US Court Upholds "Safe Space" for Florida Gun Owners

[ivwshane]

I'm not supporting this one, or complaining about yours. I'm saying your state should be free to pass whatever nanny state laws you like without interference. In *my* state my vote would be against any and all nanny state laws. In your state you can vote for or against any nanny state laws as you see fit.



Okay, at least you're consistent. I of course agree with you but as I said earlier if smaller units of government want to voluntarily choose via their laws to refrain from certain non-political speech (what the First Amendment covers) then have at it. In certain ways I'd be happy if my state agreed to never allow certain things to be heard aloud, Justin Beiber music being the first example I can think of.

You apparently don't know how our government works. Because states can indeed pass any law they want but their laws are superseded by federal law.

You are simply trying to contort your views to support a fucked up law because you are a partisan hack who is too short sighted to see how fucked up this law is.

 

[HumblePie]

Exactly, freedom of speech! The answer is to find a different doctor if they ask you stupid questions or hit on your daughter, not ban it through some legislative act.

So then we should allow doctors to continue to tell people that circumcision makes for a healthier child or prevents masturbation then? Doctors aren't like other people. Joe blow off the street telling me X drug can cure my illness is not going to have the same impact as my doctor telling me that. And if the doctor telling me that is doing so because they are getting a kickback from some agency to promote that info, which could be very wrong, then I have problem with legislation stepping in when it gets out of hand. That's the point of legislation. Which is why I'm fine with this at a smaller state or even small level of governance. I would have a harder problem with such a law on a national level unless there was a national reason for it.

 

[ivwshane]

So then we should allow doctors to continue to tell people that circumcision makes for a healthier child or prevents masturbation then? Doctors aren't like other people. Joe blow off the street telling me X drug can cure my illness is not going to have the same impact as my doctor telling me that. And if the doctor telling me that is doing so because they are getting a kickback from some agency to promote that info, which could be very wrong, then I have problem with legislation stepping in when it gets out of hand. That's the point of legislation. Which is why I'm fine with this at a smaller state or even small level of governance. I would have a harder problem with such a law on a national level unless there was a national reason for it.

What does any of that have to do with this law/ruling? How about doctors not being able to tell you something because the lobby backed politician who is receiving kick backs passes a law baring doctors from talking to their patience about certain things?

 

[fskimospy]

So then we should allow doctors to continue to tell people that circumcision makes for a healthier child or prevents masturbation then? Doctors aren't like other people. Joe blow off the street telling me X drug can cure my illness is not going to have the same impact as my doctor telling me that. And if the doctor telling me that is doing so because they are getting a kickback from some agency to promote that info, which could be very wrong, then I have problem with legislation stepping in when it gets out of hand. That's the point of legislation. Which is why I'm fine with this at a smaller state or even small level of governance. I would have a harder problem with such a law on a national level unless there was a national reason for it.

All of those things you mentioned are already illegal or open the doctor up to liability in a civil suit. You are conflating a doctor deliberately or negligently telling you false things with them asking you a question. They are nowhere even remotely similar.

 

[glenn1]

You apparently don't know how our government works. Because states can indeed pass any law they want but their laws are superseded by federal law.

You are simply trying to contort your views to support a fucked up law because you are a partisan hack who is too short sighted to see how fucked up this law is.

If you insist on harassing people about their poor lifestyle choices, you can just hire my mother-in-law to do it and save the doctor's time and money.

Honestly if you want to improve this law, you could do so by codifying this as a non medically relevant question and disallowing payment for the visit if the doctor asks it. Then they can ask away with First Amendment impunity and the rest of us don't pay for him to satisfy his urge to be a lifestyle coach instead of medical doctor.

 

[HumblePie]

All of those things you mentioned are already illegal or open the doctor up to liability in a civil suit. You are conflating a doctor deliberately or negligently telling you false things with them asking you a question. They are nowhere even remotely similar.

But it's free speech!!!!!!

Doctors are already constrained by what they can and cannot say to patients. The law just states that medical advice and questions should directly pertain to health of the patient only. Asking any patient if they own a gun is NOT a subject the doctor should be asking because for the average person it poses no additional health risk. Now asking a patient suffering from severe depression for some reason is a good reason to have a doctor ask such questions. Because someone suffering from certain maladies may hurt themselves or others if they have access to a firearm.

