Florida doctors can ask patients about guns, court rules

**internet troll** · February 19th, 2017, 11:49 AM

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.

**bogey1** · February 19th, 2017, 12:55 PM

They can ask anything they want. You can answer if you want.
I wont answer, and if I do I will lie.

**Gun** · February 19th, 2017, 02:00 PM

I would rather a doctor focus on my hemorrhoids.

Besides, if the doc can't recite the 4 rules of gun safety, or discuss 9mm vs 45ACP he can keep his yap shut on that topic.

**Wilderness 1864** · February 19th, 2017, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by bogey1

They can ask anything they want. You can answer if you want.
I wont answer, and if I do I will lie.

And that is the evil in this decision.

This Court misses, intentionally I think, the threat to the second amendment. It is also a perversion of the first amendment.

Why are the MD's having these gun control conversations? It is not really an exercise of their first amendment rights no matter what a bunch of gun grabbing dictators in black robes have to say. It is a planned assault on the second amendment with anti-gun doctors conducting surveillance and interrogations to link gun ownership with weak diagnoses of mental conditions to support debarment of a patient's right to keep and bear arms. Why are physicians demanding patients fill out loaded questionnaires designed to capture admissions of anxiety and depression? They don't seem to demand questionnaires to identify joint pain and arthritis, nope just depression and alcohol use.

This was all part of the Obama plan to get MDs to shove more people on to prohibited lists, and senior citizens on Social Security and Medicare were going to be the first victims. It is a direct threat to second amendment rights. These MD's are working as an extension of the Government even if not employed directly by the government (although, if Medicare or Medicaid is involved, they are paid by the Government). This is a closet violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights too.

This decision also turns the first amendment on its head. If I have a plumber over to fix a leak, does this mean now I have to listen to him pontificate on his gun control and gun safety views? After this decision, I think the answer is "yes". So if I see a MD to look at a skin lesion, now I have to listen to him or her pontificate on gun control and gun safety issues or interrogate me on the subject. Why, because the Court says the MD has a first amendment right to preach?

The patient is being forced into a conversation he may not want to have or even listen to, and, moreover, the patient is forced to pay for the MD's soapbox! That sounds downright confiscatory if you ask me. Talk about a perversion of the first amendment! The court says the MD's right to force a dialogue is protected by the first amendment. The consequence of this is that the patient is now a captive audience and is forced to pay for something he does not want. There is no right in the first amendment that forces anyone to have to listen to anyone's speech. According to this decision, this court has just created that right. If your MD wants to quiz you on your second amendment rights, you have to pay him for that -- even if you do not want it - you only wanted to learn about your skin lesion.

If you refuse to engage, you risk getting written up as uncooperative, difficult, anxious, paranoid and likely to suffer from some mental disorder. Or, you can lie. Since when does the first amendment grant a right to any citizen to force unwanted dialogues on people, make them pay for it, and then put someone in the preposterous position of deciding to lie or risk unwarranted conclusions drawn from refusal to have a discussion about something?

This decision is pathetic and very dangerous.

**Krichardson** · February 19th, 2017, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by bogey1

They can ask anything they want. You can answer if you want.
I wont answer, and if I do I will lie.

Yep,the paying patients have to speak up.When enough of us tell the doctors to mind their business and keep their focus on our health this nonsense will be put to an end.

**KCJones** · February 19th, 2017, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Wilderness 1864

And that is the evil in this decision.

This Court misses, intentionally I think, the threat to the second amendment. It is also a perversion of the first amendment.

Why are the MD's having these gun control conversations? It is not really an exercise of their first amendment rights no matter what a bunch of gun grabbing dictators in black robes have to say. It is a planned assault on the second amendment with anti-gun doctors conducting surveillance and interrogations to link gun ownership with weak diagnoses of mental conditions to support debarment of a patient's right to keep and bare arms. Why are physicians demanding patients fill out loaded questionnaires designed to capture admissions of anxiety and depression? They don't seem to demand questionnaires to identify joint pain and arthritis, nope just depression and alcohol use.

This was all part of the Obama plan to get MDs to shove more people on to prohibited lists, and senior citizens on Social Security and Medicare were going to be the first victims. It is a direct threat to second amendment rights. These MD's are working as an extension of the Government even if not employed directly by the government (although, if Medicare or Medicaid is involved, they are paid by the Government). This is a closet violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights too.

This decision also turns the first amendment on its head. If I have a plumber over to fix a leak, does this mean now I have to listen to him pontificate on his gun control and gun safety views? After this decision, I think the answer is "yes". So if I see a MD to look at a skin lesion, now I have to listen to him or her pontificate on gun control and gun safety issues or interrogate me on the subject. Why, because the Court says the MD has a first amendment right to preach?

The patient is being forced into a conversation he may not want to have or even listen to, and, moreover, the patient is forced to pay for the MD's soapbox! That sounds downright confiscatory if you ask me. Talk about a perversion of the first amendment! The court says the MD's right to force a dialogue is protected by the first amendment. The consequence of this is that the patient is now a captive audience and is forced to pay for something he does not want. There is no right in the first amendment that forces anyone to have to listen to anyone's speech. According to this decision, this court has just created that right. If your MD wants to quiz you on your second amendment rights, you have to pay him for that -- even if you do not want it - you only wanted to learn about your skin lesion.

If you refuse to engage, you risk getting written up as uncooperative, difficult, anxious, paranoid and likely to suffer from some mental disorder. Or, you can lie. Since when does the first amendment grant a right to any citizen to force unwanted dialogues on people, make them pay for it, and then put someone in the preposterous position of deciding to lie or risk unwarranted conclusions drawn from refusal to have a discussion about something?

This decision is pathetic and very dangerous.

I agree completely. It's not the 'free speech' asking part that's the problem (in and of itself, though I object to that too). It's not like some friend/neighbor asking, it's asking by someone with the ability to record/interpret your response into your 'record,' to 'report it' to the authorities, etc.

For my part, if my doctor ever asked if I have a gun my response would be to say "Do you?" and leave it at that. If he asked again, I would silently get up and leave, no answer at all, no return to that doctor. If it's on a form, I'm done filling out that form, in the garbage it goes, same thing: new doctor.

Mind you, "The patient can always find another doctor" is total BS. A) why should I have to? and B) it's not a real choice if/when doctors start making it part of their standard 'question set' and you can't find one that doesn't ask "Just pro forma"...

And let's not forget that pediatricians have started asking kids "do mommy or daddy have a gun?" and such. One reason I absolutely DO NOT (even with mid-teen children) let them go in alone. When they're out of my house, they can go to the doctor alone.

I do have to add, though, that NO doctor of mine from childhood on has EVER asked the question. I don't like the law, I don't like the precedent, but I wonder how pervasive it really is...