Latest Headlines
- ‘Jeff Bergosh Is Grateful’ — Longtime Public Servant Says Goodbye At Last Commission Meeting
- Ernest Ward Middle School Honors Veterans (With Photo Gallery)
- Two Injured In Single Vehicle Crash Near Century
- Former Ernest Ward Middle School Bookkeeper Charged With Embezzling Over $50,000
- What Happens To Ernest Ward Middle Groups That Are Missing Thousands Of Dollars?
- Inez Chancery of McDavid Celebrating 102nd Birthday
- Escambia Elections Boss: Election Was Smooth, Turnout Exceeds 75%
- SEC Soccer Tournament Draws Thousands To Escambia County, National TV Coverage
- Local Students Attend SEC Soccer Tournament
- Steven Barry Keeps Escambia County Commission District 5 Seat For Fourth Term
Appeals Court Once Again Upholds ‘Docs Vs. Glocks’ Law
December 16, 2015
Rejecting constitutional arguments, a federal appeals court again upheld a controversial Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.
The 82-page ruling by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the third time the court has upheld what became known as the “docs vs. glocks” law. After a July ruling by a three-judge panel, opponents of the 2011 law asked for the full appeals court to take up the issue. Instead, the same three-judge panel issued a revised ruling that unanimously backed the law.
“The act seeks to protect patient privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians on the sensitive issue of firearm ownership and by prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of firearm ownership,” said the ruling, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by judges L. Scott Coogler and Charles Wilson. “The act does not prevent physicians from speaking with patients about firearms generally. Nor does it prohibit specific inquiry or record-keeping about a patient’s firearm-ownership status when the physician determines in good faith, based on the circumstances of that patient’s case, that such information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.”
Wilson wrote a dissent in July that said the law violates the First Amendment rights of physicians.
The ruling left open the possibility of First Amendment challenges that deal with how the law is applied to specific physicians.
“Though the act applies in only a small number of circumstances, when it does apply it plays an extremely important role in protecting patients,” the ruling said. “The act is not a legislative revolution, but it does not need to be. It narrowly protects patients in a focused manner in order to advance the state’s compelling interest in protecting the Second Amendment’s guarantee to keep and bear arms and patients’ privacy rights in their medical records, exactly the sort of tailoring strict scrutiny requires. Those are rights that must always be protected in ways big and small.”
The law, which drew heavy opposition from physicians before passing, includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an example, it seeks to prevent physicians from entering information about gun ownership into medical records if the physicians know the information is not “relevant” to patients’ medical care or safety or to the safety of other people.’
by The News Service of Florida
Comments
7 Responses to “Appeals Court Once Again Upholds ‘Docs Vs. Glocks’ Law”
Should the mentally unstable be able to drive a car, obtain a DL? Use a sharp knife, operate a lawnmower? Does the Doc’s ask if their patients use sharp objects? Allowed to swim in a pool, river, gulf? Don’t make much sense now do it?
It’s really very simple.
Just answer “Nope, never had a single one.”
Then let the state prove you’re lying, if they can.
It may not be docs business, but it would be the interest of the public if patient is mentally ill.
I was recently walking down the street with my one year old, and my wife… and a (obviously) mentally ill homeless man murmurs “ill beat the f#!/ out of your baby.” Now clearly the first reaction would be to escalate this situation out of love and pride, but what does beating up a mentally ill man prove? After having recently debated gun politics with my wife, she says to me, now see, that guy (if not in the system) can go up and buy a gun with no problem. There is a flaw, and it is clearly not lawful ownership. Im all for my right to own any type of gun i want, but gun activist should be for this. This is the path to ownership without restriction. Its being proactive and not reactive. And lastly it’s not restricting ownership of law abiding, mentally sound citizens.
I can see a reason to ask this if there are mental health issues and the doctor thinks the person might be a risk to self or family or other people. (For instance the boy who shot all the people in the theatre might have been prevented if he didn’t have guns). Otherwise this is a MYOB issue.
I know that it is probably a file photo – but it is humorous to have a picture of a Smith & Wesson pistol in an article which mentions Glocks…
SORRY Doc’ — Non U business.
Save the people the cost of court actions on this. It is a simple answer for the doctors who ask…. it’s none of your business if I own or not own firearms. Next question.