Appeal court upholds 'docs vs. glocks' gun law

[Baitball Blogger]

TALLAHASSEE — A federal appeals court has upheld the state's "docs vs. glocks" law, overturning an earlier court ruling that had blocked part of the measure from being enforced.

In a 2-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Florida Legislature had the right to pass the law, which includes provisions restricting doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

"In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. "In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct — which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy — the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."

The majority found that the National Rifle Association-backed law, known as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, "has only an incidental effect on physicians' speech."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-docs-vs-glocks-ruling-20140728,0,6628452.story

[onehandle]

1. Florida Man strikes again.

Yes, I'm saying that gun nuts are aberrant anti-social impotent racists.

[samsingh]

5. i agree with you

[Hoyt]

28. +1. There are a few who just can't accept that fact, but not many. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

2. Ban all guns

the issue becomes moot.

[samsingh]

4. given the position of gun lovers, this is the only position that makes sense to me

[IronGate]

7. Think you have the votes to accomplish that? nt.

[onehandle]

12. Gun Ownership Conclusively linked to Male Impotence and Penile Necrosis

Satirical News Service
Washington, DC

The CDC announced today startling new findings that conclusively link handling of guns to a very severe form of male impotence and penile necrosis. In this form of impotence, Viagra and Cialis are completely ineffective. As exposure to guns increases, “the pecker literally withers up and falls off”. It appears to be something in the makeup of the gun metal that causes a chemical reaction with male testosterone. The more powerful and bigger the gun, the greater the risk. Gun owners are urged to immediately dispose of their firearms, or at minimum avoid any contact with them. The military and police forces who must carry firearms will be issued special gloves to prevent exposure. Since these gloves are not covered under the Second Amendment Rights, they are only available to Armed Forces and Licensed Police Officers. Anyone else in possession of them can be faced with fines or imprisonment.

http://mysatiricalside.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-ownership-conclusively-linked-to.html

This satirical piece is a complete insult to the Pharma industry.

I demand an apology!

[IronGate]

13. Yeah,

I was wondering how long it would take for the penis reference to appear, you didn't disappoint.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. That lot find adolescent jokes a balm for political inefficacy

And as we see, they sure need them!

[rock]

38. And why do you think that is?

?

[IronGate]

39. Gee, I don't know.

Why don't you tell us.

[rock]

40. It's obvious

!

[IronGate]

44. Non answer.

Just as I suspected.

[rock]

45. Well let me spell it out for you

The reason is the obviousness of the comparison. Get it now?

[IronGate]

46. What obviousness of comparison?

Don't be mealy mouthed about it, just come out and say it.

[rock]

47. OK since you asked so nicely

It's obvious the gun is a phallic substitute because the gun nut is lacking in penile fortitude and seeks something symbolic to stiffen his feebleness. He may also pick a nickname that attempts to bolster to image. Your welcome.

[IronGate]

48. So, you're a head shrink?

You have empirical evidence to back up your claims?
How many gun owners have you had on your couch? How many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

[rock]

50. Don't need to be

Remember I said it's obvious.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. "Remember I said it's obvious." Declaring it 'obvious' doesn't make it so

It used to be 'obvious' that illness is caused by evil spirits.

Logic like yours has help make gun control what it is today...

[rock]

70. Well, I guess I can try to explain this to you for what it's worth

I was pointing out that I had earlier said it was obvious and sure enough by the time I explained it to IronGate, it did look awfully obvious to me. Of course, for those of you that are a little denser it may not. The important thing to notice, however, is not that I was trying to make something true by fiat but just a reminder to the reader that I had started the conversation by stating the obvious. Again, if you're not too dense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Insults to go with your pseudo-Freudian imagery? Feh.

Putdowns are a common approach amongst you lot. Be advised that jibes
from the politically ineffectual carry little, if any, sting.

Your "self-evident" pronunciamentoes fail to account for women gun owners-
which is where all genitalia-obsessed types fail.

[rock]

76. OK you got me

Maybe you're not as dense as I thought!

[samsingh]

73. wouldn't gun servant be an appropriate description

for gun nuts and gun lovers. after all they serve the gun

[rock]

74. I don't object

[samsingh]

85. others to consider

gun slave
gun fool
gun pansy

[rock]

86. You almost can't go wrong

[samsingh]

87. agreed

[badtoworse]

41. Hilarious!

[snooper2]

56. Do women who own guns have issues with their nipples getting hard?

[samsingh]

29. nope

[Eleanors38]

78. Just in: Carrying guns linked to cunnilingus.

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

A study by Midwestern University Foundation For Science (MUFFS) has revealed that those carrying guns are sixty-nine times more likely to engage in cunnilingus when compared with more unimaginative unarmed Americans.

