2A Law

How They Will Use Your Doctor to Disarm You

Video Highlights

  • The speaker discusses the potential infringement on the right to bear arms, not just from government but also from the private sector.
  • The medical community could become involved in this, possibly infringing on patients' gun ownership rights.
  • Medical care companies and hospitals are beginning to inquire about patients' firearm ownership and storage.
  • Healthcare providers are standardizing practices to include questions about firearm ownership during check-ups.
  • This trend is seen as a potential threat to the privacy and rights of firearm owners.

Video Summary

The right to bear arms is a deeply ingrained part of American culture and identity, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the rising tide of gun violence and mass shootings in recent years has led to a renewed debate over gun control and ownership. One of the latest developments in this ongoing saga revolves around healthcare providers and their potential role in gun ownership inquiries, which is causing concern among gun advocates.

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, has shed light on this issue in a recent video discussion. He expressed his concern over the increasing attempts to disarm citizens, not just from government bodies but now also coming from the private sector. More specifically, he pointed out that the medical community could potentially become involved in the disarmament process.

Kirk drew attention to a growing trend among large healthcare providers and hospitals to inquire about patients' firearm ownership and storage. These healthcare conglomerates are reportedly standardizing practices where doctors are beginning to ask patients questions about their firearms. These questions can range from whether they own firearms, the number of firearms they possess, to how and where they store them.

This practice was brought to light by a nearly 2000-word article published in The Atlantic, a story Kirk stumbled upon on the firearm enthusiast website, ammoland.com. While Kirk admitted to not frequently reading The Atlantic due to personal preference, he acknowledged the importance of the story they published.

The potential implications of this trend are manifold. On one hand, it could be seen as an invasion of privacy and an infringement on the rights of gun owners. On the other hand, it could be argued that the medical community is simply trying to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their patients. After all, the presence of a firearm in a home can pose a risk, especially in households with children or those dealing with mental health issues.

However, Kirk suggested that healthcare providers might not be the right platform for this type of intervention. While doctors play a crucial role in the health and wellbeing of their patients, it is arguable whether they should be involved in the inquiry and potentially the regulation of firearms. This intervention could strain the doctor-patient relationship, making patients less likely to seek medical help for fear of being questioned about their firearm ownership.

Furthermore, the potential for misuse of this information cannot be overlooked. With the rise in data breaches and privacy concerns, the confidentiality of patients' firearm ownership information could be at risk. This could lead to targeted thefts or other forms of exploitation.

In conclusion, while the intention behind the involvement of healthcare providers in firearm inquiries might be rooted in the desire to reduce gun violence and ensure public safety, it raises several ethical, legal, and privacy concerns. It is essential to strike a balance between the need for gun safety and the respect for individual rights and privacy. As this trend continues to evolve, it underscores the need for a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to gun control that respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners while also prioritizing public safety.