US Court Upholds "Safe Space" for Florida Gun Owners

[ivwshane]

The mental gymnastics of advocating for medical professionals to ask questions that have nothing to do with medical matters is simply amazing in this thread. One can only imagine if we had med staffs asking everyone about their immigration status what the outcry would be. LOL@GunGrabbers...any and every way to get that mm towards the mile of gun grab...

No one is advocating doctors to ask certain questions. The only one doing any mental gymnastics is you trying to spin this. You want to limit what doctors can ask and how they do their job we don't.

 

[nickqt]

No one is advocating doctors to ask certain questions. The only one doing any mental gymnastics is you trying to spin this. You want to limit what doctors can ask and how they do their job we don't.

Listen, you may be right, but the gun grab is comin'.

Wanna know how I know? Because gun fondlers have been saying it for decades, and, like, our first Marxist Kenyan President was just elected and will take office in 2009!

We gotta guard against the incoming gun grab!

Buy more guns! Buy more ammo! Purchase extra NRA memberships for your unborn children!

*This ad brought to you buy the gun manufacturers of America, and the rest of the world. Be afraid, and give us your money, rubes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Listen, you may be right, but the gun grab is comin'.

Wanna know how I know? Because gun fondlers have been saying it for decades, and, like, our first Marxist Kenyan President was just elected and will take office in 2009!

We gotta guard against the incoming gun grab!

Buy more guns! Buy more ammo! Purchase extra NRA memberships for your unborn children!

*This ad brought to you buy the gun manufacturers of America, and the rest of the world. Be afraid, and give us your money, rubes.

You forgot that Obama suspended the constitution and declared himself "Dictator for Life" just after he was elected.

 

[nickqt]

You forgot that Obama suspended the constitution and declared himself "Dictator for Life" just after he was elected.

Shhh!

I didn't forget. You must have missed the memo that the DNC and Soros sent out. We're supposed to keep quiet about that until after the Jade Helm operation is over and all US Walmarts can act as forward operating bases to take away the gun fondler's guns before sending them to FEMA re-education camp to be gay married to their uncles.

 

[Paratus]

You forgot that Obama suspended the constitution and declared himself "Dictator for Life" just after he was elected.

There's no amount of money and manpower righties aren't willing to throw at terrorism. No rights they aren't willing to give up, (except the 2nd of course).


But have a Dr ask if they own a gun and routinely secure it, holy shit! And yet toddlers with guns killed more Americans than foreign terrorists last year. .

 

[MrPickins]

Listen, you may be right, but the gun grab is comin'.

Wanna know how I know? Because gun fondlers have been saying it for decades, and, like, our first Marxist Kenyan President was just elected and will take office in 2009!

We gotta guard against the incoming gun grab!

Buy more guns! Buy more ammo! Purchase extra NRA memberships for your unborn children!

*This ad brought to you buy the gun manufacturers of America, and the rest of the world. Be afraid, and give us your money, rubes.

People believing this stuff is exactly why I can't find .22lr ammo at B&M stores anymore :|

 

[glenn1]

People believing this stuff is exactly why I can't find .22lr ammo at B&M stores anymore :|

Where are you shopping and what quantity are you trying to get? I've not have any problems getting it but then again I'm not trying to buy a dozen ammo cans worth either.

 

[MrPickins]

Where are you shopping and what quantity are you trying to get? I've not have any problems getting it but then again I'm not trying to buy a dozen ammo cans worth either.

I'm honestly not looking that hard (I have a few thousand rounds in reserve), but I never see it on the shelves at Academy or Walmart when I'm in there.

I remember the days where the shelves were stocked with cheap bricks of .22, though.

 

[QuantumPion]

I like doctors being required to ask about gun ownership. I tell my doctor about all of the machine guns, flame throwers, missile launchers, and nuclear bombs I own. The government can't do anything about it, because according to the supreme court, the right of privacy between a patient and his doctor is sacrosanct and no regulation or law of any kind is allowed to interfere with what goes on between myself and my doctor.

 

[shortylickens]

I like doctors being required to ask about gun ownership. I tell my doctor about all of the machine guns, flame throwers, missile launchers, and nuclear bombs I own. The government can't do anything about it, because according to the supreme court, the right of privacy between a patient and his doctor is sacrosanct and no regulation or law of any kind is allowed to interfere with what goes on between myself and my doctor.

Your doctor can tell the authorities anything if he believes you are going to hurt yourself or someone else.

And if you brag about machine guns and flamethrowers, he can honestly say he was worried.

 

[fskimospy]

I like doctors being required to ask about gun ownership. I tell my doctor about all of the machine guns, flame throwers, missile launchers, and nuclear bombs I own. The government can't do anything about it, because according to the supreme court, the right of privacy between a patient and his doctor is sacrosanct and no regulation or law of any kind is allowed to interfere with what goes on between myself and my doctor.

Doctors aren't required to ask about gun ownership. Not sure where you got that idea. The big government compulsion is coming from 'small government' conservatives who are trying to tell doctors what they can and cannot ask.

 

[nickqt]

Your doctor can tell the authorities anything if he believes you are going to hurt yourself or someone else.

And if you brag about machine guns and flamethrowers, he can honestly say he was worried.

That is incorrect.

Doctors aren't required to ask about gun ownership. Not sure where you got that idea. The big government compulsion is coming from 'small government' conservatives who are trying to tell doctors what they can and cannot ask.

The delusional conservative doesn't have a grasp on reality - hence its delusions that somehow, somewhere, doctors are required to ask about gun ownership.

Just hold up a mirror to it, and laugh.

 

[fskimospy]

As expected this law was struck down 10-1 by the 11th circuit. They left an anti-discrimination section stand, but the main portions of the bill were eliminated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-patients-about-guns/?utm_term=.a290cfbe9b56

Here's a quote from the concurrence that addresses some of the silly arguments in this thread:

Health-related information is more important than most topics because it affects matters of life and death. Doctors help patients make deeply personal decisions, and their candor is crucial. If anything, the doctor-patient relationship provides more justification for free speech, not less.

If we upheld the Act, we could set a precedent for many other restrictions of potentially unpopular speech. Think of everything the government might seek to ban between doctor and patient as supposedly “irrelevant” to the practice of medicine. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to ban discussion of religion between doctor and patient. The state could stop a surgeon from praying with his patient before surgery or punish a Christian doctor for asking patients if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or punish an atheist for telling his patient that religious belief is delusional. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to censor political speech by doctors. The state might prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to vote in favor of universal health care or prohibit a physician from criticizing the Affordable Care Act. Some might argue that such topics are irrelevant to a particular patient’s immediate medical needs, but the First Amendment ensures that doctors cannot be threatened with state punishment for speech even if it goes beyond diagnosis and treatment.

These examples do not even begin to address the number of highly controversial topics that doctors discuss as a direct part of their medical responsibilities. Could a state prohibit a pro-life doctor from discouraging a patient from aborting her unborn child? Could a state prohibit a doctor from advising a patient about sex-reassignment surgery? Could a state prohibit a doctor from advising parents to vaccinate their children? Could a state prohibit a doctor from recommending abstinence or encouraging safe sexual behavior? What about organ donation or surrogacy or terminal care? What about drugs or alcohol or tobacco? Could a state legislature prevent a doctor from explaining the risks or benefits of a vegan diet? Or prevent a doctor from explaining the risks or benefits of playing football? This type of thought experiment should give us pause. If today the majority can censor so-called “heresy,” then tomorrow a new majority can censor what was yesterday so-called “orthodoxy.”

 

[momeNt]

As a staunch constitutionalist who was woefully unaware of this law's attempted passage. I can say I am disappointed in 2nd amendmenters trying to defend this bill.

I think this was a way to end-around stop medical information from restricting your ability to own guns, IE. Obama executive order trying to add social security information to the background check on the Brady Bill. I think 2nd amendment should be protected in different ways than restricting free speech.

If the conversation approaches what you feel is harassment, I think finding another doctor or complaining is probably a better route.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow! Well, I see two possible positive outcomes here. The first is that since the doctor can't discuss the dangers of owning a gun that these special snow flakes we call gun owners, may just help increase the amount of suicides by guns and maybe their kids will be killed and their bloodlines will be ended. I kid of course.

However the other possible positive of this, is now right to choose advocates and planned parenthood will now have a solid talk track and case against all these abortion laws where the government is actually forcing doctors to say certain things about abortion.


Luckily for us, Florida will probably not exist because of global warming and the rising seas.

What are the consequences of patients saying "I consider this a private matter and do not wish to discuss it"?