"We suspected a correlation," Observed Dr. Likka de Spliit, "but held off on releasing our findings until we confirmed and re-confirmed the results. We had a huge test sample, and had to let the control group in, you know, out of a sense of medical necessity; it was getting steamy in there."

MUFFS undertook the study after widely reported incidents at remote gun ranges in Alabama and Vermont.

"Yessuh, there were some unauthorized activities at the pistol range," according to N. Head Fust, range master for the Dew Over Range in Trimless, Alabama. "We let it slip by til it spread to the skeet range. Ever time someone yelled "pull," well down they went. Wasted a lotta clays that way."

But the disturbing findings have a bright side. According to researchers a greater tolerance of for sexual identity has resulted.

"You've seen the data," says Prof. Tong S. Long. "Everyone is into it, regardless of orientation. And therein is the problem: With all the different orientations at the shooting stations, we advise unloading first."

Rimington reports huge sales gains. Revulva manufacturers are falling behind in fulfilling orders.

[IronGate]

82. DUzy.

That's one for the books.

[Eleanors38]

88. Thanks. When the opportunity arises.

[IronGate]

6. All it will take is 2/3 of the states agreeing to repeal the 2A.

Think you have the votes? And even if you somehow did manage to accomplish that, it still wouldn't ban all guns, states are well within their power to set their own firearms laws.

[onehandle]

8. Ban all gun nuts

the issue becomes poop.

[IronGate]

10. How? nt.

[aikoaiko]

16. Ban teh Gunz111!1

[mwrguy]

42. Absolutely!

It's the only real solution.

[IronGate]

49. So how would you do it,

considering that it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify a Constitutional change.

[mwrguy]

65. It won't be easy, but it's not impossible.

[X_Digger]

79. And repealing the second amendment doesn't make the right go away.

The bill of rights grants no rights, so repealing them removes no rights.

Drives me nuts that so few people seem to remember their 10th grade government classes. The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people shall' document- says so right there in the preamble:

http://billofrights.org/

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

No, repealing the second amendment would simply make the right go from being explicitly protected by the an amendment to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment. Not to mention the majority of states whose constitutions explicitly protect the same right, or the volumes of cases in other state courts protecting the same right.

[Loudly]

3. OK SCOTUS. You love the 1A so much? Prove it.

Assuming this is appealed one last time, and assuming SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.

[badtoworse]

9. Civil rights sometimes conflict with each other. In this case, the right to privacy prevailed.

That is something to celebrate.

[flamin lib]

15. Scalia says there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. nt

[badtoworse]

25. So?

[flamin lib]

53. So, if it goes to SCOTUS two votes will go against privacy

rights, Scalia and Mini Scalia (Thomas). Other three will be up for grabs to the gun lobby. Pretty confident it will be 5/4 should it get there.

[badtoworse]

60. As a technical point, you may be right,...

but I really don't see Scalia or Thomas ruling that a doctor can refuse treatment based on a refusal to respond to a doctor's question about your ownership of a firearm. The only situation where such a question might be relevant would be treating a gunshot wound. As a practical matter, it would have no impact, and for that reason, I doubt the SCOTUS would take the case.

[Loudly]

52. I'll say. The so-called RKBA conflicts with EVERYTHING!

The imaginary "right" to the means of conveniently depriving others of ALL their GENUINE rights!

[badtoworse]

61. Do some research so you don't embarrass yourself further.

[Loudly]

63. Hey, I listen to right wing loudmouth Mark Levin. He states very emphatically

that the 2A was invented so that the People might engage in armed rebellion against the government.

An utterly obsolete concept since Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865.

(Levin doesn't agree with this last part of course!)

So the 2A no longer serves any Constitutional purpose, and is now put forward only by fools and panderers to fools.

Which are YOU?

[badtoworse]

64. I see the problem. Instead of listening to Levin...

...you should pay attention to what the SCOTUS, President Obama and the DNC platform all say: The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right.

[Loudly]

66. There can be no "right" to the means of conveniently depriving others of all their genuine rights.

I do understand the need to pander to fools, however.

This is the USA.

[badtoworse]

68. LOL. You must do lots of pandering.

[Loudly]

69. No, I don't suffer fools gladly.

[badtoworse]

71. Sometimes, I do.

[beevul]

72. So obsolete that the battle of athens never happened.

Oh, wait...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. 'irrelevant'?

Doctors ask because the statistics show that a variety of risks are far greater in households with guns than those without. It's the same reason as to why they ask you about your diet, your drinking or smoking habits, and so on.

The kind of thing you get when you have people with no medical experience determining what is or is not 'relevant' to the work doctors do... sheesh.

[pipoman]

17. False equivalence

But you knew that..

