Latest Headlines
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Two Newly Elected Escambia School Members Installed
- Matt Gaetz Withdraws From Attorney General Consideration
- Molino Dollar General Assistant Manager And Her Boyfriend Charged With Theft
- Century Town Hall Closed For Portions Of Next Two Business Days
- Troopers Say Semi Driver Fell Asleep Causing Crash That Block I-10 For Hours
- Free Dental, Vision and Medical Care Available At Weekend Clinic
- Farm Share Food Distributions Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- ECUA Elects Board Officers, Appoints Advisory Committee
- One Injured In Highway 29 Crash
NRA Loads Up For Doctor Gun Question Trial
July 6, 2011
With a federal judge ready to hear arguments next week, the National Rifle Association and doctors are feuding about the NRA’s role in a legal challenge to Florida’s new “Docs vs Glocks” law.
The NRA is seeking to formally intervene in the case, contending it was a “foremost supporter” when lawmakers approved the measure to restrict doctors from asking patients about gun ownership.
“The Firearm Owners’ privacy law protects NRA members from intrusive, irrelevant questions by health care practitioners and from discrimination on account of their exercise of Second Amendment rights,’’ the NRA said last week in a motion to intervene.
But physicians, who argue the law is a violation of their First Amendment free-speech rights, are trying to block the NRA from playing a large role in the case. In a document Friday, the doctors said the state can adequately defend the law and that the NRA “offers only inflammatory hyperbole’’.
“The interest at issue here is a doctor’s and patient’s First Amendment right to engage in an open and frank discussion free of government interference,’’ the document says.
The legal sparring follows a major lobbying fight during this year’s legislative session about the law, which Gov. Rick Scott signed June 2.
A group of physicians quickly challenged the constitutionality of the law in federal court in Miami. U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke has scheduled a July 13 hearing on the doctors’ request for an injunction to block the law.
The law, which passed largely along party lines, says doctors and other health-care practitioners “shall respect a patient’s right to privacy and should refrain” from asking about gun ownership or whether people have guns in their homes. It also, however, says health providers may ask about guns if they believe in “good faith” that the information is relevant to a patient’s medical care or safety.
The issue centers, at least in part, on pediatricians who ask questions about household safety issues that could affect children. The law’s supporters point to episodes such as an Ocala couple complaining that a doctor told them to find another physician after they refused to answer questions about guns.
Former NRA President Marion Hammer, an influential Tallahassee lobbyist, played a major role in pushing the bill (HB 155) through the Legislature.
The law took effect immediately when Scott signed it. That helped prompt the plaintiffs, who include six individual doctors and three physician organizations, to seek an injunction.
The state has backed the NRA’s attempt to intervene in the case.
With no ruling on the motion to intervene — and the injunction hearing next week — the NRA filed another motion Tuesday aimed at allowing it to submit a brief and participate in the hearing.
By Jim Saunders
The News Service of Florida
Comments
24 Responses to “NRA Loads Up For Doctor Gun Question Trial”
REGARDING:
“you never addressed any valid point brought forth in my comment.”
Please forgive me and remind me what valid point you brought forth. I thought your point was that they are not allowed to promote or suppress any religion in school–but some do. I thought I addressed the question when I said they are not to do so even though some officials don’t understand what the courts have actually ruled.
AND
“You did say that the teachings of Darwin are not considered religious yet to be religious one must have strong faith in what one believes to be the truth. “
Not actually, many are religious but have no faith. They just do certain things their religion requires. (You do know there are MANY different religions, don’t you?)
Darwin put forth an idea to explain observed facts. The way to prove his idea wrong is to find facts which violate. Science doesn’t try to prove a theory, they try to disprove it. That’s actually the very opposite of faith. If they can’t disprove it, they build on it.
AND
“they – - – “require” it taught to our young. By “they” I mean the Dept. of Education-an arm of the government.”
Notice the danger if government actually had the power to promote one religion over the other. They could insist everybody believe whatever a majority insisted on. You’ll be happy to know the Department of Education doesn’t have that power yet. Local school boards and states set standards for education.
You believe the theory of evolution MUST be a religion because it disagrees with your beliefs. There’s more than one reason to disagree with a given religious doctrine. One of those reasons is if the teachings disagree with observed facts.
David for open eyes
Mr Green,
I read your last response several times and I must say you have a wonderful way
to use a bunch of words without adressing the the question. You use a lot of we’s and us’s but you never adressed any valid point brought forth in my comment.
You did say that the teachings of Darwin are not considered religious yet to be
religious one must have strong faith in what one believes to be the truth. Apparently, even tho it cannot be proven true, Darwinism is what they express
their undieing faith in and “require” it taught to our young. By “they” I mean the
Dept. of Education-an arm of the government.
