Crossroads time. Give up HIPAA rights over new gun? Washington state laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep in mind this law was an initiative (1639) that passed with 60% of the vote. It has many other changes in it including making my old ( I have had it for over 40 years) Weatherby Mark 12 22 LR an assault weapon meaning to sell it the person has to take a class, transfer it at a FFL and wait A minimum of 10 days. There is so many other bits in this law, another part of it is a safe storage part where if someone breaks into my home and steals my gun then commits a crime I can be held accountable .
So, if you are in WA sign initiative 1094 and maybe we can at least get it on the ballot to repeal 1639. The petitions are at most FFL's and gun ranges.
 
I live in Washington and I hate this initiative. There is a petition to repeal it. Just about every part of I-1639 is in violation of state and or federal constitutional rights. The state does not care and they have the 9th circuit(circus) court to back them up.
The initiative was illegal the way it is written but the court said it was OK. There are several ongoing lawsuits but they will take a long time to get through the system. My Ruger 10/22 is now classified as an assault weapon. How's that for liberal stupidity?
 
roscoe said:
HIPPA is federal. I would be surprised if a state law could supercede.
Click to expand...

State law is not superseding federal law in this case, you must sign a release for your records to be given to court or LEO to purchase the handgun or SA rifle, just as you do if you wish primary Dr. to share your records with another Dr., etc. IOW, you are voluntarily signing away your rights.

I didn't notice, does this apply to shotguns as well??

Regards,
hps
 
I'm going to be "that guy" and say sign whatever they put in front of you, because HIPPA isn't worth the paper it's written on. All it does in the real world, is prevent health care workers from sharing information with EACH OTHER.

In other words, fifty years ago, the pharmacy could call your doctor, your doctor could say it was ok to refill something you ran out of, and the pharmacy would fill it. Not anymore. And it's all because of that law.
 
roscoe said:
HIPPA is federal. I would be surprised if a state law could supercede.
Click to expand...

They can’t.


jrmiddleton425 said:
I'm going to be "that guy" and say sign whatever they put in front of you, because HIPPA isn't worth the paper it's written on. All it does in the real world, is prevent health care workers from sharing information with EACH OTHER.
Click to expand...

I don’t know where you are getting your information it it is incorrect. HIPPA is a big deal which can lead to job loss and heavy fines for violating. It does two things;

It prohibits people without the need to know from accessing patient files. Another Doctor who is not treating you can’t legally access your records just to be curious. There was a case where three Doctors lost their job at a hospital and were fined because they accessed the patient records of a celebrity that was a patient at the hospital.

It also prohibits medical personnel from sharing information outside of the health care facility. For example a nurse is in violation if they were to go home and tell a neighbor or even a family member that someone they both know is being treated.

In addition the health care facility can be fined for lack of security of patient records.

A Doctor or health care facility will not release patient information unless you sign a release with them. A State Official walking in with the release you signed on the gun permit application is not good enough.

Furthermore how is the State going to know who your Doctors are unless you list them on the application?

I agree that the law illegal and needs to be struck down. In the meantime I wouldn’t worry about it and sign the application.
 
HIPPA laws don’t seem to be stopping google from accessing people’s records. Apparently laws whether state or federal don’t matter if your on a certain side of the political line.
 
BSA1 said:
Furthermore how is the State going to know who your Doctors are unless you list them on the application?

I agree that the law illegal and needs to be struck down. In the meantime I wouldn’t worry about it and sign the application.
Click to expand...
It's being challenged in the courts (thank you, SAF). It's not that the state is going to know or look for your medical/mental health providers, it's that state law requires mental health providers to share information with law enforcement that someone has become (or is) a prohibited person. However, we've already seen how that works in this country, given that a few murderers of late were able to legally purchase weapons with which to commit their crimes.

Some folks up here are acting as though this is all new. With regards to one's medical/mental health privacy rights, all 1639 really did was add the provision of signing for purchase of a semi-automatic rifle to the RCW clause stating that when one signs for purchase of a pistol (any handgun, as far as the RCW is concerned) or applying for a concealed pistol license (CPL), you are waiving your confidentiality rights. This has been the case in Washington since 1994.

I have purchased firearms from retailers since July 1, 2019 (including one rifle shipped that unfortunately didn't arrive here until the 1st of July, so I had to give proof of completion of a firearms safety class as well as pay the extra tariff). Since due to the nature of my occupation I have background checks run on me annually and my employer knows who my medical providers are (since they pay my insurance), I was forced to pragmatically consider that I wasn't really giving up anything extra (except an extra $18 per rifle and now a 10-business day waiting period that didn't exist here before) in the way of privacy if I wanted to continue acquiring the odd firearm here or there (legally).

For other citizens, I fully comprehend the quandary in which some may find themselves (until this onerous law is repealed or rejected by the courts).

Yes, it all stinks.
 