But thanks for making my point even if you were thinking the opposite.

 

[fskimospy]

But it's free speech!!!!!!

Doctors are already constrained by what they can and cannot say to patients. The law just states that medical advice and questions should directly pertain to health of the patient only.

/facepalm. No one is arguing for absolute freedom of speech, we are arguing against purposeless restrictions on freedom of speech.

In this case as in all others, the government needs to show a compelling interest in restricting someone's speech. Preventing doctors from knowingly making false statements to their patients is an obvious compelling interest. Preventing doctors from asking if someone owns a gun is pretty obviously not.

It's odd that I have to explain pretty simple legal concepts to someone who claims to have superior knowledge of the law to actual practicing lawyers.

Asking any patient if they own a gun is NOT a subject the doctor should be asking because for the average person it poses no additional health risk. Now asking a patient suffering from severe depression for some reason is a good reason to have a doctor ask such questions. Because someone suffering from certain maladies may hurt themselves or others if they have access to a firearm.

I've got a novel idea, let's let the people with actual medical experience and knowledge determine how they should practice medicine.

But thanks for making my point even if you were thinking the opposite.

If you think I made your point you seriously need to go re-read what I wrote.

 

[HumblePie]

What does any of that have to do with this law/ruling? How about doctors not being able to tell you something because the lobby backed politician who is receiving kick backs passes a law baring doctors from talking to their patience about certain things?

Because incentive pressures can arise from the outside for this. Many places had to inact laws preventing the direct solicitation of drug and medical equipment to doctors.

Many a pharma company has sent reps to doctor offices where ever they can with all sorts of promotional material and incentives in an attempt to get doctors to prescribe their medication more. This is now considered illegal in many places because many times doctors were prescribing things they shouldn't just to get the kickback incentives from the pharma companies. Which in turn caused harm to their patients.

Again, read above where it doesn't take much for the government to reduce medicaid payouts to a doctor if they haven't asked a certain percentage of their patients if they own a gun. Or even other groups that don't necessarily have to be government in nature.

The law itself does not prevent any doctor in Florida from providing adequate care for any patient that requires it. It does help protect patient privacy though as many people would unwittingly tell doctors something they shouldn't because they view doctors differently. Doctors and priests get told all sorts of things that people wouldn't tell anyone else in the world.

 

[fskimospy]

If you insist on harassing people about their poor lifestyle choices, you can just hire my mother-in-law to do it and save the doctor's time and money.

Honestly if you want to improve this law, you could do so by codifying this as a non medically relevant question and disallowing payment for the visit if the doctor asks it. Then they can ask away with First Amendment impunity and the rest of us don't pay for him to satisfy his urge to be a lifestyle coach instead of medical doctor.

I'm pretty sure that would be impossible. You could disallow payment for that question if the doctor billed for it individually, but if it's part of a larger, medically relevant physical or whatever you would have no leg to stand on.

I mean when the doctor asks you if you saw the football game last night it's not medically relevant but it's not like the insurance company can be like "GOTCHA!" and then not pay for the visit.

 

[HumblePie]

/facepalm. No one is arguing for absolute freedom of speech, we are arguing against purposeless restrictions on freedom of speech.

In this case as in all others, the government needs to show a compelling interest in restricting someone's speech. Preventing doctors from knowingly making false statements to their patients is an obvious compelling interest. Preventing doctors from asking if someone owns a gun is pretty obviously not.

It's odd that I have to explain pretty simple legal concepts to someone who claims to have superior knowledge of the law to actual practicing lawyers.

Again, because YOU, eski, are not able to see/understand the compelling reasons that have been stated by many in this thread and by the opinions of the court doesn't mean such reasons do not exist. The reasons do not have to be medical in nature just because they are doctors.

I've got a novel idea, let's let the people with actual medical experience and knowledge determine how they should practice medicine.

If you think I made your point you seriously need to go re-read what I wrote.

There you go with logic fallacy of authority again. So we should let every CEO of the country decide exactly how to run their business anyway they want right? Or every bank manager handle loans anyway they want? Or allow doctors to solicit any advice they want to give. Regulations in many cases exist for a reason. Just because someone is experienced in a field doesn't mean they know everything that is best for that field.


