Latest Headlines
- ‘Major’ Fire Reported At Ascend, Fire Now Out
- Century’s Small Town Christmas Parade Turns Out Small With Four Entries, No Santa
- Sunny, Cool Sunday
- Acres Of Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Run-a-muck Ranch In Bratt
- Home for the Paw-lidays Free Dog, Cat Adoptions At Escambia Shelter
- FDOT Completes $7.5 Million Highway 90 Resurfacing Project
- Going Shopping? A Watchful ECSO Eye Has Your Back
- Tate Aggies Soccer And Basketball Earn Friday Night Wins
- No Serious Injuries In Bratt Rollover Crash
- Escambia County’s First Wawa Store Now Open; Four More Planned
Federal Judge Denies NRA Intervention In Doctor Gun Question Law
July 15, 2011
A federal judge has rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to formally intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Florida’s new “docs v. glocks” law.
U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke issued an order turning down the NRA, which lobbied to pass the law during the spring legislative session. Cooke said state lawyers could adequately defend the law without the NRA intervening.
“The NRA seeks to defend the constitutionality of the Firearms Owner’s Privacy Law,’’ Cooke wrote, using the name that lawmakers attached to the measure. “The State Defendants, as representatives of the State of Florida, have the same objective. The NRA has not presented any evidence to suggest that the State Defendants may not adequately represent its interests.’’
The controversial law is aimed at restricting doctors from asking patients about gun ownership. A group of doctors filed the lawsuit, because they charge the law violates their First Amendment rights.
Cooke held a hearing Wednesday on the doctors’ request for an injunction against the law.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
29 Responses to “Federal Judge Denies NRA Intervention In Doctor Gun Question Law”
Nope never did, fail one I mean.It was a comparsion. But it seems that here are those who do not observe and pay attention to what is going on around them. Now having read articles from doctors who advocate gun- control (remember fair and balanced, it is called ,research ) It really depends on what state they are in, the more anti-gun the state and its rules, the higher this feeling is. It has the potential for abuse.Just another nanny state law. But those who have , and are not currently not keeping up with the movement in this country in enact gun control, are sadly sticking their heads in the sand.How can you confuse the (invasion of privacy) with the( right of privacy) ?Don’t worry , there are those of us who have your back , and are really protecting, you. You just do not see it yet.Well some one has to watch over the sheep.
Bob Hudson said…”and they will find away to use this information, to further their agenda, just like drug testing, at first it was use to promote job safety, then some employers found out if they could drug test you, just before they decide to lay you off, and you pop positive , then they do not have to pay you W.C.”
I said…Gosh,Bob. Sounds to me like you are blaming the doctors for something your employer thought up. Fail a drug test,did you?
I can’t believe the number of people posting (or maybe,like jimmy carter, they are just posting a lot to make their voices seem louder.. Where’s Billy when we need him?) who claim to be in favor of freedom on any other day but want to make an exception in the case of doctors, who should be able to ask any question they want. What are you guys, communists?
It is though , a sad fact that there are Doctors, with a anti-gun agenda, and they will find away to use this information, to further their agenda, just like drug testing, at first it was use to promote job safety, then some employers found out if they could drug test you, just before they decide to lay you off, and you pop positive , then they do not have to pay you W.C. And those of you who have worked construction , know exactly what I mean, I mean its pretty bad, when , we use to joke about, when they did drug test, we knew that a large lay off was going to happen. And we were always right. If a doctor, has a concern, then talk to next of kin, or parent, But this has the potential , of good intentions, going very very wrong. So no , they do not need to ask.
REGARDING:
“You knowledge base of the pertinent concepts of rights is really lacking.”
Ah, well, at least I’m no longer plotting in a conspiracy with the totalitarian pediatricians to take over the world. I guess that’s an improvement of sorts.