REGARDING:
“Why then is it “THEM” that has the control over the freedom of speach and religion that is expressed and how it is done?- – - Yet they teach the religion of Darwin”
Because US can do what US wish as long as we don’t make NOT-US comply with our thinking.
One good example of why that is better is to ask yourself if you would like Barney Frank telling your children how to believe? If government could, he would be part of the decision.
As to Darwin, what he wrote isn’t a religion, it’s and idea based on many observations. Others have made many other observations which shore up the idea.
David for honesty
“Just not that you can make Them do so.”
Why then is it “THEM” that has the control over the freedom of speach and religion
that is expressed and how it is done? In Santa Rosa County school officials are
not allowed to bless their food except behind closed doors. Of coarse, there is
the case of the Colorado high school validictorian that was denied her deploma
for thanking God for her blessings in her speach at graduation. They even turned off her microphone before her speach was finished.
Yet they teach the religion of Darwin openly as fact, not theory. In Illinois some
public schools have, at taxpayers expense, installed certian items that cater to
Islam. Yet students are not allowed to wear tee shirts with a cross on it to
school. Go figure.
If you’re really curious about: “why can’t we pray and read the Bible in public schools?”
The answer is you CAN, just not that you can make THEM do so.
The only thing which is forbidden is for school officials acting as agents of the state from telling you to do so–or NOT to do so. Sometimes they get confused on that second part and illegally tell folks they can’t do some things which they can, but not because of the courts. My son brought his Bible to class every day, was never hassled about it.
I also knew a friend who got in trouble in school for preaching, not for the preaching but because he disrupted classes to do so. He explained to me later that he had become convinced the Rapture was near at hand and warning them was more important than letting the teachers teach math or literature or anything else. He could have done what he did at lunch or other free times, just not to the point of disrupting classes.
In it’s June 13, 1963 8-1 ruling on School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Shempp et al. and Murray v. Curlett, the Supreme Court said, in part: the state must
“be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.”
and
“Nothing we have said here indicates such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.”
David for truth
I have to go with david on this one.
If “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” are so well protected by the U. S.
Constitution, why can’t we pray and read the Bible in public schools? Afterall,
school is where we learn about the constitution and how the court system is
bound to its’ assurance we as citizens have these rights protected
Just Curious
REGARDING:
“This case involves an attempt by a group of liberal physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, to limit our Second Amendment rights”
I forget. Which group used the power of government to make a law to take away another groups rights? Where in this case did anyone attempt to take away anybody’s right to keep and bear arms? It didn’t happen, did it?
They were afraid the doctors would write down the answers to questions and that the government would use those records to take away the right to keep and bear arms. They are afraid of the danger of the government knowing too much personal information. At one point they were wanting to jail doctors who asked questions they didn’t want asked. I didn’t keep up with the final product, doesn’t matter since the law is illegal on its face, but the one trying to take away rights should be clear.
David for eating pretzels,
not thinking in their twists
This case involves an attempt by a group of liberal physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, to limit our Second Amendment rights. For that reason alone, the National Rifle Association, a group dedicated to the preservation of those rights should have equal standing in the case. All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, and to my mind, the rights of a physician do not outweigh my right as a parent to refuse to answer. The well known case where a child was “fired” by the pediatrician for the parents’ refusal to answer the $50,000 question was an affront to liberty and reflects a leftist point of view not in synch with our founders, nor our Constitution. The N.R.A. is correct in their assertions and are doing the right thing in this case.
Regarding:
“THE NRA National Rats Association. Fighting for your right to be killed by a gun.”
I don’t see how the rights of the law abiding are the same as the actions of the law breakers. To my limited knowledge, the NRA has never supported using weapons to commit crimes. Their main fear seems to be that criminals will carry weapons whether or not potential victims are allowed to do so.
Most everybody wants all their constitutionally protected rights. Some just concentrate on one over the others because they feel that one is threatened, accepting that others will be looking out for the other rights.
It IS surprising that some imply the right to speak is ended if it potentially touches on right to keep and bear arms–which it doesn’t. Just as your right to speak against arms doesn’t end their rights to have them as long as they don’t commit felonies with them. You can even campaign to have the Constitution amended to take away any of the listed rights. I doubt you will succeed, but you are free to try.
David for the people
THE NRA National Rats Association. Fighting for your right ot be killed by a gun. Their motto.Too bad the otehr amendemnts ot the constitution don’t mean anything to any of you.
I stand corrected.