Here's a puzzle for you. How does having the doctor ask if people own firearms and possibly recording that information have any affect on the patient care of any patient that isn't displaying suicidal tenancies or suffering from a mental illness? What potential medical benefit could possibly be served by asking every patient their gun ownership status?

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a puzzle for you. How does having the doctor ask if people own firearms and possibly recording that information have any affect on the patient care of any patient that isn't displaying suicidal tenancies or suffering from a mental illness? What potential medical benefit could possibly be served by asking every patient their gun owner status?

That's really easy.

A large number of guns are left in unlocked areas and are either loaded or are near ammunition. Guns stored in such a manner represent a direct risk to the health of the patient and to the health of his or her family, especially if they have small children.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, because YOU, eski, are not able to see/understand the compelling reasons that have been stated by many in this thread and by the opinions of the court doesn't mean such reasons do not exist. The reasons do not have to be medical in nature just because they are doctors.

Yes, I've said repeatedly I found those reasons to be laughably inadequate. That's why I expect this ruling to be overturned.

There you go with logic fallacy of authority again. So we should let every CEO of the country decide exactly how to run their business anyway they want right? Or every bank manager handle loans anyway they want? Or allow doctors to solicit any advice they want to give. Regulations in many cases exist for a reason. Just because someone is experienced in a field doesn't mean they know everything that is best for that field.

I don't think you understand logical fallacies very well. You made a statement based on exactly zero evidence that asking a question about gun ownership served no medical purpose. You were just offering an ignorant and uninformed opinion.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people with far greater education and experience than you who clearly DO find asking that question to have a medical purpose. While this doesn't mean they MUST be right (that would be an appeal to authority), in the absence of literally any shred of evidence to the contrary from you, common sense dictates we go with the opinion of the experts.

 

[HumblePie]

That's really easy.

A large number of guns are left in unlocked areas and are either loaded or are near ammunition. Guns stored in such a manner represent a direct risk to the health of the patient and to the health of his or her family, especially if they have small children.

Large number huh? 300 million guns estimated in the US and only 18K result in suicides or accidental deaths per year on average. How many kids die from drinking house hold chemicals by accident every year? Far more than that

Again we don't have doctors asking everyone if they own bleach or cosmetic products at home if they have children under the age of 6.

A simple blanket state to parents of such households that they go through and identify any potential dangers in their home for their children with a pamphlet or website to help them identify dangers and what to potentially do about them is one thing. The law does not prevent such an approach made by the doctors. It prevents direct asking of gun ownership status which is seriously none of the doctors business to know if his or her patient owns a gun or not. It provides zero medical benefit to the average person.

I think you are conflating and confusing yourself here about the purpose of the law and what it does and doesn't prevent. The law allows doctors to educate anyone about the potential dangers of guns, but doesn't allow doctors to KNOW the ownership status of their patients outside very specific circumstances. That isn't a freedom of speech issue as you keep thinking it is.

 

[glenn1]

That's really easy.

A large number of guns are left in unlocked areas and are either loaded or are near ammunition. Guns stored in such a manner represent a direct risk to the health of the patient and to the health of his or her family, especially if they have small children.

Well then let's have police officers inquire about mental illness when they stop people as well. Someone with depression may decide to drive into oncoming traffic and this represents a direct risk to their health and to the health of his or her family, especially if they have small children.

Or maybe your accountant should ask you about lead paint in your house, because likewise that represents a risk. Or your doctor can ask about whether your portfolio is diversified, because financial loss due to declining markets can cause stress that leads to health risks.

 

[Paratus]

Large number huh? 300 million guns estimated in the US and only 18K result in suicides or accidental deaths per year on average. How many kids die from drinking house hold chemicals by accident every year? Far more than that

Again we don't have doctors asking everyone if they own bleach or cosmetic products at home if they have children under the age of 6.

A simple blanket state to parents of such households that they go through and identify any potential dangers in their home for their children with a pamphlet or website to help them identify dangers and what to potentially do about them is one thing. The law does not prevent such an approach made by the doctors. It prevents direct asking of gun ownership status which is seriously none of the doctors business to know if his or her patient owns a gun or not. It provides zero medical benefit to the average person.

