Florida doctors can ask patients about guns, court rules

[TSimonetti]

Gee, I need some help here as to how to respond. Should I say:
A. None of your business.
B. Do you beat your wife regularly?
C. Both my wife and I are CC permit holders, crack shots and practice all the time. Would you like to come to the range with us this weekend?

The fix will not be easy or quick and will not involve one-liners. Congress has broad powers under the Constitution to determine the makeup of our federal judicial system and to censure and impeach judges. so the best solution would be to get Congress to grow a set and do their sworn duty to protect the checks and balances being abused by the Judicial Branch.. Absent that, all we can really do is support a convention of the states and totally and Constitutionally re-make the judicial branch ourselves.

But if we want a system in which judge shopping for a leftist kook to overturn a law they don't like is more important than the law itself, or when one wishy-washy swing-justice of the supreme court is the most powerful person on earth(most recently the position held by Anthony Kennedy) then we should just continue to do nothing.

In the meantime under Obamacare, we've essentially deputized medical doctors and made them ethically and possibly criminally liable for not being highly suspicious of anyone who owns a gun.

[Hokkmike]

Just say "no"!

[chp1911]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...urt-rules.html

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law does not trespass on patients' Second Amendment rights to own guns and noted a patient who doesn't want to be questioned about that can easily find another doctor.

"The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right," wrote Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan in one of two majority opinions covering 90 pages. "There is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients."

Circuit Judge William Pryor, who was a finalist in President Donald Trump's search for a Supreme Court nominee, said in a separate concurring opinion that the First Amendment must protect all points of view.

"The promise of free speech is that even when one holds an unpopular point of view, the state cannot stifle it," he wrote. "The price Americans pay for this freedom is that the rule remains unchanged regardless of who is in the majority."

The law was passed in 2011 and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott with strong support from the National Rifle Association. It was the only one of its kind in the nation, although similar laws have been considered in other states.

Supporters in the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature insisted it was necessary because doctors were overstepping their bounds and pushing an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.

The law was challenged almost immediately by thousands of physicians, medical organizations and other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of free speech in what became known as the "Docs v. Glocks" case. A legal battle has raged in the courts since then, with several conflicting opinions issued.

"We are thrilled that the court has finally put to bed the nonsensical and dangerous idea that a doctor speaking with a patient about gun safety somehow threatens the right to own a gun," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.



The 11th Circuit noted that Florida lawmakers appeared to base the law on "six anecdotes" about physicians' discussions of guns in their examination rooms and little other concrete evidence that there is an actual problem. And doctors who violated the law could face professional discipline, a fine or possibly loss of their medical licenses.

"There was no evidence whatsoever before the Florida Legislature that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients' firearms or otherwise infringed on patients' Second Amendment rights," Jordan wrote for the court

The NRA and Florida attorneys had argued that under the law doctors could ask about firearms if the questions were relevant to a patient's health or safety, or someone else's safety, and that the law was aimed at eliminating harassment of gun owners. But the 11th Circuit said there was no evidence of harassment or improper disclosure of gun ownership in health records, as law supporters also claimed.

"There is nothing in the record suggesting that patients who are bothered or offended by such questions are psychologically unable to choose another medical provider, just as they are permitted to do if their doctor asks too many questions about private matters like sexual activity, alcohol consumption, or drug use," the court ruled.


The ruling did determine that some parts of the law could remain on the books, such as provisions allowing patients to decline to answer questions about guns and prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums for people who lawfully own guns.

The case will return to U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami for a ruling that follows the 11th Circuit's direction. The case could, however, also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The problem with doctors asking theses questions and then making a record of the answers is that it could end up being a HIPPA violation. The reason that I say that is that a persons medical records are private and only available to people that need that info to treat you for a medical condition. Your medical records are seen by many many people that have nothing to do with your actual medical treatment.

All of a doctors notes are entered into your file and that file is that entered into data base and anyone with access to the data base can see your medical record and that is where the problem lies. A file clerk that works for the same health care system as your doctor can access your record from any terminal in the system. That same file clerk could make a list of all the gun owners that are listed in the system ,down load that list to the cloud and after they log out of the system at the end of the day go home access they list and "anonymously " release the list to the media.

[Defender]

The fix will not be easy or quick and will not involve one-liners. Congress has broad powers under the Constitution to determine the makeup of our federal judicial system and to censure and impeach judges. so the best solution would be to get Congress to grow a set and do their sworn duty to protect the checks and balances being abused by the Judicial Branch.. Absent that, all we can really do is support a convention of the states and totally and Constitutionally re-make the judicial branch ourselves.

But if we want a system in which judge shopping for a leftist kook to overturn a law they don't like is more important than the law itself, or when one wishy-washy swing-justice of the supreme court is the most powerful person on earth(most recently the position held by Anthony Kennedy) then we should just continue to do nothing.

In the meantime under Obamacare, we've essentially deputized medical doctors and made them ethically and possibly criminally liable for not being highly suspicious of anyone who owns a gun.

I was just trying to add a little levity to the issue. But I do agree with you, the Congress needs to do something about the courts which have gone off the rails for sure. If it's not firearms ownership, they are now sticking their noses into the Executive Branch's responsibility for controlling foreigners coming into the country. The Congress has the constitutional authority to act, now they just need to do so.

[Rosco the Iroc]

You can ask them if their wife likes her anal beads taken out like I start a chainsaw.

[LTCcarrier]

Florida really is not progun. No open carry and even if someone sees a firearm you can be arrested. There is a list of soooo many prohibited places. So its understandable that this happened. You basically have a CCW to carry most places you don't need a gun and not to carry where needed.

[TSimonetti]

The problem with doctors asking theses questions and then making a record of the answers is that it could end up being a HIPPA violation. The reason that I say that is that a persons medical records are private and only available to people that need that info to treat you for a medical condition. Your medical records are seen by many many people that have nothing to do with your actual medical treatment.

I might be wrong, but I highly suspect that HIPPA privacy laws have loopholes for Justice Dept, Homeland Security, local law enforcement, and medical professionals that you could drive a truck through.

[free]

The problem with doctors asking theses questions and then making a record of the answers is that it could end up being a HIPPA violation. The reason that I say that is that a persons medical records are private and only available to people that need that info to treat you for a medical condition. Your medical records are seen by many many people that have nothing to do with your actual medical treatment.

All of a doctors notes are entered into your file and that file is that entered into data base and anyone with access to the data base can see your medical record and that is where the problem lies. A file clerk that works for the same health care system as your doctor can access your record from any terminal in the system. That same file clerk could make a list of all the gun owners that are listed in the system ,down load that list to the cloud and after they log out of the system at the end of the day go home access they list and "anonymously " release the list to the media.

They could. And then that hospital will look at the logs and see who accessed all those files and then that person would be in a world of hurt.

Besides which, your scenario is entirely implausible anyway. Very high risk, very low reward.

Same file clerk could do as you describe with all the AIDS patients, etc., but you don't see any homophobic file clerks compiling and releasing that info either.

Besides which, accessing patient info in Cerner and Epic is a huge pain in the ass. It takes multiple screens to get down to ONE patient's info for ONE patient encounter. Trying to access every patient in the system would take approximately FUCKING FOREVER. Staff working in medical offices are way too busy for that shit.

Now, if you're thinking a system admin or tech worker type could do it...very unlikely. One, they typically wouldn't not how to get that the useful info even with the raw files in front of them. Second, it's encrypted and you need the system to unencrypt (typically), and third, they don't have time for that shit either. Unlike a file clerk, they also have good, high paying jobs they are unlikely to want to risk.

"The problem" is that it is none of their fucking business!

You can't control them asking. You can control your answer. You have a solution to the problem within your reach. If you're too stubborn to simply say "no I don't" when asked if you have guns, that's on you.

[TSimonetti]

You can't control them asking. You can control your answer. You have a solution to the problem within your reach. If you're too stubborn to simply say "no I don't" when asked if you have guns, that's on you.

No, it's never "on me" when my government allows and even encourages anyone in authority to intimidate and compel me to even think about lying about my rights and freedoms instead of telling them "none of your business". It's on them.

But even so, lying about it ignores the ultimate end game to such questioning. The future goal of course is to statutorily tie gun ownership with a threat to personal and public health. If Obamacare or any type of state controlled health insurance/healthcare are allowed to remain and metastasize, it will eventually render penalties and fees to the health insurance policies of gun owners under the guise of paying for the negative societal effects of guns, with insurance fraud charges(a felony) levied on anyone accused of trying to hide or lie about(or refusing to answer) whether they own guns. We can see this playing out on a daily basis with democrats whining about CDC gun research being throttled and from our past Surgeon General making his case on how guns should be treated as a personal and public health risk.

It's just another tool in their arsenal to intimidate and get around the 2nd Amendment in order to restrict gun ownership. The only missing piece of the puzzle preventing them from aggressively getting to the next level is universal gun registration. That is their holy grail and they will be relentlessly pursuing it at all cost, but they certainly don't need it to at least put a chill on the desire of many to own a gun.

This relatively benign questioning from a doctor, nurse, or medical assistant is actually the insidious and nefarious nature of liberalism playing itself out for the ten thousandth time.

The notion that this line of questioning should be allowed or put up with should be fought to the bitter end. We can control what they ask. The Court got it wrong.

[free]

Well, keep supporting your current system of government and you will keep getting the same results.