Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 11CA en banc to rehear Docs vs Glocks. Can state restrict doc's 1A on guns?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    11CA en banc to rehear Docs vs Glocks. Can state restrict doc's 1A on guns?

    Can Florida restrict doctors’ speech to patients about guns?

    Yesterday, the 11th Circuit agreed to rehear the case challenging Florida’s “Docs vs. Glocks” law, which (among other things) restricts doctors’ speech to patients about guns. A three-judge panel of the court upheld the law, by a 2-1 vote — see this post for more details about that — but now the full 11-member court will consider the question.

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

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-about-guns/

    Professor Volokh draws analogies between physicians and students and First and Second Amendments.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    I'm not sure how I feel about this. First, discussions between a doctor and her/his patient should be free and open. But I've known enough preachy docs who think they have all the answers to understand the concern. Most medical doctors aren't psychiatrists, and most have absolutely no expertise in guns, gun violence, or anything related. Diagnosing physical disease and prescribing medicine has nothing to do with guns. Despite the god complex from which many practitioners suffer and my dislike for people who render opinions about that which they know nothing, for me the question really is "do we really need a law?"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Need to check out federal law.
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...ec300gg-17.pdf
    (c) Protection of Second Amendment gun rights
    (1) Wellness and prevention programs
    A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
    (A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
    (B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
    (2) Limitation on data collection
    None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—
    (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
    (B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
    (C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
    (3) Limitation on databases or data banks

    None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.
    (4) Limitation on determination of premium rates or eligibility for health insurance
    A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—
    (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
    (B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
    (5) Limitation on data collection requirements for individuals
    No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—
    (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
    (B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Is there a prosecutor charged with prosecuting a political subdivision's violation of preemption, and a punishment? Preemption is violated.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    but now the full 11-member court will consider the question.
    Consider? No. Overturn via pre-determined judgement like 9CA will do with Peruta? Yes.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Is there a prosecutor charged with prosecuting a political subdivision's violation of preemption, and a punishment? Preemption is violated.
    Not sure how this question is relevant to the OP...this is not a preemption violation. But to answer your question, No.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    I'm not sure how I feel about this. First, discussions between a doctor and her/his patient should be free and open. But I've known enough preachy docs who think they have all the answers to understand the concern. Most medical doctors aren't psychiatrists, and most have absolutely no expertise in guns, gun violence, or anything related. Diagnosing physical disease and prescribing medicine has nothing to do with guns. Despite the god complex from which many practitioners suffer and my dislike for people who render opinions about that which they know nothing, for me the question really is "do we really need a law?"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well, many doctors have been sticking their nose into this issue. I have spoken with a few who cry and cry (you would swear that they have been shot 100x) about treating folks. I just tell them to do their jobs and quit crying about it. I'm not giving up my rights to make their life easier.

    I have heard less complaining from people who have been shot.

    "do you own a gun?" Doctor
    "do you?" patient

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Bad law.

    Where is the compelling state interest.
    Is the doctor a private citizen or a state employee.
    Why do these nitwit judged ignore the prior restraint on a enumerated right...more government intrusion into the personal matters of the citizenry. ARREST these tyrannical judges!!!

    If a cop can ask a simple question without your consent why must a doctor be prohibited from asking too?

    If this law must exist and be enforced it should apply only to shrinks.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Bad law.

    Where is the compelling state interest.
    Is the doctor a private citizen or a state employee.
    Why do these nitwit judged ignore the prior restraint on a enumerated right...more government intrusion into the personal matters of the citizenry. ARREST these tyrannical judges!!!

    If a cop can ask a simple question without your consent why must a doctor be prohibited from asking too?

    If this law must exist and be enforced it should apply only to shrinks.

    there are a myriad of physicians and their professional associations who feel it is their right to push their anti-firearm rhethoric on their patients as they believe it will reduce firearm injury and death.

    a semi recent quote from Medscape's 15 Feb article: Eight health professional organizations and the American Bar Association have released a call for action to reduce firearm-related injury and death in the United States....unquote.

    there are knock down discussions in the comment sections after some of these articles are published in Medscape.

    these professional associations are just as powerful as the women in MDA.

    bad law...look who is pushing hard for it.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Bad law.

    Where is the compelling state interest.
    Is the doctor a private citizen or a state employee.
    Why do these nitwit judged ignore the prior restraint on a enumerated right...more government intrusion into the personal matters of the citizenry. ARREST these tyrannical judges!!!

    If a cop can ask a simple question without your consent why must a doctor be prohibited from asking too?

    If this law must exist and be enforced it should apply only to shrinks.
    The law wouldn't have been necessary if the doctor's organizations (and some anti-gun government officials) would just stay in their lane.

    When the likelihood that medical records can/will/are being consumed by certain spheres of the government with an active agenda to strip firearms ownership and enforce confiscation, these records can be a veritable gold mine.

    IMO, the state should have approached this as a business regulatory issue. Allow doctors to provide information (in the of flyers, etc. like they do for teen sex, smoking, drinking, etc.) but prohibit asking for (demanding) any information that does not directly influence the health of their patient. They tried unsuccessfully to include firearms ownership in what they consider risky behavior.

    They should be limited to providing information upon a patients request.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Doctors' actions are regulated in many ways, but regulating the content of conversation between doctor and patient should be free. However, even though patient records are supposed to be private, we know very well that once you claim insurance the patient file becomes nearly public record. Restricting the content of records is the domain of the licensing body, typically the state board of medical examiners.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Law or no law nothing says I have to answer truthfully; if I get a question from a doctor (written or verbal) that I feel is not germane and/or non of their **** business I lie, tell them what they want to hear or something totally off the wall.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Law or no law nothing says I have to answer truthfully; if I get a question from a doctor (written or verbal) that I feel is not germane and/or non of their **** business I lie, tell them what they want to hear or something totally off the wall.
    Which is also why polls are inaccurate.

    When some stranger calls me up on the phone and asks me how many AK-47-assaultamatic-shoulder-thingy-that-goes-up's I have in my house, I tell them I hate guns and would never own one.

    When someone who knows where I live, and is already exemplifying a prejudice and willingness to abuse his/her position in accordance to that prejudice, asks me that question, my denial is even greater. It's impossible for a doctor to ask that question without exposing extreme prejudice, because it's a non sequitur. There's no positive motive that could bring up the inquiry.

    I think it's a dumb law because it's attempting to muzzle the enemy, so that you can't tell if he is the enemy... If you've got such a dirty doc, you want to know. You want him to ask these questions. So you know never to come back. It's no different from a "no guns" sign on a store. If you've got brains enough to carry a gun, you should have brains enough to take your money elsewhere.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Posting Permissions

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