I think you are conflating and confusing yourself here about the purpose of the law and what it does and doesn't prevent. The law allows doctors to educate anyone about the potential dangers of guns, but doesn't allow doctors to KNOW the ownership status of their patients outside very specific circumstances. That isn't a freedom of speech issue as you keep thinking it is.

Have you ever taken a child to the pediatrician? Ever? I'm serious.

 

[fskimospy]

Large number huh? 300 million guns estimated in the US and only 18K result in suicides or accidental deaths per year on average. How many kids die from drinking house hold chemicals by accident every year? Far more than that

Again we don't have doctors asking everyone if they own bleach or cosmetic products at home if they have children under the age of 6.

Uhmm, I'm pretty sure doctors routinely ask if you have stowed hazardous chemicals in a place your kids can reach them. Where did you get the ridiculous idea into your head that they don't?

A simple blanket state to parents of such households that they go through and identify any potential dangers in their home for their children with a pamphlet or website to help them identify dangers and what to potentially do about them is one thing. The law does not prevent such an approach made by the doctors. It prevents direct asking of gun ownership status which is seriously none of the doctors business to know if his or her patient owns a gun or not. It provides zero medical benefit to the average person.

There you go again making statements about medical benefits based on literally no evidence, education, or experience. You should stop doing this.

I have a novel idea for you, why don't we let the people with actual evidence, education, and experience make those judgments?

I think you are conflating and confusing yourself here about the purpose of the law and what it does and doesn't prevent. The law allows doctors to educate anyone about the potential dangers of guns, but doesn't allow doctors to KNOW the ownership status of their patients outside very specific circumstances. That isn't a freedom of speech issue as you keep thinking it is.

Nope, I'm well aware of it. Definite free speech issue.

 

[HumblePie]

Have you ever taken a child to the pediatrician? Ever? I'm serious.

Yes many times. I have a kids. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I don't mind doctors informing me about high risk things for my kids in the limited time frame I have. such as the ones off the WHO chart for child mortality rates.

I don't mind extra occasional info on some low risk scenarios. More so if I ask about them. It's absolutely none of my doctors business if I own a gun or not.

 

[HumblePie]

Uhmm, I'm pretty sure doctors routinely ask if you have stowed hazardous chemicals in a place your kids can reach them. Where did you get the ridiculous idea into your head that they don't?

Because I know of no pediatrician that has asked what specific chemicals I own in my house. Again there is a difference between general education information health advice being solicited out and doctors asking to know specific details about my household they have no business knowing unless there is a specific fear for the health of the patient they can articulate.

There you go again making statements about medical benefits based on literally no evidence, education, or experience. You should stop doing this.

I have a novel idea for you, why don't we let the people with actual evidence, education, and experience make those judgments?

LOL there you go again with logic fallacy to authority. You really are a broken record on this. Yes stating that only those with experience in the field can make decisions on this IS THE DEFINITION OF THAT LOGIC FALLACY. Please just stop it as your are doing it intentionally now and the next time I reporting it because that is against P&N rules. It's the first rule. You've been told several times now to stop using that logic fallacy.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes many times. I have a kids. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I don't mind doctors informing me about high risk things for my kids in the limited time frame I have. such as the ones off the WHO chart for child mortality rates.

I don't mind extra occasional info on some low risk scenarios. More so if I ask about them. It's absolutely none of my doctors business if I own a gun or not.

Uhmm, that's a chart from the WHO, which is mortality data for all children worldwide, not children in the US. It's entirely irrelevant to our discussion.

I mean did you really think 8% of the deaths of US children came from Malaria? lol.

 

[HumblePie]

Uhmm, that's a chart from the WHO, which is mortality data for all children worldwide, not children in the US. It's entirely irrelevant to our discussion.

I mean did you really think 8% of the deaths of US children came from Malaria? lol.

Fine.. grab the data from the CDC then.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Guns aren't still listed anywhere near the top. Or even over 1%.

 

[fskimospy]

Because I know of no pediatrician that has asked what specific chemicals I own in my house. Again there is a difference between general education information health advice being solicited out and doctors asking to know specific details about my household they have no business knowing unless there is a specific fear for the health of the patient they can articulate.

While I certainly can't speak for your doctor, warnings against improper stowage of household chemicals are commonplace in advice given by medical authorities to new parents.