David moving up from conspirator to just ignorant
Sorry David,
You make very little sense. You knowledge base of the pertinent concepts of rights is really lacking. I am tired of having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
David,
You just don’t get it. Many of our rights are born from the Amendments. My right to free speech is that I can put your face on a poster and claim you are a wanted child molester. Is it right? Is it legal? No. But I can do it, and will rightfully pay the penalty for it. If one right infringes on another than it is wrong in a civil and many times a legal manner. And yes it is illegal to makes lists of gun owners or concealed weapons permit owners and put them into a data base that can be accessed by public or private entities. It is considered an infringement on second amendment rights by federal law. You obviously know nothing of the laws regarding record keeping and gun purchasing. How am I tying the hands of doctors or future doctors? Makes absolutely no sense. I am talking about circumventing discrimination and infringement of my rights. How does that stop doctors from doing their job? The government has always balanced the power between rights. Where have you been living? What do you think our burgeoning army of judges and lawyers do, right up to the highest levels of government? The doctors waging this lawsuit are primarily pediatricians. The AMA agreed to the verbiage of the law as written. Those filing suit are clearly anti-gun and have advocated for years that all guns should be banned and removed from any household with children up to 18. They are using the same law firm that the Brady Campaign uses. The people who would gladly have the government take your guns by force. Wake up David, you really are at a loss for the reality’s of this situation.
REGARDING:
“To state that you can just find another doctor is very flippant. It is not that easy.”
Once in a blue moon, I’m flippant — especially when someone thinks rights should be thrown away to make things easier for those denying those rights. So your real goal is to make it easy to find a doctor who will treat you? And you will do this by tying the hands of the people who decide to be come doctors? Makes perfect sense.
“You can not just push one amendment down peoples throats without regard to violating the others. Liberty is using/balancing all the rights we are afforded as Americans so the greatest amount of people will benefit from them”
Again, if the government has the power to balance one right against some other, then the government has the power to decide what rights we have. If they can decide, then they aren’t rights, they are indulgences — provisional luxuries.
Trust me (or distrust me, the result‘s the same), you do not want that to happen. Governments change and people unfavorable to your favored rights come into power. If you give them that power, they will take them away.
David for all rights,
not just the ones you and I like
REGARDING:
“As usual David you only read what you want to.
Actually, I DO only read what I want to read. Nonetheless, I usually read all of what I comment on even if I don’t comment on everything they write. Sometimes I agree with all but what I comment on, sometimes I figure somebody else addressed any objections better than I could, sometimes I just don’t care and if I commented on everything written, I would be a bit wordy.
We wouldn’t want that would we?
“It is not exercising liberty to infringe on amendments under the guise of exercising other amendments.”
You keep confusing rights with amendments, but I haven’t said anything about the confusion yet.
“This law was never illegal. It does not stop the use of the first amendment, it provides penalties for using it to discriminate against a certain group of people and their personal beliefs. It provides penalties for production of lists and data bases of gun owners that is already illegal by federal law since that could is considered an infringement of the second amendment.”
You think it’s illegal for you to make a list if that list includes the people who’ve told you they own a weapon?
“To state that you can just find another doctor is very flippant. It is not that easy.”
So your real goal is to make it easy to find a doctor who will treat you? And you will do this by tying the hands of the people who decide to be come doctors? Makes perfect sense.
David for freedom and reason
As usual David you only read what you want to. The first 8 sentences of my post. It is not exercising liberty to infringe on amendments under the guise of exercising other amendments. It is illegal. This law was never illegal. It does not stop the use of the first amendment, it provides penalties for using it to discriminate against a certain group of people and their personal beliefs. It provides penalties for production of lists and data bases of gun owners that is already illegal by federal law since that could is considered an infringement of the second amendment. To state that you can just find another doctor is very flippant. It is not that easy. Doctors talk, share records, and this group definitely has an agenda to follow. They will and have discriminated against what they consider as undesirable patients due to their personal beliefs of gun ownership. What about their liberties? You can not just push one amendment down peoples throats without regard to violating the others. Liberty is using/balancing all the rights we are afforded as Americans so the greatest amount of people will benefit from them. There are already a great number of things that can not be asked by employers, bankers, businesses, etc. in order to deter discrimination against individuals. You are not aware of the tenants of liberty nor speak with wisdom.