This one is easy. Just tell the doc, “Heck no man, dont you know that those things are dangerous?” And then go home and clean your bangsticks….snickering the whole time.
I will go with David on this one.
As I said in an earlier post on this topic, I have no problem with the doctor asking the question, as long as my answer (or lack of) doesn’t affect the medical treatment I am seeking.
Better be careful, though; I see no good thing coming from this type of thing.
Call me suspicious of government, but…I am.
REGARDING:
“How would you like it if your tax accountant had the legal right to ask how much
of your business expenses you claim are for “hookers”?”
But he does have that right. In fact, an accountant has the duty to look into expenses for his client, to make sure they are legitimate and that he doesn’t miss any.
More to the point, if I don’t like his questions, I get someone else. I do not put a gag across his mouth and it is illegal for the government to gag him for me.
David for business expenses
To David Green:
Apples and oranges. Of coarse a doctor has the “freedom of speach” to ask a
question. This “law” allows him to apply it to your medical records which will
eventually be in the hands of some government agency. Therein lies the problem. My doctor, who is also my friend, is aware I have guns in my home.
I have no problem in him having this information. I do have a problem, however,
with a law that allows any professional person to ask a question that dosn’t
apply to his perticular perfession.
How would you like it if your tax accountant had the legal right to ask how much
of your business expenses you claim are for “hookers”?
REGARDING:
“The Bill of Rights in our constitution allows the RIGHT to American citizens to own weapons and keep them in their home without a permit. As far as I know, the constitution does not mention a physicians right to question anyone what they have in the privacy of their home”
Article of Amendment number one: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, – - – ”
Now just think. Is telling someone what he can’t say–even in the form of a question, abridging speech?
Of course it is.
Naturally, that only applied to Congress until the fourteenth article of amendment was passed which included ” nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.- – -”
That means the rights under the Constitution are also rights which states, such as the State of Florida, can’t violate. Furthermore, “equal protection” definitely kicks in when you pick out a particular group to stifle or silence.
If one group can say you can’t ask about guns, some other group might decide you can’t TALK about guns, or your religious beliefs or who you think would be a good candidate or a bad one of office.
It would be unwise to give government the power to silence anyone.
This law is illegal.
Unless you are a convicted felon, you have the right to keep and bear arms.
Even if you are a doctor, you have the right to ask any question you wish.
Every citizen has the right to answer or not answer that question.
David for liberty
The democrats under President Obamas’ leadership have made it clear they are not second amendment frendly. They have forced the hated “Obamacare” on
the people reguardless of how the majority feel about it. They put the IRS (how
ironic) in charge of seeing it is instituted as intended. The IRS, of all people,
will have access to your medical records which will, no doubt, include the answer
to the gun question, if asked and answered.
These are also the people who want to prosecute anyone involved in “water-
boarding” to gain information on terriost. I don’t know if waterboarding is right
or wrong, but I do know that furnishing guns to Mexican drug dealers so the
legal, gun dealers in this country can be blamed for the majority of drug dealer
posessions is a crime. They claim “their plan” was to trace these guns and
thereby distroy the drug traffic from Mexico. I’m sure you’ve seen it on the
news recently. That is, if you don’t watch the liberal biased news. Alas, their
plan backfired. My question is, how many innocent Mexican AND AMERICANS
have been murdered by these guns? Shouldn’t the Justice Dept. be attempting to prosecute the government people for furnishing these weapons to known
criminals? I don’t care what their reason was, their actions are clearly against
our laws. They should be internationaly chagred for gunrunning and accessory to murder for each and every man, woman, and child murdered by these thugs using these guns..
I agree with jp! we’ve had guns in our home since we married. Our children were not allowed with them, to use them unless supervised, touch or show them. The guns were kept locked up!! I’m not above using one to defend myself, my spouse, my children, our animals, livestock, our home!
The Bill of Rights in our constitution allows the RIGHT to to American citizens to
own weapons and keep them in their home without a permit. As far as I know,
the constitution does not mention a physicians right to question anyone what
they have in the privacy of their home. This was voted on “largley along party
lines”. I’m sure the liberals side with the doctors position. These are the same
people, the liberals, that claim government shouls stay out of individual choices
in their own homes. Could it be, they have agenda?
What about knives in the home? They are just a deadly, how about bleach and cleaning supplies. The list goes never ends.
A doctor should treat a illness or injury and leave irrelevant questions out of it. This is only more unwanted intrusion by a group that is already too self-important.
ditto, bamadude.
I still say “much ado about nothing”. I have NEVER, EVER had a doctor ask me if I own a gun or if a gun is in my house?!?!