Want a gun? You'll need to see your doctor.
If I could leave this facking state, I surely would.......[:(!]





http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20020129/FP_001.htm

Tuesday, January 29, 2002
Want a gun? You'll need to see your doctor
By Kelly A. Winget
Eagle-Tribune Writer

METHUEN -- People in Greater Lawrence who apply for a handgun license for the first time now need a letter from their doctor stating they are medically and psychologically fit.

To police, this is one more tool to help them decide who should be permitted to carry a gun. But to gun owner advocates, it is one more step designed to make it "virtually impossible" for people to obtain a permit to own and carry a handgun.

Police chiefs in Lawrence, Andover, North Andover and Methuen met months ago, at the request of Andover Police Chief Brian Pattullo, to make gun licensing rules uniform throughout the four communities.

They agreed that applicants must get a note from a doctor stating there are "no medical or psychological issues" that would prevent the person from owning or operating a gun.

Gun applicants would also be required to pass a gun safety course, undergo a complete background check, fill out the permit application and pay $35 for the permit.

Methuen Police Chief Bruce A. MacDougall said the physician's letter helps police rule out "unsuitable" people from acquiring a gun license. He also said the physician would not be held responsible if the person became unfit to own a gun at a later date.

He said he did not believe requiring a letter from a doctor had prevented anyone from obtaining a gun permit.

"The four chiefs felt it is our duty to separate a suitable person from an unsuitable person," MacDougall said. "Just based on the application or spending a few minutes with a licensing officer doesn't give you a real feeling of the individual. Plus, we are not trained by our education or experience to look for the same things a medical person would."

"We were looking for assistance and who better than the family physician?" MacDougall continued. "We are not looking for a medical or psychological evaluation."

James L. Wallace, the legislative agent for the state group Gun Owners Action League, said this was the first time he had heard of a community requiring a letter from a doctor. He said he will fight to prevent other communities from adopting similar policies.

"This will make it virtually impossible to get (a license to carry a firearms permit). If I was a doctor, I would not want to sign off on something like that," said Wallace, a Newburyport resident. "The chance that a gun owner would do something illegal is very slim, but who would want to put their whole career on the line? The police are passing off their responsibilities onto the citizens and unfortunately onto the physicians."

Wallace said since the Brady Bill passed in 1998, the number of licensed gun owners in the state has dropped from 1.5 million in 1998 to less than 200,000 several months ago. He said the new doctor policy in Greater Lawrence is just another example of the "roadblocks police chiefs create" in regards to the issuing of gun permits.

"The police chiefs think they are doing the community a service, but they really just torment gun owners," Wallace said.


...........

Oppression and harrassment are a small price to pay to live in the land of the free.
-- -MONTGOMERY BURNS


 
 

What a load of ....

"who better than the family physician"

Well, considering I haven't seen my family physician in about 60 years, I guess I couldn't own a firearm there.  Is this an anti-gun ploy or a cheap trick to make more money for the doctors?  I already have to go to an eye doctor to get a driving license.z

I should ask the doctor if I can have a gun?

But I've never killed anyone.

Maybe he should be asking me if he can practice medicine.

I'll bet he's killed plenty of people.

--------
"One thing I can tell you is you've got (to be alive) to be free."

Speaking from a professionals point of view, what doctor in his/her right mind would risk their license/practice/livelihood to approve ANYONE???

This makes the doctor liable for any action his/her patient takes that has anything to do with a gun.  That's fu**ing stupid, and yet another roadblock the system can use to prevent CCH.

just my .02

Hummmm, what's the constitutionality(sp) of this???

If one is 'crazy', I understand they won't get it, but doesn't most CCP applications ask if you have ever been committed by the state/govt?

It's a slam-dunk for the antis, esp. for, and since, doctors who, as a voting bloc are anti-gun- just look at the AMA, who have gone on record as advocating the eventual abolition of civilian ownership of firearms- starting with handguns.

A liberal antigun doctor deciding who gets or who does not get guns? One might as well have the fox guarding the henhouse...
.........................
....We would have a word to describe the situation where you think of the
good thing to
say after the chance to say it passes.

Particularly with a psychologist wouldn't have been exquisite to have said,
"You seem
to be quite distrustful of all people don't you?  What is it about uniforms
that makes
you comfortable with  people having the capability of power?"....
-ANON.

And achieves the purpose of the PD without them turning anything down.

Avoidance of any responsibility.  
This suxx - it's damn clever - but still suxx.

Define "constitutionality". Acc. to the Mass. Constitution, citizens have a right to defend themselves and the state, but nobody way back when thought to include a guarantee of RKBA, since nobody in his right mind would have banned guns, etc. As a consequence, the MA Supremes in 1976 came up with the Commonwealth vs. Davis decision which in effect states that citizens are criminals UNLESS they have received permission from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to own a gun they might already have.

So, with this convolution of principles in a state chock-full of lawyers and liberal cause-heads, whaddyaexpect?



That is a possibility where the mental health groups might object because the invasive principle behind this might be applied to the mentally handicapped in other realms of life. But hey- anybody who will steal citizen's rights starting in one area will sooner or later move on to other rights as his/her next targets....
.....................

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident
proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their
freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not
to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for
liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait
forever.
-- LORD THOMAS MACAULAY

Do the good citizens of MA have to bring a note from their doctors before they can get a driver's license? Put a swimming pool in their back yard? Keep poisonous chemicals  in their homes? After all, death or injury from any of these causes is more likely than from firearms. Sounds like prejudicial discrimination to me!

Also, do the police also need doctor's notes before they can carry firearms? (Talk about a liability risk for doctors — If you thought the chances of a patient shooting someone were high when he was a citizen, just wait until he's a police officer!)

[puke]

So the AMA sees a correlation between gun ownership and injury/death by gunshots?  Such brilliant geniuses!!

Hey, what's the correlation between the number of times a physician sees a patient in a hospital and the worsening of their disease or their death rate?!  Seems that more doctor visits seem to correlate with higher rates of dying patients!  STATISTICS INDICATE WE SHOULD BAN PHYSICIANS... for the children.


There's no depth to which the Bradyite-Antis won't stoop beneath to ban/confiscate ALL guns.

[puke]

Well, I see a few problems here.

First, lets look at "medical" reasons a doc would have for turning you down.  I'm no expert, but it seems to me most family physicians deal with [i]physical[/i] problems and maladies.  Turn you down for a physical infirmity?  I'm no expert in this area of law, but the Americans with Disabilities Act may come into play.  If I were a doc, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that one.

With regard to "psychological" factors, again I return to the job of a family physician.  They're not trained psychologists or psychiatrists - they're GP's.  Their basis for judgement in this area is extremely limited.  Turn you down based on factors which may prove false or not prove instability, and they may be able to be held liable on a theory of defamation.  Again, if I were a doc, thats not something I'd want to get involved in...especially when there is little or no liability for giving the signoff.  Whether they'd handle it through their malpractice carrier or not, it wouldn't be cheap.

In some cases, yes, esp. if the person had a condition or illness that had resulted in the loss or expiry of a drivers' licence. Alcoholism is not a condition in and of itself for losing one's licence here, but if it led to some sort of serious impairment, such as blindness, diabetes, etc, (leaving out drunk driving for a moment) that could certainly be a reason for people not getting drivers' licences until they can prove that their conditions are treated and that they can now drive without impairment.



Yes, if it is an in-ground pool, or an above-ground pool over a certain height and width. It depends on the town or city one lives in.




Yes, certain kinds of pesticides, and of course, black powder and smokeless powder. There may be more that demand licences from the Commonwealth, but that is all I am familiar with. It's very difficult to dispose of hazardous substances, I know at least that much... It is illegal in all of MA to possess/store BP in your dwelling if you live in a multi-family dwelling such as a condo or apt. house/block, etc, BTW.



(adopts liberal Mass. whiny tone)...b-b-b-but guns are baaaaad.....Yes, we should make a special case about guns- they are icky symbols of a repressive Eurocentric male-dominated, homophobic, right wing conservative culture that wants to destroy the ozone layer in order to make profits...[whacko]



You must remember- esp. in MA, there are cops, and then there are the little people....

There is at least one provision of the new gun law that forbids cops when carrying if they have been drinking, but, uh...I haven't heard of any LEOs getting busted for it...somehow I don't think I will, either. [rolleyes]



Lawsuits haven't stopped doctors from practicing medicine- it just makes more money for their attorneys, and the state will pass on the cost of it all to the taxpayers.

Hey- the Mass. sheople put up with the Big Dig, the biggest and most scandalous publics works project in history- what's a few lousy gun owners? Screw 'em!

The doctors' union (AMA et al) will do what they feel is right in their hearts, even if there is no factual basis to their claims that it will benefit mankind. But that didn't stop Drs Kellerman and Reay from coming up with the bogus statistic "A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant". Dr Kellerman[:o)], who publishes in the New England Medical Journal, BTW, and is from the area (go figure), when confronted with his cooked data, still claimed that what he was doing was right, "because it was for a good cause".....[:X*]  

So, if the end justifies the means, who is going to stop these docs? My wife is ONE OF THEM, BTW.[argue]