Obamacare forbids registration?

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...o-Registration

Whats the legal skinny on this? Would it stand up in court?

[Denali]

Harry Reid inserted the language into the law, and its now(as though the 2nd wasn't already)the law of the land.

It has CNN all twisted up about it, I can tell you! Last night on the A.Cooper hour, he and his guests, including CNN's neurosurgeon Dr. Sanjay Gupta discussed this at some length, mainly how to "eliminate" it from the law!

Apparently, it mandated jail terms for violating it, as it should...

[Cagemonkey]

Harry Reid inserted the language into the law, and its now(as though the 2nd wasn't already)the law of the land.

It has CNN all twisted up about it, I can tell you! Last night on the A.Cooper hour, he and his guests, including CNN's neurosurgeon Dr. Sanjay Gupta discussed this at some length, mainly how to "eliminate" it from the law!

Apparently, it mandated jail terms for violating it, as it should...

Isn't Karma a bitch.

[SteyrAUG]

Now a LOT of shit, including the NRA / Harry Reid relationship makes sense. It's almost funny, but comes at the high cost of Obamacare.

"By golly, Nancy Pelosi was right — they didn’t know what was in ObamaCare until it passed! Of course, in this case all she needed to do was ask her buddy Harry Reid, who apparently sandbagged his party’s gun-control wing by inserting an interesting clause in the 2800-page bill that no one in Congress bothered to read before voting on it. CNN’s Jim Acosta reveals the restriction on firearms-registration data collection built into the 2010 law"

Doesn't prevent a reimplementation of the AW ban however.

[Sensei]

This provision is helpful in preventing an attempts at registration through executive order. However, it offers no real protection against future legislation which would supersede and undo this provision. Fortunately, I don't believe that we will see any major bans or mass registration in the near future.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Too bad they didn't sneak a repeal to the NFA in there somewhere about three quarters the way in . . .

[GeorgiaBoy]

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS- A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--`(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.`(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;`(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or`(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.`(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.`(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE- A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon--`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or`(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.`(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS- No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to--`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or`(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.'.

Wouldn't this only affect government intervention pertaining the health care law itself? Seems like legislation that does not directly involve the health care act would be perfectly passable..

[jpmuscle]

Wouldn't this only affect government intervention pertaining the health care law itself? Seems like legislation that does not directly involve the health care act would be perfectly passable..

That's more or less my take on it. If your seeking/receiving services then you are privileged against disclosing the above information. But it would seem to me that the easy end around is to simply make it illegal to own certain items, thus negating the protection as said items or ammunition are not legally owned. If we had got single payer maybe we would have been better off in that respect lol.


I still think the inclusion of mental health information into a national database of sorts is one hell of a slippery slope that no one has actually thought through. There is significant variability between the mental health systems operating in individual states, not only in terms of operation but also the legal statutes on the books that define who is dangerous and who isn't or who meets the standards for commitment. Add to that the fact that under current privacy laws your communications with your service provider (e.g. social worker, psychiatrist, etc) damn near require an act of god to be released without your consent, Tarasoff issues or other exigent circumstances not withstanding.

So suggesting that some the fed is going to create a system where every patient on certain medication is somehow potentially dangerous and should therefore be put "on list" is asinine. They could first start with increasing compliance rates for states to actually report to the fed who as been adjudicated mentally ill before diving off the deep end and spearheading even more unnecessary intrusions into the peoples' collective privacy. Start down that road and where would the intrusions stop? They wont. In the end such measures are just going to prevent people from seeking services altogether because their going to be worried about being stripped of their 2A rights, and all because their feeling depressed.

It just irritates the hell out of because events like Newtown or Aurora for that matter are tragedies yes, but they reflect an infinitesimally small type of criminal behavior.

[djegators]

If it becomes a big enough issue, they can always get John Roberts to re-write it for them.

[Denali]

If it becomes a big enough issue, they can always get John Roberts to re-write it for them.

Not to drift off topic, but thats not even beyond the realm of possiblity, not by a long shot. I firmly believe he was compromised by the socialist party in some fashion, or perhaps one of his kids had been, either way, his re-write of that decision was rambling, often legally incoherent, and clearly scotched together in piece-meal haste.

I hope never to see that court revisit the issue again, I think its obvious what he would be doing....