Federal Court Upholds Docs vs Glocks Law

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 31, 2014

Aknazer said:
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.

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?

The potential for a patient losing their rights does not come from allowing the doctor to exercise his 1A rights. It comes from the 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act.
Why can't you understand forcing the doctor to not ask you about guns has no bearing on his ability to "adjudicate (you) as a mental defective". The law taking away his right to ask you about guns DOES NOTHING to fix the problem. You can, and some vets HAVE, been banned from gun ownership without even owning a gun!

All they've done is take away the rights of the doctors in order to stroke sheep with Republican-colored glasses to completion as a fund-raising aid.

I'm not a hypocrite. I want the patients rights and doctors rights both protected.

Aknazer · Jul 31, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
The potential for a patient losing their rights does not come from allowing the doctor to exercise his 1A rights. It comes from the 1968 Gun Control Act in conjunction with the 2008 NICS Improvement Act.
Why can't you understand forcing the doctor to not ask you about guns has no bearing on his ability to "adjudicate (you) as a mental defective". The law taking away his right to ask you about guns DOES NOTHING to fix the problem. You can, and some vets HAVE, been banned from gun ownership without even owning a gun!

All they've done is take away the rights of the doctors in order to stroke sheep with Republican-colored glasses to completion as a fund-raising aid.

I'm not a hypocrite. I want the patients rights and doctors rights both protected.

I like how you have started to use attacks with that whole "why can't you understand" and trying to insinuate that anyone is a Republican. I can just as easily flip that around on you and say why can't you understand that the individual isn't having their rights infringed upon, the individual is simply having his doctor's license in FL altered to not be able to make such comments when operating under said license unless they relate to the visit. The doctor can still ask such questions whenever they want when they take off the coat and go back to being an individual not operating under a government granted license.

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 31, 2014

Aknazer said:
the individual isn't having their rights infringed upon,

-snipped

You say it doesn't infringe on the doctors rights to make it unlawful to ask his patient if they own guns. I believe it does. Fine it's a matter of opinion.
Both sides of the political spectrum can justify taking away rights of the other side when it suits them. Anti-gunners certainly say they aren't taking away your rights when they heavily regulate your right to bare arms... They may even believe it.
But they are rarely convinced so I'll stop arguing with you about it.

I will still assert (even if I agreed the law didn't violate the doctors rights) that the law doesn't actually help with the problem of people losing their rights too easily. The 2008 NICS Improvement Act changed how easily a patient can be "adjudicated as a mental defective" and thus banned from ever owning a gun again by the 1968 Gun Control Act. You need not own a gun or admit to owning one for this to affect you. You deny this?

OC for ME · Jul 31, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
...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. ...

I explained why a doctor, in MO, is required to ask the question. The state is infringing upon the doctor's right to not ask a question...your state may be different.

A doctor required to ask the question, as directed by the state (the form), is acting on behalf of the state and that is the definition of "a representative of the state." You refusing to accept this does not make the statement false.

Making a 1A argument in relation to the op is a non sequitur.

Aknazer · Jul 31, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
-snipped

You say it doesn't infringe on the doctors rights to make it unlawful to ask his patient if they own guns. I believe it does. Fine it's a matter of opinion.
Both sides of the political spectrum can justify taking away rights of the other side when it suits them. Anti-gunners certainly say they aren't taking away your rights when they heavily regulate your right to bare arms... They may even believe it.
But they are rarely convinced so I'll stop arguing with you about it.

Tell me, does the law prevent a doctor from asking such a question when not in the doctor's office? Tell me, how does regulating how one does business infringe upon one's rights when acting as an individual?

Anti-gunners try to take away peoples' 2A right when they are acting as an individual, thus your comparison falls apart right there.

color of law · Jul 31, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
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.

As George Carlin said: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”:banghead:

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 31, 2014

OC for ME said:
I explained why a doctor, in MO, is required to ask the question. The state is infringing upon the doctor's right to not ask a question...your state may be different.

A doctor required to ask the question, as directed by the state (the form), is acting on behalf of the state and that is the definition of "a representative of the state." You refusing to accept this does not make the statement false.