REGARDING:
” You are anti-gun but not brave enough to state it. ”
Nope, I think guns are wonderful tools. Neither good or bad, but simply to be used or not used as the user decides. I believe everybody on earth should be given a 12 gauge shotgun at age 18, along with a case of shells. (This would end most tyrannies.) They can buy whatever else they desire as long as they don’t commit felonies with them. I believe children should be taught to shoot and handle guns and shown the results of mishandling them.
I also believe people who disagree with me, such as yourself, should be free to say so. I believe doctors should be free to treat whomever they wish, ask whatever they wish. I believe people should be free to not go to doctors they dislike. I believe the government should assume ALL citizens are armed and that people who are afraid the government will find out that they ARE armed are paranoid. I believe only fools turn in their weapons to the government and that fools SHOULD turn in their weapons since fools shouldn’t be handling such things.
Even though I state what I believe, I don’t see where you conclude: ” You fly in the face of liberty, you have no clue what liberty means. You would use “liberty” to form a society to conform to your personal agenda.”
Where have I tried to force anyone to go along with me? What is YOUR definition of liberty which I violate?
David for liberty and honesty
David,
You are not for liberty. Your logic is flawed. The first amendment is valid as long as it does not interfere with the exercising of any other amendments or citizens rights to privacy. Doctors asking patients questions that infringe on their second amendment is illegal. Doctors creating data bases of gun owners is in violation of federal gun laws and second amendment rights. If you think that exercising one amendment to the determent of another is correct than you’re wrong. Why do you think it is illegal for employers to ask job applicants about their martial status, religion or political views and affiliations? It is known as privacy. You fly in the face of liberty, you have no clue what liberty means. You would use “liberty” to form a society to conform to your personal agenda. You are anti-gun but not brave enough to state it. You are as bad as religious zealots who take the bible out of context to meet their personal agendas.
REGARDING:
“Why on earth would the state lawyers in Tallahassee want the NRA to come in and take over their case? It would only make them look incompetent.”
I thought they already did that when they didn’t advise the legislature they were passing an illegal law.
David for wisdom
Well facts are facts. please feel free to bury your head in the sand.
In 1928 Germany required registration of all firearms. In November 1938 German Police confiscated the firearms of their Jewish citizens. In November of that year Jewish homes were invaded, their businesses destroyed, their lives taken in wholesale slaughter.
Is ANY government to be trusted with your final means of self defense ?
If you truly believe that a government without oversight backed by an informed and armed citizenry can be trusted, you are a lamb waiting to be slaughtered. I pity you.
A doctor should be allowed to ask anyone any question that doctor wishes to ask — not because of being a doctor but because of being an American. If this government can silence one set of words, a future government can silence any other words.
I suggest we limit the power of government over personal lives where possible.
David for liberty
Michelle and others,
None of my comments were directed towards this law or guns. I own several. My beef is with the NRA and the fact that they feel they have a right to intervene in Florida’s defense of this law. I guess their role as lobbyist to get this law passed wasn’t enough. They continue to go too far too often.
Why on earth would the state lawyers in Tallahassee want the NRA to come in and take over their case? It would only make them look incompetent. I feel certain the Judge considered all of this in her decision. She was defending your rights against all those other “radical groups” who could lobby for their laws and then want to control how the state enacts or defends the law. The NRA has every right to sue the plaintiff in their own case, if they want.
I think she made the right decision.
As for Cheryl and unchaindogs, I better if you are ever in a resturant or home and someone comes in threatining your lives. You WILL wish someone or youself had a BIG WHOPPING GUN!!!
That is why in England, others countries and yes even your own US cities that have gun control Crimes go up. But, places like Texas (where they can carry guns) not so much, Gee I wonder why? Maybe because (GOD bless ‘em) Texas has the hippy peace loving approach that make bad guys fell bad about themselves and make them want to change, or that that Yes even Granny can cofidentely go to Piggly Wiggly knowing that “yes punk, make my day”! Knowing she can safely live another day, beause she has the right to defend herself.