LOL there you go again with logic fallacy to authority. You really are a broken record on this. Yes stating that only those with experience in the field can make decisions on this IS THE DEFINITION OF THAT LOGIC FALLACY. Please just stop it as your are doing it intentionally now and the next time I reporting it because that is against P&N rules. It's the first rule. You've been told several times now to stop using that logic fallacy.

I have told you repeatedly that you do not understand the terms you are trying to use. I'll try one more time. Here's the wiki article on appeals to authority, I strongly suggest you use it to educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I did not say anywhere that people with experience in the field are the only ones capable of making decisions on it. I said that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is logical to defer to the opinions of experts and you have repeatedly made an assertion for which you have have zero evidence. Since you have no evidence AND no expertise, your opinion is worthless.

This is not complicated. If I were you I would refrain from making statements about people using logical fallacies until you understand them better.

 

[Paratus]

Yes many times. I have a kids. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I don't mind doctors informing me about high risk things for my kids in the limited time frame I have. such as the ones off the WHO chart for child mortality rates.

I don't mind extra occasional info on some low risk scenarios. More so if I ask about them. It's absolutely none of my doctors business if I own a gun or not.

Then you know the doctor does ask about guns, chemicals, pools, car seats, diet, who lives in the house, punishments and other standard things that can effect their health.

While most it is a waste of time with my family it's a useful reminder to Bubba Joe and Bubba Jane who are on their own caring for their first child after he knocked her up on church field tript at 17.

A simple:

do you own a gun?
Yes
Remember to store it locked and unloaded

Impacts no ones second amendment rights.

Your desire to legislate what a doctor can and cannot say directly impacts their 1st amendment rights for no compelling state interest.

So have you walked out on your own pediatrician when she's asked you these types of questions or were you a responsible adult and understood why they were asked?

 

[fskimospy]

Fine.. grab the data from the CDC then.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Guns aren't still listed anywhere near the top. Or even over 1%.

So what? Something doesn't need to be a top cause of death to merit a two second question.

You're clearly just furiously googling and posting whatever you come up with without even reading it. That's why you linked a chart about fucking Malaria deaths, haha.

By the way had you bothered to read the CDC's charts you would have seen that the number of deaths of children by accidental firearm discharge and the number of deaths from accidental ingestion of harmful chemicals are about equal yet before you listed them as an example of something dangerous we don't warn about.

You should really try reading your own links sometime. You might learn something.

 

[glenn1]

Once upon a time medicine was about treatment for disease. Now it's about badgering people about their supposed stupidity and inability to make proper choices without guidance from someone sufficiently educated.

 

[HumblePie]

Then you know the doctor does ask about guns, chemicals, pools, car seats, diet, who lives in the house, punishments and other standard things that can effect their health.

While most it is a waste of time with my family it's a useful reminder to Bubba Joe and Bubba Jane who are on their own caring for their first child after he knocked her up on church field tript at 17.

A simple:

do you own a gun?
Yes
Remember to store it locked and unloaded

Impacts no ones second amendment rights.

Your desire to legislate what a doctor can and cannot say directly impacts their 1st amendment rights for no compelling state interest.

So have you walked out on your own pediatrician when she's asked you these types of questions or were you a responsible adult and understood why they were asked?

My doctors have never asked me any of that. They have instead asked if I know of the potential dangers for those items, not if I own them in particular. Around here it goes something like this.

Doctor: Mr Humblepie, since you have a child under 6 in your household, I want to go over a few things real quick with you in regards to safety for your child just in case you aren't aware of them.

Me: Sure thing doc.

Doc: Since this is Texas, many people around here own guns and they should be kept out of reach of kids. Many have swimming pools in their backyards and should be supervised at all times even if your child knows how to swim already. Everyone has some household chemicals that can be very dangerous to children as well. Which should be kept out of reach of kids as well. If you have such chemicals in cabinets, I suggest buying some cabinet locks to keep kids out. It's a hassle, but well worth the effort. There have also been some recent report cases in my office and around here of ...... and these are the things to look out for in regards to .... and here is what you should do if such .... happens.

Me: Hey thanks!

In the scenario above the doctor has solicited the advice he needed to give out and doesn't ever have to know I own a gun. No second amendment rights are encroached on, and no first amendment rights are either. The law is making sure the interaction goes like my scenario and not your scenario.