• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal Court Upholds Docs vs Glocks Law

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Well said +1.

They shouldn't be asking unless its relevant.
When is gun ownership relevant in any medical discussion?

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?".
...coming out of left field...

Doctors must be prohibited from asking. They are asking as a representative of the state, whether or not you agree, because they are (could/would) report this to the state. My doctor brought this topic up and is of the opinion that any doctor that asks about gun ownership is violating the oath he took as a doctor.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
OC for ME;2078325[B said:
]Doctors must be prohibited from asking. They are asking as a representative of the state, whether or not you agree, because they are (could/would) report this to the state.[/B] My doctor brought this topic up and is of the opinion that any doctor that asks about gun ownership is violating the oath he took as a doctor.
Absolutely correct.

twoskinsonemanns really does not understand the finer points of law. He wonders how not answering the doctor's questions could be construed as someone owning guns.

Ohio is one of six states that allow the defendants silence to be used against him.

The Ohio Constitution under the bill of rights states:
§ 1.10 Trial for crimes; witness:
Except in cases of impeachment, cases arising in the army and navy, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, and cases involving offenses for which the penalty provided is less than imprisonment in the penitentiary, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and the number of persons necessary to constitute such grand jury and the number thereof necessary to concur in finding such indictment shall be determined by law. In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to procure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; but provision may be made by law for the taking of the deposition by the accused or by the state, to be used for or against the accused, of any witness whose attendance can not be had at the trial, always securing to the accused means and the opportunity to be present in person and with counsel at the taking of such deposition, and to examine the witness face to face as fully and in the same manner as if in court. No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; but his failure to testify may be considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.

I hope twoskinsonemanns starts to understand the error of his ways. But, he is free to believe whatever he wants.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I hope twoskinsonemanns starts to understand the error of his ways. But, he is free to believe whatever he wants.

I understand the hypocrisy of the far right pretty well. It's the reason I will never vote for someone with an R next to their name ever again.
You're willing to sacrifice the rights of the doctor to support your political view.
I am for liberty. I will not try to oppress those I do not agree with. I couldn't stomach looking myself in the mirror if I became like that.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
This is insane. Your doctor is a rep of the state? Holy captain Kirk's nipples!
Your state may be different.

In MO the question is located on a form that the county health department provides to the medical institution. The doctors are required to ask many questions and gun ownership is but one of those questions, otherwise doctors would not ask the question.

You do understand that the county is the "state."

None of us relinquish our inalienable rights based on our chosen field study. I'll lay odds that if your doctor had a no guns sign on his front door you would cc, if you could, cuz how dare he infringe upon your inalienable right...right?

Language contained within SB656 that Jay Nixon vetoed this past week or so.
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND FIREARMS - 571.012
This act specifies that no licensed health care professional or person under the supervision of the professional may not be required by law to ask a patient whether he or she owns or has access to a firearm, document firearm ownership or access in a patient's medical records, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on the patient's status as a firearm owner or the patient's access to a firearm.

Under this act, licensed health care professionals, their supervisees, and anyone who possesses or controls medical records are prohibited from documenting or disclosing information regarding a person's status as a firearm owner except under certain specified circumstances.

Under this act, licensed health care professionals may not use an electronic medical record program that requires the entry of data regarding firearms.
Vote for who you like. Doctors work at the pleasure of the state and they are actors of the state when their livelihood is in jeopardy. This is a serious issue and your understanding of sanity comes into question based on your comment quoted above.


 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I understand the hypocrisy of the far right pretty well. It's the reason I will never vote for someone with an R next to their name ever again.
You're willing to sacrifice the rights of the doctor to support your political view.
I am for liberty. I will not try to oppress those I do not agree with. I couldn't stomach looking myself in the mirror if I became like that.
Thank you for explaining your position. The terms "hypocrisy" and "far left" are synonymous; which leftest refuse to acknowledge. Leftest don't understand that their rights end at the point my rights begin.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Using the power of a profession to provide personal information to the government has nothing to do with the first amendment. If anything the act violates the fourth to illegal search and seizure, and the fifth, compulsion people to incriminate themselves.

This is the problem with government sticking their nose into health care, and being used to disarm the people. Guns are not a health issue, unless there is a mental issue, the only reason some docs are doing it is to help deny rights.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
As an individual he may ask. But when he dons his doctor hat he is now acting in a manner that is licensed by the government. Likewise, by asking such questions even when it doesn't pertain to your visit and making a note your response in your records can still affect you. If enough doctors were asking this question and then inputting the answer into a database it could even lead to a government sponsored partial list of gun owners...something that is already illegal.

Personally I see this whole thing as like a gray area or fine line that is easily crossed. Yes the doctor when acting as an individual has 1A rights, but given the relative closeness to the government, how it can potentially affect the patient, and the position of authority of the doctor, this whole thing can be flipped around to then infringe upon the citizen even if they refuse to answer. Preventing the doctor from asking/documenting when operating in an official manner unless it is pertinent to the visit helps prevent such abuse by both the government and others who might have access to your medical records and are anti-gun.

I also kind of see it like the restrictions on people in the military. As a military member I can do certain things if I want, but the second I put on my uniform I'm restricted in my speech/actions as I'm then acting (or appearing to act) in an official government manner. So again, while the doctor might not be an actual government employee, given their closeness to the government there can be some serious issues that bleed over.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.

Governments restrict the rights of businesses in order to protect the rights of individuals against being stepped on by those businesses. When push comes to shove, who would you rather win? The individuals? Or business?

I'm not talking about protecting individuals' wants and desires. I'm talking about protecting their rights, as laid out in the Constitution, its Amendments, and supporting federal legislation.

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."

Let's suppose we don't, and someone who either doesn't know enough to say "none of your business" goes ahead and answers the question. Then the docs writes up his "yes" answers and sends that to a shrink, who signs off on it, rendering the individual incapable of buying firearms in their state? What then? Five years and $20k to get that undone? IF that's even possible? All because someone was open and honest with their doctor?

Here's a better idea: Empower the individual to get it immediately removed because in so asking, the doc broke the law.

If you support the first option, you're a real sadist towards anyone not "lmao" as up to speed on things as you.

I am for liberty. I will not try to oppress those I do not agree with.

Wake up, man. They're trying to oppress YOU.

I couldn't stomach looking myself in the mirror if I became like that.

You claim you're for "liberty" but refuse to support a measure which protects the liberty of innocents.

Ok, let's change the title:

Do you support a law prohibiting law enforcement from asking certain questions?

Do you support a law prohibiting law enforcement from taking certain actions?

Really? You do support the Fourth Amendment? How dare you! Stepping on the rights of law enforcement like that!

The point is that it doesn't matter who is trampling on our rights, under what color of law or lack thereof. If they're trampling on our rights, they're trampling on our rights, and we should NOT all of us always have to be on guard and know every iota of the law at all times in order to keep from being tripped up by some anti-American doctor.

Lawyers are also restricted with respect to which questions they may ask in court, as well as in the way they ask them, and it's a GOOD THING as it protects the rights of innocents who aren't as familiar with the law as the lawyers.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
since9, you are pointing out twoskinsonemanns's hypocrisy. So, according to twoskinsonemanns he is a republican. And if that is the case, then twoskinsonemanns is synonymous for hypocrite.:)
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
since9, you are pointing out twoskinsonemanns's hypocrisy. So, according to twoskinsonemanns he is a republican. And if that is the case, then twoskinsonemanns is synonymous for hypocrite.:)
^^^
Dats good!! ;)

Most of this started when many of the Physician Associations starting obtaining information about violence in the home, including with firearms, from law enforcement and made a public comment about how firearms in the homes is extremely dangerous. When they came out and endorsed this philosophy, many doctors followed along. These associations are liberal. You can see who they are; Plaintiffs in the suit. Many of these associations wanted the data from the doctors solicitation to further support their position on a substantial higher probability of a firearm incident when firearms are in the home. Thus, advocating the removal of said firearms.

