Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New 11th circuit decision - limit docs from asking about guns is OK

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    New 11th circuit decision - limit docs from asking about guns is OK


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    Eugene Volokh comments,Content-based restriction on doctors’ speech about guns passes

    Content-based restriction on doctors’ speech to patients about guns passes ‘strict scrutiny’

    By Eugene Volokh December 16

    Monday, a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit panel handed down a third opinion in Wollschlaeger v. Governor, the Florida “Docs vs. Glocks” case. [ ... ]
    In fact, much of the argument that the 11th Circuit panel accepted is structurally very similar to arguments used for restrictions on “hate speech,” campus speech codes and the like. I hope the 11th Circuit reconsiders the matter en banc, and adopts the dissenting judge’s view; or, failing that, I hope the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

    First, what does the statute actually do?[my emphasis]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rict-scrutiny/

    This is the third opinion, maybe the third time is the charm. Volokh comments at some length.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-17-2015 at 06:35 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well now what am going to do when I get my handgun stuck up my bum?

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well now what am going to do when I get my handgun stuck up my bum?
    TMI and would seem to be just a little or majorly inappropriate for a family type forum.

    And with this information, I will never accept any firearm from you.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Mr. Eugene Volokh missed the point.

    Did not a Virginia citizen have his 2A rights (and freedom) infringed because a doctor (medical professional) had a good faith belief? A doctor carries a great power and HIPAA will not protect you from his mistaken good faith belief.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Mr. Eugene Volokh missed the point. Did not a Virginia citizen have his 2A rights (and freedom) infringed because a doctor (medical professional) had a good faith belief? A doctor carries a great power and HIPAA will not protect you from his mistaken good faith belief.
    Did you tell him? He will correspond in public and in private.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Did you tell him? He will correspond in public and in private.
    Does he not read OCDO? In the years that he has posted his thoughts on various matters in the newspaper a response to comments, the rational and thoughtful ones, is rare to say the least.

    Mr. Eugene Volokh can come here to OCDO and explain his rational for thinking that a doctor has the right to ask a question not directly related to the medical ailment for which the citizen in front of him is requesting his advice.

    Mr. Eugene Volokh can come here and explain how HIPAA is a safeguard against a mistaken good faith belief.

    Mr. Eugene Volokh can come here and explain if a patient can bring a civil action against a doctor for his mistaken good faith belief.

    Mr. Eugene Volokh can come here and explain how the ACA affects a citizen's ability to find a new doctor. Cloaking his premise with "most/many patients can find a new doctor" is nothing but a escape clause for his false comparison.

    Some doctors likely do ask some such questions, on a relatively blanket basis. The questions are at least as intrusive as questions about guns; indeed, many people find some such information more private than gun ownership.


    Did not Mr. Eugene Volokh consider that a doctor may be a state (government) employee? http://caph.org/

    But even if one views the Second Amendment discussion as shorthand for an asserted interest in protecting people’s gun possession against (some) private restrictions, here no doctor’s speech has any power to take away any guns. Even if the doctor’s speech is mistaken (and indeed I find much “public health” literature about guns to be quite weak), “harassing,” or not sufficiently “relevant,” no amount of my doctor’s speech will cause my gun to disappear.
    Mr. Eugene Volokh needs to review HIPAA.

    http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...poses/505.html

    No, Mr. Eugene Volokh can come here and explain himself...not that he has any obligation to do so, he can always choose to ignore me and my requests/views and find another consumer of his views to interact with.

    Mr. Eugene Volokh...yes, I do not hold Mr. Eugene Volokh in a high regard.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    I sent Eugene a polite email asking him if it would be ok for Florida to enact a statute requiring doctors to become certified firearms safety instructors as a professional requisite to dispensing firearms safety advice as part of their medical practice. I'd love to hear his reply and if I get one, will post it.

    That would actually be a good law in my humble opinion. Nothing would be funnier than listening to opposing arguments from those who think that doctors should be allowed to dispense firearms safety advice without having first received any firearms safety training.
    Last edited by OC4me; 12-18-2015 at 11:56 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    I have always addressed him as Professor Volokh in my effort to be respectfully polite.

    ETA: It has been my understanding that the recipient detects politeness and civility, whatever the sender's intention.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-18-2015 at 12:08 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •