Federal Court Upholds Docs vs Glocks Law

Linky.

Quote: ""The act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat."

That's good news for ALL states, as it underscores the simple truth: It's none of their damned business.

I don't know why everything thinks they're God's gift to mankind all of a sudden, that they alone have the solution to everyone's problems, and if we won't listen to them they think they have a right to cram it down our throats for our own good.

Phooey! I don't go to the doctor's office for "wellness checks." I go see him when I have a metal shard in my eye or I've broken an ankle. Things like that.

"Fix the problem, doc. Don't go looking for problems which don't exist."

a good example of how when someone happens to agree with the principle in question then the gov taking away someone else's rights is perfectly okay.

This law makes it a crime for a private business man who happens to be a doctor to discuss a particular subject with his customer?

terrible. I agree with the dissent completely.

From the article:
In a lengthy dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson called the law an infringement of First Amendment rights.

"The act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic, and one topic only, firearms," Wilson wrote. "Regardless of whether we agreed with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message."

added: Also I have had doctors ask me about fire arms in the house. I politely told him I'm not answering the question. He has the right to ask just like I have a right to not answer. I don't need the gov making it a CRIME for him to ask.

And in a really freaky coincidence, Doctor shoots patient who shot, killed woman at Pennsylvania hospital.

Amazing that doctors are the first to claim they have a right to know about your guns, but turn around and use them the same darn way we would if threatened against life or bodily harm, huh?

People do have a 1st amendment right for access to records from gov't bodies .. even we do not have the right to demand that they answer questions.

People don't have a first amendment right to records of other people and have zip right to demand answers from another person.

Yeah ditto on those wellness checks. My doc wants me to be cholesterol screened when she knows explicitly that statins are bad for you. Bogus.

They also hound you about sending in poo samples and getting BP checks and stuff which I just don't see the need for. I'm in superb health. I don't want to risk going into the office and being sneezed on by sickies and given the flu. So I stay far away unless I have a real reason.

Currently I'm battling to get a referral for a skin check because I'm out in the sun. The nice lady says 'oh come in, I'll look you over'. I'm like why, you're not a dermatologist your opinion is worthless to me. I want a referral to the ACTUAL skin doc who comes down once or twice a week. Sheesh.

Anyway, yeah, my current armament is none of their business.

twoskinsonemanns said:

a good example of how when someone happens to agree with the principle in question then the gov taking away someone else's rights is perfectly okay.

This law makes it a crime for a private business man who happens to be a doctor to discuss a particular subject with his customer?

terrible. I agree with the dissent completely.

From the article:
In a lengthy dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson called the law an infringement of First Amendment rights.

"The act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic, and one topic only, firearms," Wilson wrote. "Regardless of whether we agreed with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message."

added: Also I have had doctors ask me about fire arms in the house. I politely told him I'm not answering the question. He has the right to ask just like I have a right to not answer. I don't need the gov making it a CRIME for him to ask.

Click to expand...

It's apparent that the dissenting judge did not read the opinion.

Here is the part of the statute in dispute.

8. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient’s right to privacy and should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care provider or health care facility that in good faith believes that this information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or safety of others, may make such a verbal or written inquiry.
9. A patient may decline to answer or provide any information regarding ownership of a firearm by the patient or a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in the domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. A patient’s decision not to answer a question relating to the presence or ownership of a firearm does not alter existing law regarding a physician’s authorization to choose his or her patients.
10. A health care provider or health care facility may not discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient’s exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms or ammunition.
11. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient’s legal right to own or possess a firearm and should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination.

Click to expand...

The doctor is free to state his opinion all he wishes. What the DOC cannot do is question the patient about their owning firearms. In other words, the Doc's First Amendment right is intact to state his opinion/position as it related to the Second Amendment. What the Doc does not have a right to do is interrogate or question a patient's opinion or exercising of a Constitutional right.

color of law said:

It's apparent that the dissenting judge did not read the opinion.

Here is the part of the statute in dispute.

The doctor is free to state his opinion all he wishes. What the DOC cannot do is question the patient about their owning firearms. In other words, the Doc's First Amendment right is intact to state his opinion/position as it related to the Second Amendment. What the Doc does not have a right to do is interrogate or question a patient's opinion or exercising of a Constitutional right.

Click to expand...

I still don't agree it's right. The doc cannot ask you a question about fire arms? Ridiculous.
We don't need the gov to think for us. If you don't want your doc to know you have a fire arm don't tell him.
Passing a statute saying the doc can't ask the question is wrong. Unconstitutional.

And here's why your wrong, why it's important to limit the doctor in this regard; on a simple note from him in your file, he CAN have your 2nd amendment rights taken away.

This has been occurring with Veterans as of late, and is causing many Veterans to NOT seek the treatment they may need for fear of losing their guns.

Why does a doctor who's treating your broken ankle need to know whether you own guns? What might their reason be that they even need to ask?

twoskinsonemanns said:

I still don't agree it's right. The doc cannot ask you a question about fire arms? Ridiculous.
We don't need the gov to think for us. If you don't want your doc to know you have a fire arm don't tell him.
Passing a statute saying the doc can't ask the question is wrong. Unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

+1 Just tell him if he persists in this line of discussion another doctor will be found.

Let the free market rule!

xd shooter said:

And here's why your wrong, why it's important to limit the doctor in this regard; on a simple note from him in your file, he CAN have your 2nd amendment rights taken away.

This has been occurring with Veterans as of late, and is causing many Veterans to NOT seek the treatment they may need for fear of losing their guns.

Why does a doctor who's treating your broken ankle need to know whether you own guns? What might their reason be that they even need to ask?

Click to expand...

Well said +1.

They shouldn't be asking unless its relevant. If you go in and say... " hey I'm a little under the weather I'm thinking about killing myself and/or others". They yea by all means ask.

Bit if you walk in with sore throat it shouldn't be "how many guns did you buy last week?".



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

xd shooter said:

And here's why your wrong, why it's important to limit the doctor in this regard; on a simple note from him in your file, he CAN have your 2nd amendment rights taken away.

This has been occurring with Veterans as of late, and is causing many Veterans to NOT seek the treatment they may need for fear of losing their guns.

Why does a doctor who's treating your broken ankle need to know whether you own guns? What might their reason be that they even need to ask?

Click to expand...

He doesn't need to know for the most part. And you're free to not tell him.
The problem with the gov stealing citizen's guns is not doctors being allowed to ask you if you have guns. The 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act have made it ridiculously easy for Vets to have their rights stolen. And BTW they don't have to admit to having guns to have that right taken away.

This statute is useless (because they don't need you to admit you have guns to take your 2A right away) and goes too far in that it violates the doctors rights. If you think people are so stupid they can't understand they have the right NOT to answer the doctors question and want to remind them that's fine. Making it illegal to ask the question isn't.

I would say about 10% of the questions my doctors asks me I answer with "why do you need to know?" and then usually "I'm not answering that" after I hear his explanation. It doesn't have to be about guns.

Primus said:

Well said +1.

They shouldn't be asking unless its relevant. If you go in and say... " hey I'm a little under the weather I'm thinking about killing myself and/or others". They yea by all means ask.

Bit if you walk in with sore throat it shouldn't be "how many guns did you buy last week?".



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I agree. If your doc is doing that I suggest firing him. That's the right way.
Asking the gov to regulate his questions is the wrong way.

twoskinsonemanns said:

I still don't agree it's right. The doc cannot ask you a question about fire arms? Ridiculous.
We don't need the gov to think for us. If you don't want your doc to know you have a fire arm don't tell him.
Passing a statute saying the doc can't ask the question is wrong. Unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Per Ohio law I have to have a churches permission to CC in the church. Yet, the Ohio Constitution does not allow the the state to interfere in my religious freedoms. So, how is this any different than putting restrictions on a licensed Doc.

color of law said:

Per Ohio law I have to have a churches permission to CC in the church. Yet, the Ohio Constitution does not allow the the state to interfere in my religious freedoms. So, how is this any different than putting restrictions on a licensed Doc.

Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

sudden valley gunner said:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Click to expand...

I agree, but until the the court says otherwise we are stuck with their decision.

Lets not forget that a doctor can have you committed for a mental evaluation. And if his fellow doctors don't like guns either you may find yourself loosing your rights.

color of law said:

I agree, but until the the court says otherwise we are stuck with their decision.

Lets not forget that a doctor can have you committed for a mental evaluation. And if his fellow doctors don't like guns either you may find yourself loosing your rights.

Click to expand...

Do you feel compelled to answer the doctor's question concerning gun ownership?
If your not volunteering this information I can't see how it has any effect on whether he can have you committed or that his fellow doctors don't like guns.

color of law said:

I agree, but until the the court says otherwise we are stuck with their decision.

Lets not forget that a doctor can have you committed for a mental evaluation. And if his fellow doctors don't like guns either you may find yourself loosing your rights.

Click to expand...

I agree the current system sucks.

One reason I advocate for and educate as many as I can on the right of the people to nullify these wrongs. I'd rather take that course than adding more wrong.

twoskinsonemanns said:

I still don't agree it's right. The doc cannot ask you a question about fire arms? Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Businesses are prohibited, by law, from asking a prospective employee about many things, including their age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. More specifically, if it doesn't directly related to the job to which you're applying and the stated job description, they cannot ask. Most of them know better than to violate this rule, as it could easily open their company up to a discrimination lawsuit.

Therefore, the law protects prospective employees, but by providing limits, assuming the business follows those limits, it protects the business as well.

Put simply, businesses have no business asking about things which have nothing to do with your ability to do the job. Likewise, doctors have no business asking about things which have nothing to do with your medical care.

We don't need the gov to think for us.

Click to expand...