For a doctor to ascertain irrelevant information during the treatment of a medical condition, refuse medical help if not provided, so it can be a record for potentially future political reference, is not good. Hence the passage of the law.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Most of the posts are misrepresenting the the issue as is common when justifying taking rights away from the "other side". Things like comparing a doctor to a government employee or justifying limiting his rights because he's performing in a "licensed" capacity. (as if you would be okay having your rights trampled when you're doing something licensed). I'm not going to try to waste time arguing against them.
When you post an Ohio law about criminal trials that states if you plead the 5th your doing so can be "considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel", as if that is remotely relevant, it's too far out of the scope to bother with.

I'll just say that the way the government is using the medical industry to further control people is disgusting and abhorrent. Repealing/Fixing the 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act would be progress and doing more to extract the gov out of the medical care industry would be great. However this attack against the doctors rights is stupid and useless. You do not have to tell the doctor you have guns (and he doesn't have to ask) to get your gun rights taken away. This law sacrifices the doctors rights just to play the political game of petting the GOP sheep's head and telling them they are protecting them without doing a damn thing.

Arguing with zealots from the left or right is generally insane especially when they start braying like a donkey in response to valid arguments.
Even so I would like an explanation of why you call me a hypocrite.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Most of the posts are misrepresenting the the issue as is common when justifying taking rights away from the "other side". Things like comparing a doctor to a government employee or justifying limiting his rights because he's performing in a "licensed" capacity. (as if you would be okay having your rights trampled when you're doing something licensed). I'm not going to try to waste time arguing against them.

You mean like how military members can't do or say specific things? Or how being on a base means you are allowed to be searched at any time for any reason? Or how when licensed you have to abide by certain rules or else risk getting your license revoked (see the outburst from Yaeger and what happened to his CHP). Not that I expect you to respond since you seem to have no counter-point.

This is also why I said it is a very fine line. Medical care is privatized but yet works with the government and very much can affect one's rights. What if law enforcement were to become privatized as well, then what? There would still need to be things in place to prevent these non-government cops from violating peoples rights. By your line of reasoning it would be even easier for a private cop to lie or enforce "color of law" and then claim that they were simply exercising their 1A rights.

So again, the doctor as an individual has 1A rights. The doctor when acting as a doctor can't do things that would potentially infringe upon his patient's rights unless it specifically relates to the medical visit. There's also nothing stating that they can't give out a blanket statement about guns. I've actually had a doctor before say "I don't want to know if you have guns, but if you do..." and then went on to talk about sun safety and storage since I have little kids in the house.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Most of the posts are misrepresenting the the issue as is common when justifying taking rights away from the "other side". Things like comparing a doctor to a government employee or justifying limiting his rights because he's performing in a "licensed" capacity. (as if you would be okay having your rights trampled when you're doing something licensed). I'm not going to try to waste time arguing against them.
When you post an Ohio law about criminal trials that states if you plead the 5th your doing so can be "considered by the court and jury and may be made the subject of comment by counsel", as if that is remotely relevant, it's too far out of the scope to bother with.

I'll just say that the way the government is using the medical industry to further control people is disgusting and abhorrent. Repealing/Fixing the 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act would be progress and doing more to extract the gov out of the medical care industry would be great. However this attack against the doctors rights is stupid and useless. You do not have to tell the doctor you have guns (and he doesn't have to ask) to get your gun rights taken away. This law sacrifices the doctors rights just to play the political game of petting the GOP sheep's head and telling them they are protecting them without doing a damn thing.

Arguing with zealots from the left or right is generally insane especially when they start braying like a donkey in response to valid arguments.
Even so I would like an explanation of why you call me a hypocrite.
Your first paragraph is an excellent explanation for your last sentence of your third paragraph.

P/S And what Aknazer says......
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
You mean like how military members can't do or say specific things? Or how being on a base means you are allowed to be searched at any time for any reason? Or how when licensed you have to abide by certain rules or else risk getting your license revoked (see the outburst from Yaeger and what happened to his CHP). Not that I expect you to respond since you seem to have no counter-point.

This is also why I said it is a very fine line. Medical care is privatized but yet works with the government and very much can affect one's rights. What if law enforcement were to become privatized as well, then what? There would still need to be things in place to prevent these non-government cops from violating peoples rights. By your line of reasoning it would be even easier for a private cop to lie or enforce "color of law" and then claim that they were simply exercising their 1A rights.

So again, the doctor as an individual has 1A rights. The doctor when acting as a doctor can't do things that would potentially infringe upon his patient's rights unless it specifically relates to the medical visit. There's also nothing stating that they can't give out a blanket statement about guns. I've actually had a doctor before say "I don't want to know if you have guns, but if you do..." and then went on to talk about sun safety and storage since I have little kids in the house.

Unless you can explain how doctors are government employees these are simply strawman arguments. There is a horrible problem in the medical care industry related to taking peoples 2A rights away. Making a law telling a private doctor what he can't ask his patients not only does nothing to help the horrible problem but violates the doctor's rights. Just a little help for ya... You do not have the right not to be asked a question. So the argument that you have to take the doctor's rights to preserve your own isn't right.


Your first paragraph is an excellent explanation for your last sentence of your third paragraph.

P/S And what Aknazer says......
gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Unless you can explain how doctors are government employees these are simply strawman arguments. There is a horrible problem in the medical care industry related to taking peoples 2A rights away. Making a law telling a private doctor what he can't ask his patients not only does nothing to help the horrible problem but violates the doctor's rights. Just a little help for ya... You do not have the right not to be asked a question. So the argument that you have to take the doctor's rights to preserve your own isn't right.



gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.

I'm off to work, so you'll have to wait until my night shift ends for a response.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Unless you can explain how doctors are government employees these are simply strawman arguments. There is a horrible problem in the medical care industry related to taking peoples 2A rights away. Making a law telling a private doctor what he can't ask his patients not only does nothing to help the horrible problem but violates the doctor's rights. Just a little help for ya... You do not have the right not to be asked a question. So the argument that you have to take the doctor's rights to preserve your own isn't right.

It isn't a strawman argument as I never said that they are government employees. I used the military as an example of how rights can be given up (or taken, however you want to look at it) as part of one's profession. You are also missing the point. The doctor as a PERSON very much can talk about it. The doctor acting in the official capacity as a DOCTOR can not. Why is that and why would it be constitutional? Because acting as a doctor he is acting in an official capacity and what he says and does can infringe upon my rights either directly or indirectly. Thus when acting in an official capacity he isn't able to act in a manner that might infringe upon the rights of his patient unless it is related to the visit.

Think of it like this. A person can't just yell "FIRE" in a crowded place. Why? Because your rights end where another person's begins and doing so you are intentionally inciting others to do something when no threat exists. Likewise with the doctor. Because of how much power the doctor has when operating in an official capacity if he were to ask such questions and make notes about it, it could then lead to you losing your rights because of either his anti-gun bias or the anti-gun bias of someone else in the chain who has access to such records. So much like only being able to yell fire in a crowded place when one exists, the doctor (again, when operating in an official capacity) can only take actions that might infringe upon your rights when it is relevant in some way.

gotcha... can't explain how I'm being hypocritical. I didn't think so but I wanted to give the opportunity to explain it in case it was true and I wasn't seeing it.

You're being hypocritical because you talk about taking away the rights of the doctor but yet fail to see how the doctor can be either directly or indirectly responsible for his patient losing their rights by asking such questions and making a note of it (this is what your first paragraph shows). You also fail to see how someone can be compelled/limited to certain actions via their license; a license that ultimately comes with government endorsement. Tell me, what does the government do if you try to do a licensed activity with said license? At which point why are you trying to argue that the government can't set the terms for obtaining said license when that license comes with government endorsement?
 
Top