FlSwampRat said:
In 1974, while still at the magic age of 21, I was seduced into lusting after a Colt Python that appeared on the cover of Shooting Times. (Picture of said magazine cover attached.)
I found one for sale in the hands of a private person. Already had a NJ rifle and shotgun card. To privately buy it I had to apply to the state, submit 3 letters saying I was a responsible person. My three letters came from:
Chief of Detectives of my city's PD.
Captain of the headquarters precinct of my city's PD.
Lieutenant of police who happened to be the mayor of my city's driver.
All of these folks known to me personally. And vice versa.

It took months to get my approval to buy that one specific gun. In 1974.

Moved to FL. one year later. Was getting on the local PD. Told my Python was okay for duty but needed an off duty firearm. Went to LGS, picked out a nice Colt Combat Commander. Filled out a 4473. Handed over my money. Shook LGS owner's hand an left with the gun in the box in my hand.

No mass shootings going on, no high murder rate. What the heck happened? And more importantly, why is no one seeming to care about what's different now from those many years ago that we are having mass shootings. Seems to me dealing with the why would be more effective than any attempts to deal with the how.



I quoted the above to comment that when I read the quote from the note the voiceover reading it in my head was in a very proper British accent. Now I want to have some tea.

Oh, that gun porn picture:

View attachment 871857
Click to expand...

I retired from the Navy in Virginia in 1995. At the time I owned one firearm, a 9 mm.

I moved to Orlando and being the law abiding citizen I am, I called the Sheriff's Office and asked them how to register my firearm in Florida.

The Deputy who answered the phone said, "You wan do whut? Oh we don't do that crap down heah."

I love Florida.
 
silicosys4 said:
So Washington state has passed a new law that has recently gone into effect.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639

Basically, among other things, as I and everyone I have talked to interpret it, if I wish to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic rifle, part of the paperwork I sign nullifies any HIPAA confidentiality rights I have. Signing paperwork to purchase a pistol in Washington state authorizes the state government to access my medical records at any time indefinitely.

I am looking at a Ruger GP100 and am quiet interested in purchasing.it. I have many other revolvers that fill that niche, but not a GP100.

I am weighing my options and the pros vs. cons of signing that paperwork and am undecided as to whether I wish to sign my HIPAA rights away for a purchase of a gun I don't really need that doesn't fill a void in my collection, that of a .357 revolver.

My thoughts are that if I don't wish to sign that paperwork and give up my HIPAA rights, I will never be able to purchase another handgun or semiautomatic rifle as long as I reside in the state of Washington.

If I sign the paperwork, I will be voiding my rights, but I plan on moving out of the state within the next 3-5 years so I only have to bear the infringement temporarily until I am residing in another state that does not require such onerous regulations and infringements.

I have nothing on my record that would preclude me from ownership, but I worry that in the future any medical or mental health issues I might have could open the door for confiscation and great legal hassles for me regardless of future purchases once the paperwork is signed, as there is a requirement for at least an annual review of my medical and mental health records. As I understand it, anything as minor as therapy for a depressive episode is grounds for confiscation if the state government decides such.

Would you sign the paperwork and deal with it until you moved out of state, or just deal with the infringement and avoid any medical treatment that would open the door for confiscation?
Would you limit yourself to bolt action, lever action, and single shot rifles for the rest of your life?

Thoughts or clarifications?
Click to expand...

Consider suing, HIPAA is federal law which usually supercedes state law if there is not an exception. Get a bunch of folks together and sue the state for violating HIPAA as firearms are not a medical issue requiring access.

Right now, Google and others are openly trying to get health care records and the state of Washington could very well pass on your records to anyone and any organization they want.
 
boom boom said:
Trump has just about "flipped" the circuit with appointees and some of the old leftie diehards like Reinhardt are now gone.
Click to expand...

Forgot whether it was in regard to guns or the border wall, but the 9th actually came to the right decision on one case recently. Reformation, one judge at a time. :)

Regards,
hps
 
silicosys4 said:
So Washington state has passed a new law that has recently gone into effect.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639

Basically, among other things, as I and everyone I have talked to interpret it, if I wish to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic rifle, part of the paperwork I sign nullifies any HIPAA confidentiality rights I have. Signing paperwork to purchase a pistol in Washington state authorizes the state government to access my medical records at any time indefinitely.

I am looking at a Ruger GP100 and am quiet interested in purchasing.it. I have many other revolvers that fill that niche, but not a GP100.

I am weighing my options and the pros vs. cons of signing that paperwork and am undecided as to whether I wish to sign my HIPAA rights away for a purchase of a gun I don't really need that doesn't fill a void in my collection, that of a .357 revolver.

My thoughts are that if I don't wish to sign that paperwork and give up my HIPAA rights, I will never be able to purchase another handgun or semiautomatic rifle as long as I reside in the state of Washington.

If I sign the paperwork, I will be voiding my rights, but I plan on moving out of the state within the next 3-5 years so I only have to bear the infringement temporarily until I am residing in another state that does not require such onerous regulations and infringements.