GOD BLESS AMERICA and the NRA for keeping the fight for yours and my rights alive!!
Thanks Bob for the website, I just spent the last couple of hours just looking at the humour page. That is hilarious. I can’t wait for my Hubby to get home so he can check it out.,
As for Dr’s sticking their moses in where it doesn’t belong, I’ve said it before…”what about knives, or medicine, or booze or cigerettes? Or the newest one the evil JUNK FOOD!!
Just come right out and say it… “poor people shouldn’t be allowed to breed”!! I mean that is what theyand Government are really getting at right?
Thank you, Cheryl! Well Said! ❤*¨*•☆
“Last I heard, this was the US of A, not the US of the NRA!”
Just another attempt to invade your rights and take them away. They can paint it anyway they want but that is exactly what it is. Wake up people you rights are erroding. This is about control not just guns. Even if you got rid of guns the criminals would still get them. It’s not the average citizen you have to worry about that has a gun it is the criminal. Your second amendemnt rights are aabout to go away if you don’t stand up and stop it. Just saying you may regret what your asking for here. Ans lastly but not least why would the doctors want to be in the investigatin business??? Please oh please tell. I understan if a person is mentally ill they should not have a gun or be around them so before you jump on that as an excuse please tell me how you can justify such a law????? Someone please.
Kathy said…”You want someones money give them a fake reason to be scared and you can take money from them like candy from a baby.”
I said…You got it,Kathy. Any judge who rules against the NRA must be a *liberal* according to our frightened friends. It is sad to see the fear that permeates our society today. Why,just take a look at the two (or is it three?) posts directly following yours. It took one individual several posts to express the terror he and so many of our neighbors feel that “someone” is out to get them.
I just ain’t convinced someone is gonna try to take your guns or overweight children, Bob.
Now if you wish, search, engine bing, type in Association of Pediatrics & Gun control, you will find they are listed as a very anti-gun movement. Or check out tonyrodgers.com for a list of all anti-gun groups. Now I am not the paranoid type, but I have lived long enough, and studied politics enough to realize that there are those in our country, that do not believe in the 2nd amendment. When some one says “we need common sense gun laws’ that means they wish to truly , one day to disarm you, this is how it started in Australia, Europe and Canada. We are the only country in the world that has a 2nd amendment. Nothing like spending 3 months in a 3rd world country, where the only ones that have guns , are the government control police.( by the way ,we where robbed by them)It will make a very good American out of you, and make you realize just important this amendment is.
Here is how it goes, first doctors where worried about over weight children, then they started recording and reporting the over weight children, now some doctor thinks it might a good idea to TAKE the over weight children and put them in a foster home. Do you see a pattern here? Could this have to our guns? Of course it could. Never thought they might did this with children did you?
Liberal judge has just stacked the deck.This is how it goes. First doctors were worried about children weighting to much. Then they started recording , and reporting , when they weighted to much. Now some fool has come up with the idea to TAKE the over weight children and put them in a foster homes. Any body see a pattern here? And so, could this happen to guns? Of course it can, you never thought they would do it to children did you?
What the heck is Liberal? You guys use the term SO liberally? Cheryl you are right, but it is the US of NRA because people get stupidly led by idiots who use scare tactics. Ou, them liberals gonna take you guns and they all go screaming. You want someones money give them a fake reason to be scared and you can take money from them like candy from a baby. GOOOOOO JUdge!
So if the group that protests soldiers’ funerals wanted to “formally intervene” in a lawsuit for which they were not named in, they should be able to? Look at this for what it really is, and not some liberal conspiracy.
I wonder if the Judge is also going to exclude involvement from the AMA, and the Association of Pediatric Doctors that is so opposed to this law.
just another liberal judge…….if the NRA cannot help to protect its interest why dont they kepp the NAACP USHS PETA and all the other radical groups hushed??????
Thank you Judge Cooke. Last I heard, this was the US of A, not the US of the NRA!