Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

11th Circuit: Constitutional to Bar Doctors from Asking Patients About Firearm Ownership
Breitbart's Big Government ^ | July 28, 2014 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on 07/29/2014 2:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

On July 25 the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit "eliminated the injunction" against the enforcement of Florida's "gun gag" law, which restricts doctors from asking patients if they own a firearm unless asking is necessary to a patient's treatment.

According to Law360.com, the 11th Circuit ruled that barring doctors from asking about firearms "doesn't violate the First Amendment."

Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed the NRA-backed "gun gag" legislation in 2011. Suit was brought against the State of Florida over the law by "the Florida chapters of the American Academies of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians along with a number of other groups and the anti-gun community."(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; florida; guncontrol; gungrabbers; medicine; rickscott; surveillance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 07/29/2014 2:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If this is what it appears to be, it would be overturned by the scotus. The first amendment protects doctors too. They should be able to ask, but you are not required to answer.


2 posted on 07/29/2014 2:17:30 PM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good.I wouldn’t answer any questions like that anyway.


3 posted on 07/29/2014 2:19:01 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

You’ve never been to a V.A. clinic or hospital? Yes, you are required to answer.


4 posted on 07/29/2014 2:19:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t see the issue here. States have been prohibiting certain questions for years. Think of employment. There are a list of about 10 or 15 questions that an employer can’t ask in an interview.

I guess I would side with letting anyone ask any question in any context as long as they are not forced to ask the question and the person being asked is not forced or coerced into answering it.


5 posted on 07/29/2014 2:23:23 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I thought the accusation is that if people refuse to answer, the doc refuses treatment until they do.


6 posted on 07/29/2014 2:24:17 PM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Agreed.

My doctor has the right to ask me if I own guns, and I have the right to tell him it’s none of his business. I also have the right to find another doctor.

What CANNOT be allowed to happen, though, is for the answer to have any effect on my health insurance premiums or my medical treatment.


7 posted on 07/29/2014 2:24:20 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Completely unnecessary -

If your doctor asks you such questions, inform him that it’s none of his business and that you will be seeing another doctor.

Problem solved. Without government.


8 posted on 07/29/2014 2:24:36 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If my doctor ever asked me, I would tell him that it was none of his damned business and find a new doctor.


9 posted on 07/29/2014 2:27:44 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

It’s certain factions within the government that are seeking this information from doctors.

It isn’t “free speech” to ask this question when the government is requiring them to ask it (and it is none of their damn business anymore than “do you own a car”, “what type”, “how long”).

Centers For Disease Control considers gunshot wounds a “disease” that needs to be controlled.


10 posted on 07/29/2014 2:29:20 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Elian Gonzalez sought asylum and was sent back to Cuba, send these kids back to THEIR parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

I will simply tell them no.


11 posted on 07/29/2014 2:29:21 PM PDT by grandpa jones (obama delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Best Answer: NYGDB Doc!

You can ficure out what that stands for I’m sure.


12 posted on 07/29/2014 2:29:38 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

They ask the kids. The ones that we can’t know the records from.


13 posted on 07/29/2014 2:31:06 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

In this case, it was always coercive, and done with truly evil intent.

As background, the radical leftist American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is devoted to “the leftist agenda”, not children, issued a directive to its members that they should ask both parents and children about guns in the home, so that they could add them to the children’s medical records; where due to HIPAA, they could then be accessed by many government agencies.

The idea was insidious, that if the state Child Protective Agency investigated the parents, their ownership of guns would be “one factor” in determining if their children should be taken away. Likewise, if they wanted to adopt, if they had guns, they could be turned down as adoptive parents.

The coercion was included, that if parents *refused* to tell their pediatrician about their gun ownership, the pediatrician could refuse them services, even if the next nearest pediatrician was 75 or 100 miles away.

As soon as the state of Florida found out about the scheme from upset parents, they passed a law forbidding such inquiries. And not wanting their scheme thwarted, the AAP filed suit, alleging that the doctor’s first amendment rights were violated by not being able to do this.

Initially, not knowing any better, I would hope, a federal judge found in favor of the AAP, and overturned the law, but the state appealed. Now a 3 judge panel has reinstated the law. The AAP will undoubtedly appeal to the entire circuit court en banc.

As an aside, the AAPs behavior on this and other circumstances, led a former AAP president to set up a conservative pediatric association, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), whose interests are solely about the medical care of children, not radical leftist politics.

Bottom line is that, if you have children whose pediatrician belongs to the AAP, you need a new pediatrician, because the AAP is one of the most radical leftist medical associations out there.


14 posted on 07/29/2014 2:33:15 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Few years back I’d agree with you and say this was unconstitutional.

However Obamacare has turned doctors into agents of the government. So the government gets to dictate what gets asked and what doesn’t.


15 posted on 07/29/2014 2:33:26 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

If my doctor ever asked me,...”

