HB 155, companion bill to SB 432 regarding medical inquiries into firearms ownership, passed the criminal justice subcommitte today by a vote of 9 - 6. The bad news is that the nays included two supposedly pro-gun Republicans, Tobia from Melbourne and Trujillo from Miami.
-
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.
-
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.
Good news - HB 155 passes Criminal Justice subcommittee
- Thread starter Rich7553
- Start date
77zach
Regular Member
I would have voted against it too. Hopefully it doesn't mean they will vote against HB 517.
Last edited:
Why is that?
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Yeah, why would you encourage Doctors to intimidate and deny service to people because they own guns? Lets ignore the obvious failure to 'do no harm' they are defying....
77zach
Regular Member
As a libertarian, I don't believe in the initiation of force. I feel that the bill is violating the property and freedom of speech rights of the doctor. Just because a doctor is an a-hole doesn't mean we should make a criminal out of him and threaten him with fines and imprisonment. I can always go to another doctor. And I also have a difficult time believing this is a widespread problem.
Of course, if I were a doctor, if I mentioned guns at all it would be to say buy as many as you can, train as much as you can, teach the kids about marksmanship as early as possible and take them to an appleseed!
not sure how to get rid of that smiley face at the top.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I've considered your point myself. Not a new thought.
If they didn't take an oath to do no harm, and then defy it in about the worst way a human being can; I'd agree with you.
Some people don't have a choice in Doctors.
For me, it's moot. I cannot afford a doctor anyway. So it was an exercise in 3rd party thinking; what's best for everyone else.
While I prefer a free-market approach, medicine is not even close to a free market. Letting Doctors abuse their power to torture our children for irrelevant information is wrong.
I, too, struggled with this issue...but I decided to support the bill for two reasons:
1. The bill was not intended to punish doctors, it was a reaction to doctors who were abusing people who were vulnerable - the sick, poor, needy, and dependent.
2. Pediatricians were not just asking parents and refusing service, they were interrogating children who do not understand why such information might be personal. One case in Uxbridge, MA involved a doctor who was questioning a child about "daddy's guns" and their locations. When the mother objected, the doctor began questioning her. She refused and left the office. A few days later, she was told by a police officer friend that the doctor had filed a police report about her family's lawful gun ownership.
At that point, I decided that the doctor's freedom of speech wasn't the issue. The doctor is not in any way prohibited from providing safety information of any kind. But by using his inherent authority over vulnerable people including children to advance a purely political agenda was over the top.