I have nothing on my record that would preclude me from ownership, but I worry that in the future any medical or mental health issues I might have could open the door for confiscation and great legal hassles for me regardless of future purchases once the paperwork is signed, as there is a requirement for at least an annual review of my medical and mental health records. As I understand it, anything as minor as therapy for a depressive episode is grounds for confiscation if the state government decides such.

Would you sign the paperwork and deal with it until you moved out of state, or just deal with the infringement and avoid any medical treatment that would open the door for confiscation?
Would you limit yourself to bolt action, lever action, and single shot rifles for the rest of your life?

Thoughts or clarifications?
Click to expand...
The way your description reads, you do not want the GP100 because you don't have a self-defense handgun, rather you want to fill a perceived gap in your collection. That being the case, my opinion is, wait until you move to a less-intrusive state to add the GP100.
 
Thanks everyone for your input
Its going to cost me about $100 to return the gun between eating shipping fees both ways, auction fees for the seller, and restocking.
I'm pretty heated about the situation. Looking to get out of this state ASAP.
It will be a huge relief to be able to exercise my 2A rights without having to give up other rights.
 
Last edited:
silicosys4 said:
Thanks everyone for your input
Its going to cost me about $100 to return the gun between eating shipping fees both ways, auction fees for the seller, and restocking.
I'm pretty heated about the situation. Looking to get out of this state ASAP.
It will be a huge relief to be able to exercise my 2A rights without having to


You realize that if you bought a handgun from a dealer since 94 you've already signed the same paperwork .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you've bought a handgun from a dealer since 94 you already signed the same paperwork.
 
Big_Al said:
If you've bought a handgun from a dealer since 94 you already signed the same paperwork.
Click to expand...
Yes, for a one time check of my medical records.
The new law opens my records up for perpetuity and mandates at least a yearly review.
 
Yeah, the law stinks and is being challenged. I plan on moving across the border when my elderly father passes.

I quit smoking a year or so ago. My employer has a health clinic on site that is fully staffed with everything from physical therapists to mental health therapists. I told my doc that I was having the typical irritability issues and she suggested some short term anti-depressants to help and referred me to the on-site therapist to help with the quitting process.

Stupidly, I agreed. Did about a month or so and stopped all treatment. The therapist was a tattooed and pierced mess from the opposite political spectrum as me and I found her advice and sessions near worthless.

But now it is on my health record that I had been on anti-depressants and seen a mental health counselor. If I apply to buy a pistol or semi-auto rifle, the local Chief of Police now has to review those records. I am now the city councilman in charge of his department. What do you think he will do with full access to my health records that show anti-depressant use and mental health counseling? If the therapist is asked if I should have access to firearms restricted, what do you think a clear anti-gunner is going to recommend?

So, I bought a bunch of guns prior to the law going into effect and will not buy any more until I move to a free state.
 
Trey Veston said:
But now it is on my health record that I had been on anti-depressants and seen a mental health counselor.

What do you think he will do with full access to my health records that show anti-depressant use and mental health counseling?

If the therapist is asked if I should have access to firearms restricted, what do you think a clear anti-gunner is going to recommend?
Click to expand...

Wow!

I don’t understand your statement that the the Police will have full access to your medical records. Is it required by law that you list all of your Doctors, what medical treatment you received and, most importantly that you sign release of information with your Doctor / Health Care Provider?

You receiving counseling and taking prescription drugs is not reported to the Federal Government and as previously discussed is in fact prohibited except in rare cases from being disclosed from anyone other than your Doctor. My point is simply do not report on the application.

The anti-gunners are winning when they convince folks like you not to buy firearms because of medical treatment you received in the past.
 
I don’t understand your statement that the the Police will have full access to your medical records. Is it required by law that you list all of your Doctors, what medical treatment you received and, most importantly that you sign release of information with your Doctor / Health Care Provider?

You receiving counseling and taking prescription drugs is not reported to the Federal Government and as previously discussed is in fact prohibited except in rare cases from being disclosed from anyone other than your Doctor. My point is simply do not report on the application.

The anti-gunners are winning when they convince folks like you not to buy firearms because of medical treatment you received in the past.[/QUOTE]


You don't list any of your providers, I don't think they have any way to check with all providers. You sign saying that whoever does your background check can access your medical records. Hard to say if they actually check anybody or everybody. There's a 10 day wait for handguns & semi automatic rifles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Old Dog
Washington state residents, please read
Replies
6
Views
630
Barbaroja
Barbaroja
R
  • Locked
Buying a handgun "out of state" (just moved to a new job)
Replies
17
Views
1K
cpask8
C
A
  • Locked
The mentally ill should not own guns, right?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
RevDerb
RevDerb
P
  • Locked
Concealed Carry Reciprocity with Colorado
Replies
5
Views
1K
Polishrifleman
P
Trey Veston
  • Locked
Looking for definitive source for purchase requirements in WA state.
Replies
1
Views
372
Big_Al
B
Back
Top