I have a great internist. Met him and his wife while they were shooting in the adjacent lanes at one of our local ranges. He said he asks people if they own a gun and if they say no, he asks them why not and offers to give them the name and phone number to a local range if they are interested in learning how to protect themselves.

He does not accept any insurance and said he can’t add any new patients for at least six months as he has a very, very busy practice.


16 posted on 07/29/2014 2:35:21 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
If this is what it appears to be, it would be overturned by the scotus. The first amendment protects doctors too. They should be able to ask, but you are not required to answer.

Not necessarily. There are all sorts of limits to our free speech that have been upheld by SCOTUS. For example, you can't ask someone in a job interview if they're married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is. The same logic would apply here... there's no legitimate reason for the doctor to know whether or not a patient owns a gun unless it would affect their treatment (e.g., a patient who is suicidal). In fact, I think there's less of a reason for the doctor to ask about gun ownership than there is for an employer to know if a potential employee is married with kids, and SCOTUS has already upheld those free speech restrictions.

17 posted on 07/29/2014 2:36:25 PM PDT by scouter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I'm not sure I agree with this.And please hang on before labeling me a "RINO gungrabber".Doctors have the right to ask you just about anything."Are you a Nazi?"..."Have you ever been to Cleveland?" "Do you bruise easily?"..."Do you own any firearms?".OTOH,you,the patient,have the right to refuse to answer any such question and you have the right to lie in answering any such question.You also have the right to find another doctor.

The fight here shouldn't be with doctors asking the question...it should be against the doctor ever being allowed to divulge the answers...along the same lines as "lawyer/client privilege".And the fight should be against doctors being required to ask such a question by the government.

18 posted on 07/29/2014 2:47:07 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Yes, you are required to answer

However we are not obligated to speak the truth. Obama is proof.

19 posted on 07/29/2014 2:49:16 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (Because Brawndo's got electrolytes. Because Ethanol has Big Corn Lobby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: scouter

I mean, if they’ve been upheld by the SCOTUS, why it MUST be Constitutional, eh?

Interesting my copy of said document contains no such exemptions; nor does it specify the SCOTUS to be the end all of what is/not Constitutional.

Here I was, all this time, thinking is was We the People that decided and had Inalienable Rights...yes, HEAVY /s


20 posted on 07/29/2014 2:51:13 PM PDT by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

I don’t have that option.


21 posted on 07/29/2014 2:51:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Simple answer is ‘NO’.
If you say ‘None of your business’ or similar it will be construed to mean ‘yes’ but I’m not admitting it.
Just say No.


22 posted on 07/29/2014 3:08:10 PM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They should be barred by law from asking any question like that. It would be impossible in most cases to try to prove that they mistreated a patient based on any answer to that kind of question (trying to prove what a medical racket person said in private to an insurer or what such person did to otherwise mistreat a patient).


23 posted on 07/29/2014 3:13:04 PM PDT by familyop ("Dry land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!" - -Deacon character, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Just say no! :)


24 posted on 07/29/2014 3:18:14 PM PDT by rangerwife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If a doctor asks you this, chances are *excellent* that the doctor is being coerced in some way to ask it. Notice that a doctor this past week shot a murdering patient in Penn--

Probably, since the doctor also is recording what you say, that it is not a good idea to be a belligerent smart a%%. You can lie to a doctor, unless it is some kind of application for a job or a license. Then, do NOT lie to the doctor.

25 posted on 07/29/2014 3:35:01 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I just finished two weeks of jury duty. That question was on the questionnaire that we all had to fill out.

I, of course, answered that I didn't own any guns.

There was also a question pertaining to gun control laws and if I approved of gun control.

I answered that when guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens, then only criminals will have guns. I should have added, that potentially includes the police.

In addiction, I wrote that the defendant, who was pleading not guilty to 1st degree attempted murder, 1st degree assault and attempted assault, needed to man-up, accept his punishment, get out of prison, get his life straightened out and become a good citizen.

The judge called me in and questioned me at length. I maintained that he was guilty and that I didn't believe in innocence until proven guilty. I was excused.

26 posted on 07/29/2014 3:55:11 PM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

I didn’t say it was constitutional. I said the supreme court was not necessarily going to overturn it, based on the fact that they’ve already upheld other limits on free speech.


27 posted on 07/29/2014 4:18:21 PM PDT by scouter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good law, when my doctor once asked me about gun ownership I lost all respect for him. He can’t function as my doctor if I don’t respect him.


28 posted on 07/29/2014 4:26:46 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
The first amendment protects doctors too.

Can't see how 1st amendment has anything to do with a private conversation.
29 posted on 07/29/2014 4:49:50 PM PDT by caveat emptor (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

...and oh so typical of your “friends” at the NRA to come up with more feel good legislation. How about lobbying Congress to rid us of some good old “shall not be infringed”, instead of this crap.


30 posted on 07/29/2014 5:21:57 PM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
For some odd reason, you and several other posters intentionally missed the entire point of why there was a court case in the first place.
Odd, but noted.