Yes that's a serious question. The second one is about the nature of this conversation. Is it something a physician can discuss or are they legally mandated to do so? That would seem to be the state directly inserting itself into the patient/practioner relationship.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for doctors to ask about guns if THEY feel it appropriate but the patient should have the right without repercussions to not discuss, or do so for that matter. Seems basic first amendment stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

What are the consequences of patients saying "I consider this a private matter and do not wish to discuss it"?

There are no consequences.

Yes that's a serious question. The second one is about the nature of this conversation. Is it something a physician can discuss or are they legally mandated to do so? That would seem to be the state directly inserting itself into the patient/practioner relationship.

It's something that the physician can discuss if they choose to. The law in question was trying to prevent doctors from discussing gun ownership.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for doctors to ask about guns if THEY feel it appropriate but the patient should have the right without repercussions to not discuss, or do so for that matter. Seems basic first amendment stuff.

That's how the law was before Florida passed this bill, and thankfully that's how the law is again. Doctors are free to practice medicine as they see fit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are no consequences.



It's something that the physician can discuss if they choose to. The law in question was trying to prevent doctors from discussing gun ownership.



That's how the law was before Florida passed this bill, and thankfully that's how the law is again. Doctors are free to practice medicine as they see fit.

Excellent, thanks!

 

[HumblePie]

And the fourth part was the part of the law I agreed with when I originally made a post in this thread. Don't care if doctors ask so long as I can tell them it's none of their business and they can't refuse service from that. Although truth be told that if a doctor asked me that, I certainly wouldn't be visiting their office anymore in the first place. It's one thing if a doctor has a pamphlet in their little rack of pamphlets about "hey did you know about this thing..", but if a doctor asks me about gun ownership or starts to pontificate to me about some fear mongering potential dangers, I'm just going to go elsewhere.

Still if I lived in an area where that was the only doctor I could see, I would be pissed if I was refused service or given lesser service due to me telling the doctor to move to a different topic.

 

[momeNt]

And the fourth part was the part of the law I agreed with when I originally made a post in this thread. Don't care if doctors ask so long as I can tell them it's none of their business and they can't refuse service from that. Although truth be told that if a doctor asked me that, I certainly wouldn't be visiting their office anymore in the first place. It's one thing if a doctor has a pamphlet in their little rack of pamphlets about "hey did you know about this thing..", but if a doctor asks me about gun ownership or starts to pontificate to me about some fear mongering potential dangers, I'm just going to go elsewhere.

Still if I lived in an area where that was the only doctor I could see, I would be pissed if I was refused service or given lesser service due to me telling the doctor to move to a different topic.

If you lived in an area where that was the only doctor you could see, that doctor probably owns more guns than you do.

 

[HumblePie]

If you lived in an area where that was the only doctor you could see, that doctor probably owns more guns than you do.

maybe... maybe not.

 

[TheVrolok]

And the fourth part was the part of the law I agreed with when I originally made a post in this thread. Don't care if doctors ask so long as I can tell them it's none of their business and they can't refuse service from that. Although truth be told that if a doctor asked me that, I certainly wouldn't be visiting their office anymore in the first place. It's one thing if a doctor has a pamphlet in their little rack of pamphlets about "hey did you know about this thing..", but if a doctor asks me about gun ownership or starts to pontificate to me about some fear mongering potential dangers, I'm just going to go elsewhere.

Still if I lived in an area where that was the only doctor I could see, I would be pissed if I was refused service or given lesser service due to me telling the doctor to move to a different topic.

Just for rhetoric's sake, why is asking about gun ownership different than asking about drug use, diet, exercise, seat belts, sunscreen, etc?

 

[ivwshane]

Just for rhetoric's sake, why is asking about gun ownership different than asking about drug use, diet, exercise, seat belts, sunscreen, etc?

Obviously he's a special snowflake and he knows what questions a doctor should ask better than the doctor does.

 

[Smoblikat]

Owning a firearm is associated with a higher risk of injury or death. That's pretty obviously a public health issue and it is entirely appropriate for doctors to discuss harm mitigation with their patients.

Are gun owners really so insecure that they don't even want to hear information about how they may have made a foolish decision?

Out of curioisty, why dont doctors ask if you own a car? Or have sharp kitchen knives in the house? Paint thinner? Bleach under your sink? It seems to me there are a lot of "public health issues" that can easily lead to injury or death that are specifically not covered. Gun ownership is just as irrelevant as any of the others I mentioned.

