Obamacare amendment forbids gun and ammo registration

[snopes]

Comment: OBAMACARE AMENDMENT FORBIDS GUN AND AMMO REGISTRATION

Good news -- it has become known that hidden deep within the massive
2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the
right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats
of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama
overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect
"any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a
firearm or ammunition."

CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."

And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly
right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from
getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so
ubiquitous in 2010.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

It seems like every day, Nancy Pelosi's statement that we 'have to pass this bill to find out what is in it' is borne out.

[Roadie]

Someone can't read, and it's not just the legislators. The section says:

(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.’.

It's clearly limited to the scope of patient care, not broadly applied to all government agencies.

[erwins]

Even if it were true, there's nothing that prevents Congress from passing a law that would supersede/repeal the provision, if there were a will to pass such a registration requirement. So I'm not sure what effect it would even have--I guess it would be a promise to not pass such a law until such time as Congress changes its mind and decides to pass such a law.

ETA: And the provision that's there is bad enough, although it might depend on how the term "required" is interpreted. A pediatrician that wants to ensure that parents know about the risks of improperly secured firearms to children should be able to ask if there's a firearm in the house, and inquire about how it's stored. I guess the law could just be saying that there should be no penalty if the patient chooses not to answer, which I guess would be fine.

[GenYus234]

It is (sort of) true:

(c) Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights.--
(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.

It other words, the AFCA cannot be used to create a gun or ammunition database. Even if the bill was written as the UL suggests, it would mean exactly nil. If Congress wanted to create a gun or ammo register, they would pass a law to do so. That law, being later, would override any previous laws to the contrary.

ETA: Could you all at least agree to take turns!?!

[Mateus]

SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

``(c) Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights.--

``(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.''.

So it's kinda true, in that your freedomguns can't be used to adjust any premiums, nor can the information collected about your freedomguns in re: health-related issues be used outside of said health-related issues.

ETA: Spanked often and effectively by multiple snopesters :o

[Ali Infree]

This is entirely within that law's health care context. Thus, if it became unlawful to have, for instance, more than 1 30 round magazine for a weapon or more than 1000 rounds of ammo for said weapon, you could be asked those questions. Or could you?

Ali

[RichardM]

The very first thing we need to do is to ferret out all such clauses in all bills that were inserted by the NRA and delete them. Then maybe the CDC and other Federal agencies can use science to determine the real causes of our gun violence.

[jjk308]

Originally Posted by RichardM

The very first thing we need to do is to ferret out all such clauses in all bills that were inserted by the NRA and delete them. Then maybe the CDC and other Federal agencies can use science to determine the real causes of our gun violence.

You have a very exaggerated belief in the "science" of the type used in past CDC studies. All of its gun studies were political in nature, first setting down the gun control/banning results wanted, then inventing a methodology to support them, and selecting a data set to support the desired conclusions. They were so absurd and so widely criticized that finally Congress cut off funding for them. See http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/0...alth-pot-shots

Besides that these sociological studies are inherently inaccurate, because of the large number of uncontrolled variable. Regression coefficients are always far below the level required for any hard science. Back in 1994 I tried to determine the relationship between gun control and the murder rate using the FBI's annual reports and got ZERO. I tried a number of tactics, not just the laws on the books but a survey of gun buyers to see how difficult it was to buy a gun in different states, still no effects at all.

The only thing I found was an inverse relationship between gun ownership fand some property crimes, especially burglary. Gun bans and very tough gun control seem to result in a 50% increase in the frequency of burglary.

As for ferreting out the laws, you seem to forget we also have a constitutional right to privacy that they support.

[RichardM]

Could you please provide a cite for your statistics relating an increase in crime to strict gun controls. In another ongoing discussion elsewhere in these forums, it is shown that there is no such correlation.

The CDC is rather apolitical although it seems the truth is feared when it does not support preconceived political ideas. Look at the studies on tobacco use from years ago. Those were strongly opposed. As to privacy protecting the reporting of gun injuries, why would that possibly be so? Yet the CDC is prohibited from doing that.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by jjk308

As for ferreting out the laws, you seem to forget we also have a constitutional right to privacy that they support.

I don't understand what you mean by this part. It sounds like you're suggesting that the right to privacy extends to the laws, which makes no sense.

[RichardM]

Lainie, we know corporations are real people. Now laws are too.