Making a 1A argument in relation to the op is a non sequitur.

Requiring the doctor to ask is IMHO unconstitutional. The gov want's to envelop the medical care industry and control it totally. It's offensive. If you believe I want the gov to force doctors to ask about guns you haven't understood what I've said.

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 31, 2014

Aknazer said:
Tell me, does the law prevent a doctor from asking such a question when not in the doctor's office? Tell me, how does regulating how one does business infringe upon one's rights when acting as an individual?

Anti-gunners try to take away peoples' 2A right when they are acting as an individual, thus your comparison falls apart right there.

Again I won't argue any more if it violates the doctors rights. We disagree. I'd be happy to talk about the effectiveness of this rights violating law if you like. But the discussion of whether or not it violates the doctors rights seems to be at an impasse.

twoskinsonemanns said:
You say it doesn't infringe on the doctors rights to make it unlawful to ask his patient if they own guns. I believe it does. Fine it's a matter of opinion.
Both sides of the political spectrum can justify taking away rights of the other side when it suits them. Anti-gunners certainly say they aren't taking away your rights when they heavily regulate your right to bare arms... They may even believe it.
But they are rarely convinced so I'll stop arguing with you about it.

I will still assert (even if I agreed the law didn't violate the doctors rights) that the law doesn't actually help with the problem of people losing their rights too easily. The 2008 NICS Improvement Act changed how easily a patient can be "adjudicated as a mental defective" and thus banned from ever owning a gun again by the 1968 Gun Control Act. You need not own a gun or admit to owning one for this to affect you. You deny this?

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 31, 2014

color of law said:
As George Carlin said: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”:banghead:

Stay classy color.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 31, 2014

No law is needed to require doctors not to ask.

Laws requiring/encouraging doctors to ask should be abolished.

Laws that make doctors workers of the state should be abolished.

Laws that have cartelized the medical profession and limits the free market and voluntary exchange of healthcare should be abolished.

The idea we need more laws because the past laws have created the situation is wrong, we need to abolish the situation.

OC for ME · Aug 1, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
...If you believe I want the gov to force doctors to ask about guns you haven't understood what I've said.

You are being obtuse. I have provided all the relevant info relating to this topic, for MO, that is available, other than the county form.

Keep focused the 1A non-issue and I will focus on the 2A implications.

Anyway, MO has a history of providing "gun ownership" data to the feds. The DoR is out of the CCW permit process due to their data dump, with the aid of the MSHP, to the feds. Doctors are just another avenue for the feds to gain this data with the aid of the county health department. This avenue must be closed. Prohibiting doctors to ask gun ownership questions in their place of practice is a means to accomplish this goal.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 1, 2014

OC for ME said:
You are being obtuse. I have provided all the relevant info relating to this topic, for MO, that is available, other than the county form.

Keep focused the 1A non-issue and I will focus on the 2A implications.

Anyway, MO has a history of providing "gun ownership" data to the feds. The DoR is out of the CCW permit process due to their data dump, with the aid of the MSHP, to the feds. Doctors are just another avenue for the feds to gain this data with the aid of the county health department. This avenue must be closed. Prohibiting doctors to ask gun ownership questions in their place of practice is a means to accomplish this goal.

I'm not being obtuse. You decided to inject an irrelevant MO law requiring doctors to ask the question into a discussion about a FL law prohibiting them from asking.
In case you haven't been able to follow the thread let me explain again. FL passed a law taking away a doctors right to ask about guns. Not a law forcing them to ask and not a law forcing you to answer such questions.
I object to it.
Laws like your MO mess forcing doctors to ask about guns are wrong and I vehemently object to them. But it's not what this is about.

OC for ME · Aug 1, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
I'm not being obtuse. You decided to inject an irrelevant MO law requiring doctors to ask the question into a discussion about a FL law prohibiting them from asking.
In case you haven't been able to follow the thread let me explain again. FL passed a law taking away a doctors right to ask about guns. Not a law forcing them to ask and not a law forcing you to answer such questions.
I object to it.
Laws like your MO mess forcing doctors to ask about guns are wrong and I vehemently object to them. But it's not what this is about.

Despite your protests to the contrary this is not a 1A issue, even in FL, it is a 2A issue, read the op again if you think the 1A is at issue.

There is no law in MO that requires a doctor to ask, it is a county regulation to ask the "question.". The governor vetoed a bill that will/would nullify the regulation. Compliance or non-compliance with the regulation by any particular doctor is irrelevant.

A doctor can ask any non-medically relevant question he wants as long as the answer does not become a part of the patients medical record. My doctor(s) refuse to ask the question. The ER drones ask the "question," and many other non-relevant questions because they are displayed on the computer screen.

I apologize, you are not being obtuse, you are being obstinate.

Aknazer · Aug 1, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
No law is needed to require doctors not to ask.

Laws requiring/encouraging doctors to ask should be abolished.

Laws that make doctors workers of the state should be abolished.

Laws that have cartelized the medical profession and limits the free market and voluntary exchange of healthcare should be abolished.

The idea we need more laws because the past laws have created the situation is wrong, we need to abolish the situation.

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but this isn't an ideal world. Also we're talking about a state passing a law that helps to counter federal laws. Realistically there's no way for the state to repeal the the federal law.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 1, 2014

OC for ME said:
Doctors must be prohibited from asking.

OC for ME said:
A doctor can ask any non-medically relevant question he wants

True I am being obstinate but your coming around lol

OC for ME said:
Despite your protests to the contrary this is not a 1A issue, even in FL, it is a 2A issue, read the op again if you think the 1A is at issue.

There is no law in MO that requires a doctor to ask, it is a county regulation to ask the "question.". The governor vetoed a bill that will/would nullify the regulation. Compliance or non-compliance with the regulation by any particular doctor is irrelevant.

A doctor can ask any non-medically relevant question he wants as long as the answer does not become a part of the patients medical record. My doctor(s) refuse to ask the question. The ER drones ask the "question," and many other non-relevant questions because they are displayed on the computer screen.

I apologize, you are not being obtuse, you are being obstinate.

I believe this to be both a 2A issue and 1A issue.
Look I think we are on the same side. I would support many changes in the the medical care industry. Patient privacy which used to be important is much less so now. We are being violated on the basis of "safety" and it makes me sick.
But I can't support a law which does nothing to really help the problem and also makes the problem worse by assaulting the rights if the doctor..
We need to get the gov out of it.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 1, 2014

Aknazer said:
In an ideal world I would agree with you, but this isn't an ideal world. Also we're talking about a state passing a law that helps to counter federal laws. Realistically there's no way for the state to repeal the the federal law.

You can make it illegal for your state doctors to share info with the feds.

Nullification is still alive and well.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 1, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
You can make it illegal for your state doctors to share info with the feds.

Nullification is still alive and well.

yes. in fact it's naturally obvious that they should need the patients permission to share their personal/medical info with anyone at all.

Aknazer · Aug 2, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
You can make it illegal for your state doctors to share info with the feds.

Nullification is still alive and well.

Ideally, yes. But then again I think that laws should be periodically reviewed and voted on in order to help remove a lot of the clutter.

But none of this addresses if it Constitutional or not to force/limit such questions when operating in an official capacity that is licensed by the state and can lead to potential abuses.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 2, 2014

Aknazer said:
But none of this addresses if it Constitutional or not to force/limit such questions when operating in an official capacity that is licensed by the state and can lead to potential abuses.

Who cares if it's Constitution or not. If it appeals to the ideological base just do it. Gotta keep them funds coming.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 2, 2014

Aknazer said:
Ideally, yes. But then again I think that laws should be periodically reviewed and voted on in order to help remove a lot of the clutter.

But none of this addresses if it Constitutional or not to force/limit such questions when operating in an official capacity that is licensed by the state and can lead to potential abuses.

It's unconstitutional.

There are limited constitutional powers. We know they are already not observing the constitution. The answer wouldn't be more unconstitutional laws.

I don't see the doctor as an official of the state anymore than I see a licensed taxi cab driver or contractor.

I'd rather get rid of the licensing scheme by the state.

Federal Court Upholds Docs vs Glocks Law

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member