The “questioning” was a thinly veiled and illegal government attempt to create a gun owner registration list, via searchable private medical records.
Require MDs to have the query on their intake forms.
Require the forms to be entered into a searchable government database.

Nice try, no cigar.

31 posted on 07/29/2014 5:22:01 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

my answer is that i don’t discuss my self-defense requirements with anyone i don’t live with.


32 posted on 07/29/2014 5:54:36 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
The “questioning” was a thinly veiled and illegal government attempt to create a gun owner registration list, via searchable private medical records.

Is this a *fear* or an *established fact*?

Require MDs to have the query on their intake forms.

Ditto above

Require the forms to be entered into a searchable government database.

Ditto above

33 posted on 07/29/2014 5:57:42 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: scouter

For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.


And that is baloney too. I used to be a real estate agent in the Seattle area. You couldn’t use words or phrases like “family room” or “homogeneous neighborhood”, etc.

It is all a violation of the first amendment. The way they got away with it was that you had to be licensed. You could lose your license.

Sleazy. We are not free.

When I moved to central, KY, one of the proofs we are much more free here was when I saw a pickup truck at a traffic light, with four people riding in the bed. I’ve gone back in time 50 years in some very real - and good - ways.


34 posted on 07/29/2014 6:07:00 PM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“If this is what it appears to be, it would be overturned by the scotus. The first amendment protects doctors too. They should be able to ask, but you are not required to answer.”

The First Amendment is for POLITICAL SPEECH. This is a case of doctors trying to help the government TAKE GUNS. Well...maybe you have a point, come to think of it - it is definitely a political policy.


35 posted on 07/29/2014 6:44:59 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
It is and was established as factual, intentional and an unconstitutional threat to citizens by government.

Hense the many court cases, the new law forbidding it, etc.

I don't mind politely correcting simple factual ignorance, but quite frankly, dealing with your VERY obviously feigned stupidity on this topic, is almost a complete waste of time.

(Descriptive paragraph of your useless contributions self-deleted)

Have a nice life.

36 posted on 07/29/2014 6:46:35 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“...but you are not required to answer.”

And with you not answering, they check Block 3, which means likely has guns and is belligerent.


37 posted on 07/29/2014 6:46:45 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

“Good.I wouldn’t answer any questions like that anyway.”

Also Block 3, due to having a problem admitting to having guns.


38 posted on 07/29/2014 6:47:30 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“My doctor has the right to ask me if I own guns, and I have the right to tell him it’s none of his business.”

Sorry, the doctor will also check off Block 3, due to hostile nature of response.


39 posted on 07/29/2014 6:48:33 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BobL

The First Amendment is for POLITICAL SPEECH.


Actually, that is no true. It protects speech. It has been used by pornographers to defend their material.


40 posted on 07/29/2014 6:51:09 PM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I give up.

It looks like just about EVERYONE here will get Block 3 checked off, with Block 3 meaning “likely owns guns, and is belligerent or hostile”.

Block 2 is: “owns guns, but appears to understand the responsibilities of ownership”. You get that if you admit to having guns, but politely answer all questions.

Block 1 is: “appears to not own guns and answered question politely”. You get that mark, of course, if you respectfully say no.

I prefer to be classified as Block 1, in case I ever need to call the police.


41 posted on 07/29/2014 6:52:18 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scouter

“For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married, or if they have kids, or what their religion is.”

...and one can make a MUCH STRONGER case that these above questions are relevant regarding how the person will perform on the job - then knowing whether the child might get sick, just because a gun is in the house.


42 posted on 07/29/2014 6:56:14 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BobL

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


43 posted on 07/29/2014 6:58:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Thanks, I had seen that before...believe me it’s engraved in my soul.


44 posted on 07/29/2014 7:04:20 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“Actually, that is no true. It protects speech. It has been used by pornographers to defend their material.”

Maybe, but if that were the case, as others posted here (in effect), then realtors could say something like “blacks not welcome” in their listings. Free speech died at least 50 years ago in the US...in some cases for the better (as above), and in many cases for the worse.

...if we’re going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too.


45 posted on 07/29/2014 7:06:51 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BobL

...if we’re going to regulate speech, which of course we do, then we might as well benefit from it too


I disagree.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

He has been proven right.


46 posted on 07/29/2014 7:21:03 PM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I disagree.”

I guess we’ll disagree...I just prefer my kids not be interrogated by their doctor regarding guns (which did happen here, about 10 years ago).


47 posted on 07/29/2014 7:26:37 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean
Good.I wouldn’t answer any questions like that anyway.

Not answering, is still answering what they really want to know. They are making lists and checking them twice to make sure they don't miss anyone.

48 posted on 07/30/2014 1:32:56 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; scouter
For example, you can’t ask someone in a job interview if they’re married,

They can't ask how old you are either, but they can ask when you graduated from High School.

49 posted on 07/30/2014 1:40:10 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BobL

So?


50 posted on 07/30/2014 5:39:57 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson