One way or another

The article explains that while doctors can:

“…tell someone with diabetes to stop having soda three times a day, but they can’t literally take soda away from a patient. With guns, they might be able to.”

The above alludes to some states that have laws in place that allow doctors to engage with law enforcement and the courts to remove guns from a patient if they feel necessary. The Biden administration is pushing a similar effort nationwide, known as the National Extreme Risk Protection (ERPO) Resource Center.

Readers may know this better as “red flag” laws.

That’s the reason doctors ask about guns.

The Department of Justice notes that:

“ERPO laws, which are modeled off domestic violence protection orders, create a civil process allowing law enforcement, family members (in most states), and medical professionals or other groups (in most states) to petition a court to temporarily prohibit someone at risk of harming themselves or others from purchasing and possessing firearms for the duration of the order.”

While it might seem obvious what constitutes a risk, the reality is that risk is a goalpost that can be moved by political pressure. Is someone at risk because they see a mental health professional?

Is someone “at risk” if they are a combat veteran? Is someone “at risk” if they are a white Christian?

Eventually, merely owning a gun will be deemed “at risk.”

RELATED: ATF Director Showcases Astonishing Firearms Ignorance While Advocating for Stricter Gun Control

More harm than good

Firearm-injury-prevention researcher at UC Davis Amy Barnhorst explains:

“There’s a lot more psychological meaning behind firearms for people than there is for sodas.”

That’s because of a little thing called the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms allows citizens to defend their lives, families, and homes.

Gun ownership allows citizens to provide protection not just for their most prized possessions but from their government in the event it is required.

Some states have tried to keep doctors from discussing gun ownership, as the article explains:

“In the past couple of decades, some states have toyed with laws that curtail doctor’s ability to talk with patients about firearms and the information they can collect, to assuage gun owners’ privacy concerns.”

Rightfully so, documenting whether patients own guns or not sounds a lot like a firearms registry. The push to incorporate guns into the doctor’s office under the pretense of safety will undoubtedly make patients less safe.