 

[fskimospy]

Out of curioisty, why dont doctors ask if you own a car? Or have sharp kitchen knives in the house? Paint thinner? Bleach under your sink? It seems to me there are a lot of "public health issues" that can easily lead to injury or death that are specifically not covered. Gun ownership is just as irrelevant as any of the others I mentioned.

Doctors don't ask most people if they own a car because it is assumed that they do. They DO ask people with small children if they are securing their child correctly in the car, they definitely ask if sharp and dangerous objects are out of the reach of children, and they definitely give information to parents as to how to store poisonous materials out of the range of children so that people don't get heart. They do this because all of these objects, just like a gun, are threats to the health of household members if stored and used improperly.

So really the answer to your question is: Doctors ask about all of those things because they are all relevant, just like gun ownership.

More importantly though, I'll direct you back to the concurrence I quoted:

If we upheld the Act, we could set a precedent for many other restrictions of potentially unpopular speech. Think of everything the government might seek to ban between doctor and patient as supposedly “irrelevant” to the practice of medicine. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to ban discussion of religion between doctor and patient. The state could stop a surgeon from praying with his patient before surgery or punish a Christian doctor for asking patients if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or punish an atheist for telling his patient that religious belief is delusional. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to censor political speech by doctors. The state might prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to vote in favor of universal health care or prohibit a physician from criticizing the Affordable Care Act. Some might argue that such topics are irrelevant to a particular patient’s immediate medical needs, but the First Amendment ensures that doctors cannot be threatened with state punishment for speech even if it goes beyond diagnosis and treatment.

These examples do not even begin to address the number of highly controversial topics that doctors discuss as a direct part of their medical responsibilities. Could a state prohibit a pro-life doctor from discouraging a patient from aborting her unborn child? Could a state prohibit a doctor from advising a patient about sex-reassignment surgery? Could a state prohibit a doctor from advising parents to vaccinate their children? Could a state prohibit a doctor from recommending abstinence or encouraging safe sexual behavior? What about organ donation or surrogacy or terminal care? What about drugs or alcohol or tobacco? Could a state legislature prevent a doctor from explaining the risks or benefits of a vegan diet? Or prevent a doctor from explaining the risks or benefits of playing football? This type of thought experiment should give us pause. If today the majority can censor so-called “heresy,” then tomorrow a new majority can censor what was yesterday so-called “orthodoxy.”

The idea that legislators should be deciding what doctors can speak to their patients about and not the doctors themselves is deeply dangerous and violates the 1st amendment. Why not let doctors decide what's best?

 

[momeNt]

There are no consequences.



It's something that the physician can discuss if they choose to. The law in question was trying to prevent doctors from discussing gun ownership.



That's how the law was before Florida passed this bill, and thankfully that's how the law is again. Doctors are free to practice medicine as they see fit.

The opinion seems kind of flim-flam on consequences and anti-discrimination

D. It provided that patients may “decline to answer or provide any information regarding ownership [or home possession] of a firearm,” though such a refusal “does not alter existing law regarding a physician’s authorization to choose his or her patients.” Nonetheless, it provided that doctors “may not discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient’s exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms or ammunition.” This suggests that doctors could turn away patients for refusing to answer questions about guns (so long as they are “relevant” based on “some particularized information about the individual patient”) but could not turn away patients for answering the questions with “yes, I own a gun.”

No government consequences of course, which I think is maybe what you are referring to. But the doctor either does or does not have the right to drop the patient depending on the answer.... kind of weird.

Just for rhetoric's sake, why is asking about gun ownership different than asking about drug use, diet, exercise, seat belts, sunscreen, etc?

There are a lot of things that doctors don't ask you about that have to do with your own personal safety. I personally have never been asked about seat belts. I tell them I am in a construction related field and they never ask if I wear proper hearing protection, eye protection, hard hat, etc. Yet those can all become medical issues later on. I also tell them I have a desk job and they never talk to me about the ergonomics of an office environment, carpal tunnel, etc.

I think the biggest reason is pushback from the "agenda" of medicine to circulate gun deaths as a public health issue.

Does anybody know how these conversations go? Is it like a doctor asking if you are sexually active and if you use protection? Do they ask if you practice safe handling and safe storage?