IF CHRIS MARTINEZ HAD BEEN KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER, WOULD HIS FATHER HAVE BLAMED BUDWEISER, COORS, JIM BEAM OR JACK DANIELS AND THEIR ADVERTISERS?

A crazy person shot the Santa Barbara victims, but ‘crazy’ is subject to interpretation not only by experts, but also by the government

By ‘kl2008a’

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
May 25. 2014

I can understand a father's grief, but what I do not agree with is who he is placing the blame on for his son's death. Had his son's death resulted from a drunk driver would he be blaming Budweiser, Coors, Jim Beam or Jack Daniels and their advertisers? No, he would probably be blaming the driver. As such, it would lead me to believe that he was against guns before this unfortunate incident occurred.

I think we can all agree that we do not want crazy people having a gun, but we must also take into consideration: 1) Who makes the definition of what "crazy" means. My interpretation of crazy may be different than yours or someone from the mental health field; 2) Who makes the diagnosis of who is "crazy" and the extent of their "craziness"? Is it a professional in the field or some analyst that just checks off categories in the boxes? and 3) What are the overall effects that such a diagnosis have.

Before anyone openly and willingly accepts the idea of wanting more mental health screening before someone can purchase or own a firearm or ammunition we must be vigilant that going further down this road is virtually opening "Pandora's Box" against our Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights.

Like the State and Fed's defined what THEY (incorrectly) believed is an "assault weapon", they are also looking at redefining the reporting of those that have received help for ANY type of mental illness (including as well as self reporters). When they are done their change will be very broad and the language they want will be overly intrusive into your home, family life, and relationships.

Currently, when you apply to purchase a firearm the questionnaire asks if you have ever been housed (committed) for a psychiatric condition. Sounds pretty simple right? Now the change the Govt wants to make is , "Have you or anyone in your household ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental or psychiatric illness'?" Sounds simple and understandable right? But did you know that would include anyone who suffers, or at one time suffered, from postpartum depression, PTSD, ADHD, or someone who reported to their family doctor that they felt "blue" regardless of how long ago it had been?

The language will also have mandatory reporting of such persons to the Gov't by medical providers, care givers and insurance carriers. If your name, or that of someone who resides in your household, appears on the Gov't list of persons that are currently, or who have in the past, received treatment for ANY mental health condition voluntarily, or involuntarily, you will be restricted from owning a firearm or ammo. Clarification is needed here so for example, when your wife reported to her doctor that she was feeling anxious or depressed after the birth of your child and her doctor wrote in her chart that she was suffering from postpartum depression and prescribed medication for her "condition" her name will appear on the Gov't's restricted list. Even if it was 20 years ago! Or your little Johnny or Janey is daydreaming or "fidgeting" in class and the school says your child's actions are disruptive to the class and tells you the child should get medical help. You take Johnny or Janey to the doctor and he or she diagnoses the child with ADHD and recommends treatment for their "condition". Or maybe your renting a room to your cousin or uncle who served in the military and did a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, or 'Nam, or even on the beach of Normandy, and was diagnosed by the VA (or other medical professional) as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). What does this mean to your ability to own a gun or ammo - plenty! If Johnny or Janey or your wife or cousin still resides in your household the Gov't will come to your home and confiscate YOUR legally bought gun(s) without a warrant and without compensation for such loss, as, in their words, the person COULD have access to your guns. Even if you kept them in a well secured gun safe.

By now you're saying "The medical records of mine and my family members are confidential and protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Think again.

While medical personnel may claim to balk at telling the Government your medical condition/s claiming such information is protected under "patient-doctor confidentiality", the insurance companies that pay the doctors fees will gladly give up that information. For example, State Compensation Insurance Fund is a State program that covers a large gaggle of injured government and private sector employees. Then you have the private insurance companies, i.e. - Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Humana, AARP Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, etc; and government plans like Tri-Care (a health benefit program provided to servicemen and women), Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, or other State, County, or local programs. All of these will freely surrender information to the Government or face severe penalties up to and including having their business license revoked.

Once the Gov't have this information they will use it to deny any law abiding citizen the right to buy, or possess, any ammunition or firearms. In essence, they will use the information about you and anyone who resides in your household to put you on the Gov't's NO BUY or OWN list.

I apologize for this being a little long. When I told people this was going to happen 2 years ago I was laughed at, and believe me when I say THIS is NO laughing matter! It has and currently is happening now!