Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Brady Campaign suing Florida

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Brady Campaign suing Florida

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...stnews#comment

    [SNIP]
    A top gun control group has filed suit against a recently passed Florida law restricting doctors from asking patients about whether they own firearms, claiming the policy tramples on First Amendment rights.

    The first-in-the-nation law, signed last week by Gov. Rick Scott, would prohibit doctors from recording information about whether a patient owns a gun. It also restricts them from asking about whether patients own a gun unless that information is relevant to their medical care.

    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with another law firm and groups representing doctors, filed suit Monday asking a U.S. District Court judge in Florida to strike down the law.

    The suit, which disparagingly refers to the policy as the "physician gag law," complained that it was too vague and too strict and could lead doctors to "self-censor" -- to the detriment of their patients.

    "By severely restricting such speech and the ability of physicians to practice such preventative medicine, the Florida statute could result in grievous harm to children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly," the suit said.
    So apparently pushing gun control is now also "preventative medicine."

  2. #2
    Regular Member LibertyDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    129
    If Brady had it's way they would force doctors to ask if patients have guns. If they said yes they would probably have a 39 pages set of questions they would require a doctor to ask. Now of course they wouldn't violate the First Amendment though because it was a liberal idea so it's ok.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Of course it wouldn't violate the first amendment, because you can only violate it if you restrict someone's right to speech. So forcing them to ask something is perfectly fine!

  4. #4
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    A top gun control group...
    Well if that's the best they got I'd think you guys have nothing to worry about.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Well if that's the best they got I'd think you guys have nothing to worry about.
    gun control groups are not needed much. Progressives have passed enough laws against protected rights to show no groups are needed to trample freedom.

  6. #6
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    Don't see where Bradybunch has standing to sue. Even more importantly, why would a judge listen to the rantings of a small, radical, fringe group?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Even if they said yes HIPPA would prevent the dr from releasing it. That is where the issue with Cho came up. He was seen but not committed to a mental institution. The only time I could see this as relevant to the treatment of the patient would be if they were there for a court ordered pysch eval. By then they would probably already know if they had a firearm.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    Even if they said yes HIPPA would prevent the dr from releasing it. That is where the issue with Cho came up. He was seen but not committed to a mental institution. The only time I could see this as relevant to the treatment of the patient would be if they were there for a court ordered pysch eval. By then they would probably already know if they had a firearm.
    Except for the fact that the law came about because of someone who was told to find another doctor after saying "yes." Which means that whatever you say is in your records and so any doctor you have down the road can see it. Also if you consent to allow someone to see your medical records (such as an insurance company) they can now see what you said.

    So there's multiple ways that someone who doesn't approve of guns could see if you said "yes" and have it affect you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I wonder -Has anyone sued the Brady Campaign for backing a law, or Law successfully, that leaves a citizen defenseless, and the citizen then becomes the victim of a crime? Hell, people have taken civil shots at firearms makers.

    I would love to know how something like that would play out in court.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 06-08-2011 at 08:41 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Interesting thought Beretta92FSLady, something that has crossed my mind, would it be possible for a LAC forced to NOT carry their gun into any establishment, who is then harmed, robbed, or killed by a gun toting criminal to sue said establishment for endangerment and death.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Interesting thought Beretta92FSLady, something that has crossed my mind, would it be possible for a LAC forced to NOT carry their gun into any establishment, who is then harmed, robbed, or killed by a gun toting criminal to sue said establishment for endangerment and death.
    Doubtful as they could just as easily argue that you willingly went into the establishment, and thus willingly gave up your right to carry. Same would likely go for trying to sue an employer who bans you from having a gun at work, you willingly took the job and agreed to the conditions. The only way I could see a suit like this working would be to sue the city/state/etc that FORCIBLY disarms you and which you have no other recourse short of moving. And then you run into other issues (namely proving that you were harmed because of the law, that the law was unconstitutional, and then getting the courts to actually give a supportive ruling).

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24
    A better idea - sue bradys for conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
    Should be the same standard to them with respect to 2A as to a KKK with respect to blacks

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The law is stupid and will probably should be struck down.

    The idea is that ownership of firearms is not medical information. Therefore, however a doctor comes by the information, it is privileged, and it cannot be shared with anyone for any reason, not even with other medical professionals, insurance companies, or the government.

    At most, the above should be cemented in the law--possibly with assigned penalties. Let the doctor ask. Let us choose to answer or not. That is Liberty.

    Don't allow the sharing of that privileged information, and the doctors will stop asking.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The law is stupid and will probably should be struck down.

    The idea is that ownership of firearms is not medical information. Therefore, however a doctor comes by the information, it is privileged, and it cannot be shared with anyone for any reason, not even with other medical professionals, insurance companies, or the government.

    At most, the above should be cemented in the law--possibly with assigned penalties. Let the doctor ask. Let us choose to answer or not. That is Liberty.

    Don't allow the sharing of that privileged information, and the doctors will stop asking.
    And yet from what I can tell the law came about because a doctor asked, and then THAT VERY SAME DOCTOR refused to treat the person after she said yes to having guns in the home. Which means that the law also prevents doctors from discriminating against someone for having a gun.

    A doctor as a person can ask all he wants, his first amendment right isn't infringed. But when he is acting in an official capacity he has no need to ask unless it directly relates to the care being given.

    Oh and short of a law preventing it, there would be nothing to stop a physican from refusing service if you don't answer their question. Which would mean that they could still use the question about owning a gun to affect your care.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 06-09-2011 at 10:59 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    This is a free speach issue for the DR. (according to the left wing anti American bed wetters) but it is also a privacy issue for me or anyone else. My answer would be "none of your business".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Red face 1,2,5

    So they are trying to find out if I own a handgun....2nd Amendment right.

    They say the law infringes on doctor's 1st Amendment right.

    So I will just plead my 5th Amendment right and tell them it's none of their damn business.

    We can call this the 125 Issue...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lthrnck View Post
    So they are trying to find out if I own a handgun....2nd Amendment right.

    They say the law infringes on doctor's 1st Amendment right.

    So I will just plead my 5th Amendment right and tell them it's none of their damn business.

    We can call this the 125 Issue...
    At which point the doctor exercises their right to refuse you service. Why? Because in their mind pleading the 5th or refusing to answer is admitting guilt by omission. After all if you don't have a gun then you have nothing to be scared of in answering, so by not answering you must have one (or so the logic train goes).

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post


    Don't allow the sharing of that privileged information, and the doctors will stop asking.
    At a check-up for the kids, the doctor asked if there were firearms in the house. I laughed at first, then realized they were serious. I said that it has nothing to do with their check-up -so, I answered the question by not answering.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And yet from what I can tell the law came about because a doctor asked, and then THAT VERY SAME DOCTOR refused to treat the person after she said yes to having guns in the home. Which means that the law also prevents doctors from discriminating against someone for having a gun.

    A doctor as a person can ask all he wants, his first amendment right isn't infringed. But when he is acting in an official capacity he has no need to ask unless it directly relates to the care being given.

    Oh and short of a law preventing it, there would be nothing to stop a physican from refusing service if you don't answer their question. Which would mean that they could still use the question about owning a gun to affect your care.
    What official capacity?? If the government wants to make rules for official government doctors, have at it. This is a private physician, and he should be free to ask about gun ownership or not. The patient should be free to answer or not. The doctor and the patient should be free to continue or terminate their relationship as each sees fit. That is Liberty.

    The one thing the doctor should not do is reveal information he learns about the patient, except as necessary to others involved in the provision of treatment. The ownership of guns would never be necessary information for treatment and, therefore, should never be passed on to anyone else.

    If the law is not clear on this one point, it should be made clear. Other than that, this should be a non-issue. This law restricts Liberty in an unnecessary way. It should be struck down.

    It is in the defense of Liberty for others that we most effectively protect our own.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    This is a free speach issue for the DR. (according to the left wing anti American bed wetters) but it is also a privacy issue for me or anyone else. My answer would be "none of your business".
    Agreed. He has the right to ask. You have the right not to answer.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What official capacity?? If the government wants to make rules for official government doctors, have at it. This is a private physician, and he should be free to ask about gun ownership or not. The patient should be free to answer or not. The doctor and the patient should be free to continue or terminate their relationship as each sees fit. That is Liberty.

    The one thing the doctor should not do is reveal information he learns about the patient, except as necessary to others involved in the provision of treatment. The ownership of guns would never be necessary information for treatment and, therefore, should never be passed on to anyone else.

    If the law is not clear on this one point, it should be made clear. Other than that, this should be a non-issue. This law restricts Liberty in an unnecessary way. It should be struck down.

    It is in the defense of Liberty for others that we most effectively protect our own.
    I was saying if the doctor is acting in his official capacity. As in, if he is being one's doctor as opposed to simply asking the question to people outside of the workplace. The point is to prevent unreasonable discrimination, so I guess you feel that ALL anti-discrimination laws should be repealed and that the government shouldn't have stepped in to stop the discrimination of blacks and minorities and should have just sat back and let "the people" work it out? Or maybe you just have the ideal view of the world and would ignore how like minded people can easily collude to suppress those that they don't like. After all if most/all doctors in your area refuse to give you service unless you answer "no" to the gun question you can just take your business to a place that's a town or 10 away from where you live

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is none of government's business whether a private individual discriminates against another individual based on behavior. (I'd say it is none of government's business whether the basis is behavior, race, religion, or whatever, but that is another discussion.)

    "Discrimination" has become an excuse to allow government to become more intrusive, to allow them to control what we say and to just a little more. I say, NO!

    I really wish that folks would stop supporting anti-Liberty laws simply because those particular laws make their personal choice of behavior easier. Laws like that got us into the situation in which we now find ourselves.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Maybe check with tour insurance company as far as what the doc is allowed to ask and if he can discriminate based on answers under his contract with the company. If they are on the preferred providers list they agree to certain rules.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    At a check-up for the kids, the doctor asked if there were firearms in the house. I laughed at first, then realized they were serious. I said that it has nothing to do with their check-up -so, I answered the question by not answering.
    Bingo!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun
    That is where the issue with Cho came up. He was seen but not committed to a mental institution.
    Medical records are private.
    If he'd been involuntarily committed, that would require Court action, which is public record.
    But someone being treated for epilepsy (who might not be able safely to control a gun) is no more a prohibited person than someone being treated for depression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axctal
    A better idea - sue bradys for conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
    Should be the same standard to them with respect to 2A as to a KKK with respect to blacks
    I like this. Throw in the 'government' of Chicago & DC & NYC & NJ & ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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