The purpose of our government is to protect the people. That's it, end of story. When you have anti-2A doctors infringing on the Constitutional rights of their patients by asking firearms-related questions, only to sneak a note to their anti-2A psych doc buddies, the end result of which is that you can no longer purchase a firearm, or in some cases have them confiscated, it's PRECISELY the purpose of the Government to protect the people by restricting such behavior in the first place.

I hear where you're coming from, but it's an anarchist's point of view. The problem with it is that you'll never get away with standing firm on that point of view, as it requires you to defend it yourself.

Think this through:

Scenario 1:

Your doc asks you about firearms. You tell him "none of your damned business." He asks a few more questions, at which point you say, "Stop asking me questions about my firearms. They're none of your damned business!"

You've just told him you do own firearms, you're secretive about them, and that you resent authority (being a doctor, he views himself as an authority figure).

He passes that note, and they come knocking on your door. In true anarchist fashion, you either die in a hail of gunfire, or you're subdued and never get to own a firearm again, having proven to society at large you're clearly not fit to own firearms.

Scenario 2:

You lobby your legislators to pass a law preventing doctors from asking you about it in the first place. Then, if your doctor ever does ask, and you tell him "I'm sorry, but that's not an appropriate question or topic of discussion in this meeting" and he writes that note to the psych doc anyway, he just broke the law! Much like failing/refusing to be read your Miranda rights, you're now empowered with legal authority to have his "judgement" nullified because he broke the law in obtaining it.

Scenario 2 sounds a WHOLE lot better to me than Scenario 1.

Passing a statute saying the doc can't ask the question is wrong. Unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Horsehockey. He's operating a business, and businesses are governed by the rule of law. That's what Republic means, and that's why we're a Republic, so that we CAN have laws which do the only job for which Government is responsible: Protect the People.

since9 said:

Not at all. Businesses are prohibited, by law, from asking a prospective employee about many things, including their age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. More specifically, if it doesn't directly related to the job to which you're applying and the stated job description, they cannot ask. Most of them know better than to violate this rule, as it could easily open their company up to a discrimination lawsuit. Therefore, the law protects prospective employees, but by providing limits, assuming the business follows those limits, it protects the business as well.
Put simply, businesses have no business asking about things which have nothing to do with your ability to do the job. Likewise, doctors have no business asking about things which have nothing to do with your medical care. This is a poor example. The relationship between an employer and potential employee vs customer and service provider are not not be the same.

Scenario 1:

Your doc asks you about firearms. You tell him "none of your damned business." He asks a few more questions, at which point you say, "Stop asking me questions about my firearms. They're none of your damned business!"

You've just told him you do own firearms, you're secretive about them, and that you resent authority (being a doctor, he views himself as an authority figure).

He passes that note, and they come knocking on your door. In true anarchist fashion, you either die in a hail of gunfire, or you're subdued and never get to own a firearm again, having proven to society at large you're clearly not fit to own firearms.

Scenario 2:

You lobby your legislators to pass a law preventing doctors from asking you about it in the first place. Then, if your doctor ever does ask, and you tell him "I'm sorry, but that's not an appropriate question or topic of discussion in this meeting" and he writes that note to the psych doc anyway, he just broke the law! Much like failing/refusing to be read your Miranda rights, you're now empowered with legal authority to have his "judgement" nullified because he broke the law in obtaining it.

Scenario 3: The doc asks you if you have guns.... You answer with "why do you need to know?" and then "I'm not answering that" after you hear his explanation. Then no law needs to be passed to TELL A BUSINESS THEY CAN'T ASK A QUESTION TO THEIR CUSTOMER!

Click to expand...

I'd like to say I'm surprised anyone would actually ADVOCATE for restricting a private business of their rights but I'm not. And it's the reason the conservatives are just as bad as the liberals. It's fine and dandy for the government to oppress the rights of those that disagree with you... as long as the ones you find favorable are protected.

It's not enough your right to refuse answering a question is protected. no... you want the feds to forcibly STOP them from being able to ask the question lmao.

Here's another Scenario.
Doc..."Hey I saw you reading my Guns and Ammo magazine I leave in lobby for my customers. I'm a big 2A advocate. You a gun owner?"
You..."You just broke the law. Thank God the government protects me."

twoskinsonemanns said:

I'd like to say I'm surprised anyone would actually ADVOCATE for restricting a private business of their rights but I'm not. And it's the reason the conservatives are just as bad as the liberals. It's fine and dandy for the government to oppress the rights of those that disagree with you... as long as the ones you find favorable are protected.

It's not enough your right to refuse answering a question is protected. no... you want the feds to forcibly STOP them from being able to ask the question lmao.

Here's another Scenario.
Doc..."Hey I saw you reading my Guns and Ammo magazine I leave in lobby for my customers. I'm a big 2A advocate. You a gun owner?"
You..."You just broke the law. Thank God the government protects me."

Click to expand...

Your scenario is outside the scope of the law because the question is outside the doctor/patient relationship.