• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Brady Campaign suing Florida

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sking-about-firearms/?test=latestnews#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."
 

LibertyDeath

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
128
Location
Inland Empire, CA
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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! :rolleyes:
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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).
 

Axctal

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
24
Location
, ,
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The law is stupid and [strike]will probably[/strike] 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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
The law is stupid and [strike]will probably[/strike] 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:

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
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".
 

Lthrnck

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
656
Location
Englewood, Ohio, USA
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...
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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).
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Top