner's name.
(9) If the court denies the petition, the petitioner may not petition again for relief until at least two years after the date of the court's final order.
(10) The petitioner may appeal a denial of the requested relief. The review on appeal shall be de novo.
I looked up "Ninjas" at Thesaurus.com.

Thesaurus.com: "Ninjas can not be found."

Well played, Ninjas. Well played.
User avatar
UnderratedF00l
Sniper
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed 03 Feb 2010 4:23 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

Re: H.B. 202 Weapons Restrictions Amendments (Rep. Redd, E.)

Postby David Nelson » Fri 14 Mar 2014 8:36 am

This bill wasn't passed by the Utah Legislature.
David Nelson
Utah

Is it more treasonous to violate the Constitution or to expose the violation?
David Nelson
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004 1:47 am

Previous

Return to Utah & Federal Bills For or Against Gun Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest