VA says it won't follow New York gun law

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

VA says it won't follow New York gun law
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press | March 11, 2013 | Updated: March 11, 2013 2:03pm

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The federal Department of Veterans Affairs said Monday its mental health professionals won't comply with a new gun law in New York that requires reporting the names of patients they believe likely to hurt themselves or others.

That provision is set to take effect Saturday. Several veterans and their advocates warned it would deter many from seeking counseling and medications to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological issues. Veterans fear their rights would be taken away.

Under the law pushed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the information would be used by state officials to determine whether someone should give up a gun license or weapon.

VA Spokesman Mark Ballesteros said Monday that federal protections of veterans' treatment records take precedence. The agency's lawyers had been studying the New York statute, which passed in January.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/VA-says-it-won-t-follow-New-York-gun-law-4345316.php

[frazzled]

1. I knew this would be a big issue

It's a really delicate one, too. We need to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing guns. But we also don't know where to draw the line—either on who is truly dangerous or on how to protect the privacy of people undergoing the agony of a mental illness.

The privacy issue is just too big to ignore. The VA is starting it, but I should think doctors and hospitals, in all but the most egregious cases, will be wary to report patients and betray their trust or jeopardize their willingness to seek help.

[FreeBC]

2. hmmm, I can see that both ways

I'd hate for vets to not get the counseling they need.

And wouldn't you think that people classified as "likely to hurt themselves or others" would already be put under some kind of watch?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. In NY, the kind of people likely to hurt others are given guns all the time. They are called cops.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. I am *so* stealing that line...

[Gravitycollapse]

3. Fine line between preventing violence and stigmatizing those with mental health issues

I don't think there is an easy solution. But I'd rather leave such diagnoses up to the mental healthcare community.

[mwrguy]

4. What VA official will be held as an accomplice

when another vet goes berzerk with a weapon?

[harmonicon]

6. You know who absolutely won't be held accountable?

Those actually responsible for putting guns into the hands of killers. There are a number of absolutely insane laws shielding the manufacturers and distributors of killing machines from criminal and civil suits when their actions result in the deaths of others through the designed use of their products. Those laws need to be struck down. I'm pretty sure the VA isn't giving guns to their patients, no questions asked.

[Travis_0004]

9. That law exist for good reason

People were trying to guns by suing the manufactures out of business, which would be a violation of the second amendment.

I think it makes sense that one can't sue a manufacturer just because a gun was used in a crime. Its no different than the fact that you can't sue GM when somebody is in a car wreck, and you can't sue Budweiser if somebody is killed in a DUI.

Guns like Alcohol have a legal purpose, and 99% of the time, they are used for legal purposes. If we allowed lawsuits every time they were used illegally, they would be priced so expensive, that only the rich could afford them (which I admit, may be what you want).

[harmonicon]

12. Those laws have a very good reason for existing, but it is not the reason you suggest.

The reason is so that gun manufacturers, sellers, marketers, etc. can keep making shitloads of money no matter how their product is actually used. So what if they're complicit in crime? Just make laws saying they aren't accountable.

Your false equivalencies are just that. Cars and alcohol are not designed to kill people. Most guns are.

The idea that putting gun manufacturers out of business would be a violation of the second amendment is absolutely laughable. If the second amendment ensured that, the laws themselves would not exist. The right to keep and bear arms is not the right to participate in a criminal enterprise. If the manufacturers aren't culpable, that's fine. Let courts decide that. Don't give them a free pass. No one else gets that. If a single gun manufacturer went out of business because of their role in a crime, I don't think that would mean that all manufacturers would have to go out of business, just as one person going to jail for using a gun to commit a crime doesn't lead to the imprisonment of every gun owner.

[hack89]

15. Gun manufacturers can be sued if someone is harmed by a defective gun

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

just like all other manufacturers can be sued for defective products.

How is a gun manufacturer responsible for some one taking a gun and committing a crime? There is no legal liability if they obey the laws regarding manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales. There is no crime for making and selling a legal product in accordance with the law.

[harmonicon]

18. *sigh*

[Travis_0004]

19. You didn't answer his question

How are gun manufactures complicit in crime?

They make a product that 99% of the time is used legally. Yes, they are used in crimes, but how is a gun manufacturer complicit in that crime?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Per at least one poster here claims all gun owners have blood on their hands...

The manufacturers and dealers must be even more guilty

[hack89]

20. I know you want to treat gun manufacturers differently then other companies.

but until car manufacturers and brewers can be sued for the actions of drunk drivers you have nothing. The "guns are only for killing" is BS - they are a legal product with many recognized uses.

You want to use the legal system to drive gun manufacturers out of business. Please be honest.

[harmonicon]

25. Are there special laws unique for each industry regarding what they can and cannot be held...

accountable for?

I just don't get it. If what you suggest is true, that is fine and dandy with. Please, lets have people decide if gun manufacturers and sellers are or are not different from other companies. Right now, they're given special treatment. I'm asking for that treatment to stop.

Why do you value shielding gun manufacturers from prosecution over the right of citizens to seek recourse through the judicial branch of government?

Please explain to me what one of the "many recognized uses" is for guns. There's hunting, but most guns aren't made for hunting. Are there guns that are just really great can openers? I guess there are starting pistols. Ok, so there are starting pistols. So, apart from that, every use I can think of for guns - apart from those used for hunting - is killing people or practicing killing people.

Of course I want a way to drive gun manufacturers out of business if they're complicit in committing a crime. That part is bold is what you don't seem to get. Why on earth should this one industry get special protection?

You know, I very seriously value my rights. I do not and never will I own a gun or any other product specially made for killing people. I think doing so is just all too macabre. However, so long as it's a right, I value that right. If that right can simply be taken away, so could any other. However, just as frightening as having a right like that taken away from me is being told by one branch of government that another branch of government is cut off from me because lobbyists really paid them an awful lot for special treatment. That scares the shit out of me.

[hack89]

28. It is very simple

there was a concerted plan by anti-gun groups to drive gun manufacturers out of business through an avalanche of frivolous laws suits.

As for being complicit in a crime, if they break the law then they can be prosecuted. They are not protected if they deviate from the law regarding manufacturing, marketing and sales. What about that don't you understand? The thing is, me legally buying a gun and then committing a crime does not make the gun manufacturer complicit in any way. Just like the beer brewer is not complicit if I buy a 12 pack from the 7-11, drink it and then kill someone when I drive drunk. Just because a gun is used in a crime does not make the manufacturer complicit.

[harmonicon]

30. If a lawsuit is frivolous is for courts to decide.

It should not be legislated, giving someone an a priori exemption.

If I sold "Doctor Joe's People Poisoning Pills, specially designed for killing people!" I think a case could be made against me if someone used them to kill someone. Would I be complicit in the crime? I don't know, but I'd be ok with being tried for it. If someone manufactures a bomb and sells it to someone no questions asked, are they not complicit when that bomb is used to kill people? Do you get that I'm not suggesting that every gun manufacturer and seller is necessarily complicit in crime, but that they should not have an a priori exemption from prosecution? The system seems designed to legalize criminal enterprise. It gives me the creeps. There is no other industry with such an exemption.

[hack89]

35. It it that "made for killing people" that trips you up.

guns are legal. It is even legal in certain situations to kill with them - self defense and hunting come to mind. As for your examples, a chemical company would not be liable if you used their rat poison to kill someone as long as they obey all laws themselves regarding the manufacturing, distribution and sales of their products.. That explosive maker would not be liable if you blew someone up as long as they obey all laws themselves regarding the manufacturing, distribution and sales of their products.

If some criminal shoots and kills someone, just how is the gun manufacturer responsible in any way? Society has already said that guns are perfectly legal and has legislated how guns should be manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold. It is a fundamental precept of our legal system that you cannot be held responsible for criminal acts if you obey all the appropriate laws and you have no knowledge that a specific crime is going to be committed.

Gun grabbers overplayed their hand and go spanked. If they had not attempted to abuse the legal system there would not be this law - remember it was a reaction to gun controllers.

[harmonicon]

37. Guns are made for killing people. Don't treat me like I'm some fucking idiot.

Everyone knows that guns are made for killing people.

Look, man, I don't want to take your fucking guns. I don't give a shit what fucking insane killing devices you want to keep around your house. I'm not a "gun grabber." I think you should be able to own machine guns, land mines, rocket launchers - any god damn thing you want. So long as no one's getting hurt, I don't give a shit what you do. I don't care about the size of a clip, the shape of a stock, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it's your right as a private person to own any damn thing you want.

All I'm asking is that we don't shield one industry from involvement with one of the branches of government because lobbyists bribed enough people to get it done.

I'm really serious about all of our constitutional rights, including our second amendment rights. I don't know how, but somehow powerful lobbyists were able to convince people that giving their industry special treatment was the same as valuing our rights. There is no actual relationship. You're getting played, and you're making yourself look like a chump. Don't carry someone else's water for them and think you're doing yourself any favours by it. They don't give two shits about you.

[harmonicon]

41. It's sort of adorable how you let an industrial lobby stir your passion.

However, it's only sort of adorable, because people die because you and others allow an industrial lobby to influence your passions and in turn voting.

[hack89]

42. In this case, it is thick headed stupidity that stirs my passion. nt

[harmonicon]

43. If you want to confess to possessing an incredible amount of think-headed stupidity, be my guest. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. Yes. No group should be able to use an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits to further a political agenda

[hack89]

29. I use my guns for competitive target shooting

as do millions of others.

But that is completely irrelevant as to whether a gun manufacturer is complicit in a crime - it is a legal product. The only purpose of alcohol is to intoxicate - yet I can't sue the beer company if a drunk hurts me.

[harmonicon]

31. Guns aren't beer or cars, and you know that. (nt)

[hack89]

33. They can all be used irresponsibly to kill or hurt people.

which is why we focus on people's actions. If someone uses a gun in an irresponsible or criminal manner then they should be punished.

But you have yet tell tell me how the manufacturer of a legal product made and sold in accordance with all laws can be complicit in a crime. Care to give it a shot?

[harmonicon]

36. Yes, it's very easy.

Say you come to me and ask to buy a gun off of me. I have a pretty good idea that you want to kill someone - maybe I even know who - and I sell you a gun with an unstated but implicit understanding that you're going to use it to kill someone. I think I'd be partly responsible if you used that gun to kill someone.

For the sake of having a discussion (this is a discussion board after all), I just assume that you're not painfully stupid. Please do me the same courtesy and don't try to equate guns with cars, beer, etc. Somewhere on the internet must be a pool of people dumb enough to be sidetracked by that shit for so many people to keep trying it here, but it's not going to work here, and it's especially not going to work on me.

[hack89]

38. Your example has nothing to do with gun manufacturers

Your example would be illegal - but it is two individuals, the seller and the buyer.

Gun manufacturers don't usually sell directly to consumers. And when they do, they have to ensure that legal background checks are ok. But if the buyer passes the background check then the seller is not liable for what the buyer does with the guns.

I am not equating guns with beer - that is the point you refuse to see. I am talking about people using legal things in a criminal and irresponsible manner. And how gun manufacturers should be held to the same legal standard as beer companies. But for the sake of argument, why can you get away with saying that the only purpose of guns is to kill while I can't argue that the only purpose of alcohol is to get people drunk?

[harmonicon]

40. Individuals can manufacture guns.

So, my example wouldn't be illegal if I manufactured a gun and sold it?

The purpose of most alcohol is definitely to get people drunk. That's definitely why I buy it and drink it. If you don't understand that, you're probably not doing it right.

[hack89]

21. Explain to me how a gun manufacturer can be complict in a crime.

doesn't that imply that they knew the gun was going to be used illegally by that particular buyer?

[warrant46]

23. Yawn NT

[harmonicon]

5. Good for them.

I'm seriously bothered by the range of people buying into the scapegoating of people with medical conditions for the faults of others. There are real things that could be done to both ensure the second amendment and prevent gun violence, but discriminating against those seeking or in need of medical treatment is not one of them.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. Watch how we tread here, I can sense a witch hunt.

One could make a case that anyone who thinks, or talks about shooting another person or shows anger, or aggression toward others has a mental problem.
remember, one in ten persons in our culture has mental issues.
Would you want to judge these individuals and then take away their rights?

[geek tragedy]

8. Fuck yes, if they talk about wanting to shoot someone, take away their fucking guns. nt

[freshwest]

26. There are other rights they have that are not suppressed by lack of possessing guns, no?

Aren't those more important in the daily conduct of their lives than carrying a weapon when they are no longer living and operating in a war zone?

This country is not a war zone. They can exercise their essential rights. The problem is that they have more issues that should be addressed. Gun ownership does not relieve mental illness and they need to be treated properly when they come home.

This is a delicate issue and can be abused by RWers to instigate a panic among RW veterans. So it should be handled with respect by the VA. And the government should be responsible for not taking care of anyone who comes back from the wars who is a danger to themselves or others. Many have killed themselves because they could not readjust to life at home again.

[A Simple Game]

10. Does anyone know how the VA handles a patient's right to drive a car?

If deemed incompetent do they withhold that from the DMV?

My doctor would notify the DMV and he should.

[askeptic]

45. Driving not enumerated in the Bill of Rights

So not a right like guns

[A Simple Game]

46. No, but it certainly is public safety. n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

13. Then I suggest the NY delegation work on legislation that makes the VA solely responsible

if there is an event. They should be subject to recovery of damages and employees subject to criminal prosecution for failure to follow applicable state law.

The time for sovereign immunity is over. Governments are active and decisive players in the public sphere. They need to be held to account.

[madville]

14. If federal law says that is private information

Then the New York law is not applicable, federal trumps state.

[24601]

47. Most DU posters argued that federal trumps state vis a vis the Arizona and immigrants.

[HockeyMom]

16. I wouldn't want my bio-polar daughter having a gun

Over the years I have had to stop her from killing herself, and once, from killing her younger sister. There even was one time when she slammed me up against a wall.

I am sure the gun rights people would say since she has never been adjudicated mentally ill, she should have access to a gun. Don't take away her, and their rights, to a gun. As her Mom, I would not want to chance that. Fortunately, my daughter lives in NY where access is not lenient, AND she herself agrees she shouldn't be anywhere near a gun. I know others will disagree with this.

I love my daughter. I do not want to see her hurt herself, or anyone else. 2nd Amendment rights be damned.

[slackmaster]

17. I'm curious why you think anyone would disagree with a person making an informed decision to not...

...own a firearm.

[michreject]

34. Did you notify the police of the attempted murder?

Or the assault against you?

[Andy Stanton]

24. Therapist/Patient Privilege

Has never been absolute.

Compelling a therapist to reveal information that the patient is likely to hurt themselves or others seems to me to be a perfectly logical exception to the privilege. The only fuzzy area may be whether the therapist believes the threat of harm is imminent. If yes, the information should be revealed to law enforcement immediately.

[davidpdx]

32. I really honestly don't know how to feel about this

Patients have a right to privacy up to a certain point, which is if they are going to harm their selves or others. These same people (unless convicted of a crime that would prevent them from doing so) have the right to own a gun. The question becomes, how do you stop someone who is a potential threat (for instance going into a mall and opening fire) while balancing those two rights?

For me personally, I'd error on the side of caution. You can reinstate someone's right to have a gun, but you can't do the same for someone who has been shot. Still it seems there is no easy answer.

It makes the Ds look like they hate vets (I know that's not true), which I don't like.

[The Straight Story]

48. Study: People With Mental Illness Are Five Times More Likely to Be Murdered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022488386