One thing you need to understand for the context of this story is that local government is pretty much 95% raging liberals/Democrats, and those of us who are right-of-center have to be closet-conservatives lest we get blacklisted. So, onto what happened. I was in a committee meeting today with a group of healthcare policy makers, medical directors, ED Physicians, and local law enforcement reps who were discussing local (county level) EMS policy. The committee has been working on a policy to direct medics to notify a receiving emergency department if they are bringing in a patient that is armed (so the ED can have security present to take the patient's firearm while they are at the hospital for treatment). Bear in mind, these armed patients we are talking about aren't ones who are posing a threat, or are acting strange or altered, but are (presumably) law-abiding citizens who (presumably) are armed in accordance with applicable open carry or conceal carry laws.

The committee eventually agreed on language that if a patient is armed paramedics will call for a law enforcement officer to respond to the scene to "secure" the patient's weapon. Once the weapon is secure, EMS will treat/transport. If the patient refuses to relinquish their firearm the ambulance will refuse to treat/transport the patient. This is where I opened my mouth, and probably outed myself as a conservative (and probably by the nature of my arguments, a gun owner). I explained that a 9-1-1 EMS entity, who is granted exclusivity to respond to medical calls in a specific jurisdiction, probably can't unilaterally refuse treatment/transport of an ill/injured patient unless the scene is unsafe. And a law-abiding citizen exercising his/her second amendment right in and of itself does not constitute an unsafe scene. I rationalized that refusing to treat someone (who has called 9-1-1 specifically seeking medical treatment) solely based on the fact that the person is (legally) armed might be tantamount to discrimination, since the ambulance service would be refusing to treat/transport based on criteria other than scene safety.  

The committee members (pretty much all of them) vehemently disagreed with me, arguing that "an armed individual in an of itself makes for an unsafe scene." One member argued that the firearm by itself is dangerous, and if dropped could discharge. The law enforcement officer there explained that the vast majority of firearms are safe, and would not discharge unless the trigger was pulled. But then he made the analogy that if he was giving a stranded motorist a ride to a gas station, and found out that the motorist was legally carrying a firearm, he would refuse to give that individual a ride unless the individual forfeited his/her firearm for the duration of the ride. He then added that he too felt an armed patient should be disarmed before treatment/transport.

Eventually the committee members all agreed that a) an armed person is a threat and makes for an unsafe scene, b) law enforcement should be called to the scene to "secure" the patient's firearm, and c) EMS should refuse treatment/transport if a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a firearm refuses to disarm.

The icing on the cake was when one of the medical directors for the system said "while I doubt this policy is constitutional, I'm of the opinion that we should pass it and operate under the policy until it is ruled unconstitutional by a court."

I realized after the meeting I probably outed myself as a conservative and gun owner, and I'm probably going to be blacklisted (I've done a helluva job for the past seven years keeping my ideological beliefs secret). I guess I'm not too upset since its not like my career trajectory had an angle greater than horizontal anyway. Working for local government public health as a heterosexual white middle aged male is already a career killing move anyway.

Anyway, point of this diatribe is to remind you all what type of people you are up against, their thoughts about gun owners and firearms, and the local power they wield in policy making decisions.

Since people like polls, I added one!

Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry.


TL:DR

It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation.

Only govt employees have enough time to read that fucking wall of text.

I didn't even read all this, but probably agree

 

I wouldn't sweat it.

They got their way and will forget it tomorrow.

FPNI

TL;SS  Too Long Sorta Skimmed

If we're talking your bottom line, don't cut your throat with opinions at work.  Bills don't care about our opinions, they just want to be paid.

IBTP

Prepare your anus.

Says "now with poll" but there is no poll

Just heard about the $5,000 ambulance ride while paying the paramedics about $9/hour.

Screw it, I'll drive my own ass to the hospital.

 

In Before The Mother Fuckin' Poll

Dude, if you are being transported there really is no reason to maintain your firearm. I've got no problem with law-enforcement securing the firearm for safekeeping.

We're not talking about Stubbed toe... You were being transported by an ambulance.

Meh, I pissed in the owner of the company's desk once. I got a nice raise a couple months later. Don't sweat it.

I like the way you think.

I hope they get sued and pay someone to be rich for their shenanigans.

This. Also, what Zhukov said.

Man, this instant-gratification "I want it now" society we have created is really pathetic. I mean really people, I got the poll up in a minute or two. My eight and ten year old kids have more patience than you guys (and apparently read longer books).

My opinion is if you are incapacitated/unconscious/ambulatory sedated then yes, your weapon should be secured. If you are functioning than stay with your weapon.

IBTP

ETA: Fuck...beat

Dane county?

 

They know the policy is wrong but are going to implement it anyway, why,  because fuck you, that's why.

Ever wonder about the etymology of the word "shitbag?" No? Well, it originated to describe people like that.

So gun owners get to bleed out or die of a heart attack because a holstered gun is unsafe?

I skimmed the first paragraph. So.. Yeah, good job op.

I did ponder that, but unfortunately if it did it would be like a giant red blinking arrow that screamed "person responsible for the leaked info" floating over my head as I walked into work

What kind of liability does the city or ambulance company face if they refuse transport to someone for legally having a firearm and that persons condition. Either rapidly deteriates from the lack of or delay of treatment or dies.  Have they thought about potential lawsuits? This seems like a no brain win for the patient or patients family if it were to happen.

Can't find poll



And once this policy gets on paper,  it should be leaked to the local 2A advocacy group.

I read your entire OP "now with poll," refreshed and still no poll.  Posted above comment, and still no poll.

Also, I finished Atlas Shrugged earlier this year.  Let's see your eight and ten year old kids beat that

Agreed if you are in a life or limb medical scenario requiring ambulance you are probably not physically or mentally capable at that moment to properly maintain control of your firearm and a properly trained person should secure it for you if a friend or family member is not present to take custody of firearm during the duration of the medical emergency.

I'm almost surprised the LE officer didn't downplay the whole thing just so they aren't running even more bullshit service calls. Then again he is probably on orders to community police the shit out of whatever meetings he gets sent to.

We're a bunch of raging republicans and EMS doesn't arrive at any scene where an alcohol or a weapon or drugs is the cause. They stage a mile from the area and go in behind LE.

Nothing wrong with that.

And always give a TLDR sum up afterward.

You should know this by now.

How far are they willing to go with this?

I could see a gsw on a hunter that the ems could get to faster than the county sheriff.   Are they going to refuse treatment and possibly let someone die b/c the hunter has his papa's 30/30 with him?

Why are EMTs not capable of securing the weapon into a lock box in the ambulance? Contrary to popular progressive liberal belief, you don't need a PHD in weapons technology to secure a pistol...

Good case for SAF

They'll get sued as soon as a law abiding citizen does because they refuse to transport due to the citizen being legally armed. Libtards.

You're blacklisted unfortunately

I was thinking oh boy, wonder how they will act when the wrongful death lawsuit gets filed.

Even though it did nothing to help, good for you on voicing common sense!


Maybe if more people stand up, we'd have a different outcome!

Excuse us for not being all that interested in your life.

Pretty much, yeah. Though I doubt many street medics would not treat a critically ill/injured an armed individual if they didn't feel the person/screne was a threat. For example, call is a gang shooting and your patient is a gang-banger looking dude who is armed, might think twice about scene safety and treating the patient before law enforcement secures the scene. Conversely, call is a person who doesn't look like a dirtbag and is having a heart attack at a nice restaurant, and the patent is armed, would you think the person/scene is unsafe? Sure, lot you can read into those two scenarios, but you get the point.

... Says the guy with 20,000 posts...

This man knows how to the play game.

Have a friend put on gun.

Call 911.

Refuse to disarm.

File lawsuit.

Prove unconstitutional.

The issue is the EMS refusal to treat until LE secures the weapon. I get the impression that the ambulance is dispatched by itself, so if they want police to secure the patient's gun, they have to call for it and they can refuse to touch the patient under the totally false belief that the scene is not safe.

OP, I wouldn't worry about the constitutionality at this point. I'd worry about them killing somebody and getting sued and prosecuted for abandonment if some pajama boy EMT refuses to treat a patient until Obama helps him change his diaper. The lawyers who will be retained by the late permitee's family will likely be pro-gun and they'll be looking for head shots.

You tilted at a windmill in a room full of windmills.

TL;DR