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. And that's based on your vast understanding of public health, then, Dr? nt

[pipoman]

22. based on knowing the difference between

Things one puts into their body chemistry and personal property.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Maybe you might want to spend a little time on reading about

environmental health and safety. When physicians (and case workers) do evaluations on the risks of a given environment, they cover far more than just 'things one puts into their body chemistry'. Everything from pools to pets, the presence of rugs, whether the house is a ranch or multilevel, and on and on and on. Because there are all sorts of different risks in a home. And yeah, even the presence of guns.

[pipoman]

33. Funny, I've had many doctors and not one has

Suggested doing "evaluations on the risks of a given environment" at my home. Doctors in FL and anywhere else can have full day dissertations about guns with their patients if they wish. They just can't ask if the patient owns guns...big f...ing deal.

[badtoworse]

36. I've never had one suggest that either.

[Hangingon]

62. Never had these questions asked.

I wonder how many physicians have this much time. Mine is swamped every time I go in.

[aikoaiko]

19. Do you know doctors who would dismiss patients for saying they would not like to disclose...

...what they eat when there is no apparent health threat from diet?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. 'no apparent health threat'?

See the comic in comment 14. Those look like health threats to me.

[pipoman]

24. Fabricated statistics aside, are you proclaiming a 'comic' being something more?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Ah,

so you don't believe that the presence of guns in a home doesn't correlate with the statistical increase in such risks?

Guess we're done here, no point wasting my time talking to the 'statistics are lies' brigade.

[pipoman]

35. So then you will hang onto the truth if someone posts NRA stats, eh?

[aikoaiko]

27. There are lots of dangers in the home.

What I meant to convey is that I understand when doctors dismiss patients who hide info or are uncooperative because there is a current imminent health threat, but guns, like unsecured pools, cleaning chemicals, TVs on high stands, all pose possible danger but there isn't a health threat that needs treating.

There is an important Public Health Service for doctors to give info on baby proofing homes, but this came about because a doctor dismissed a family because they wanted to keep info about there firearms private. One doesn't need to ask questions in order to distribute info.

[samsingh]

30. exactly

[Zenlitened]

37. +1

[X_Digger]

81. It's irrelevant to the doctor's advice.

A doctor could say, "If you do have guns, please secure them. This org provides a free trigger lock, and here's a pamphlet on gun safety."

(Which is what most doctors do / say about guns, in my experience.)

No question asked, but the same advice given- hence.. irrelevant.

[GeorgeGist]

14. No reason at all for Doctors to be concerned ...

[badtoworse]

34. True or not (and likely not), it's still none of their business.

[marions ghost]

83. good one

thank you

[aikoaiko]

18. Doctors can still hand out information on baby proofing homes from any danger

I don't like this law and wish the NRA had not pushed it, but it was motivated by an asswipe doctor who dismissed a family from his practice because they didn't want to answer the question about guns in the home.

This really was a patient privacy issue and it's too bad the doctor didn't respect that. He could have said, "regardless, keep any guns locked and he's some gun safety info."

[Swede Atlanta]

32. As a physician I would have no problem asking a patient about this......

As a medical doctor I am held to a standard of do no harm. If I suspect gun ownership/use may be contributing to my patient's condition such as anxiety, etc. I will ask the question, the Florida legislature be damned. I would advise my patient they do not need to answer the question but I would ask it.

I absolutely believe the 11th Circuit (known to be a rats nest of snakes) would not be upheld based on an actual case.

If a physician is trying to identify the source of a patient's physical or mental condition it is absolutely their obligation and duty to ask relevant questions. The presence of guns that could be the source of a bruise (someone hits a woman across the face with the butt of a revolver or a gun) or ongoing anxiety (husband sleeps with a loaded gun in bed), etc. is a relevant factor in determining and recommending treatment for my patient.

The nut cases in this country must be quashed. They are the reason we are the most violent nation on the planet.

[pipoman]

43. Therein is the issue

The case that drove this legislation, iirc, was of a patient refusing to answer a question on a pretreatment questionnaire, and the doctor responding by refusing treatment.

[aikoaiko]

51. Allowing the patient to not answer without dismissing ten from your care makes you a good doctor

Not all doctors think that way

[Eleanors38]

80. "may be contributing..." So, you have a standard.

The doc in Ocala revealed no standards of diagnosis. It was an unrelated question which went to privacy. When it wasn't answered, he canned the patients. He could have handed out brochures, even verbally described gun safety procedures, if he thought there was some health question; instead he told the patients to take a hike which wasn't constructive for anyone.

[LanternWaste]

54. This case, in addition to the lobbying that went on to deny funding to the CDC from researching gun

This case, in addition to the lobbying that went on to deny funding to the CDC from researching gun violence (the Dickey Amendment) leads me believe the NRA simply doesn't want any organization studying the problem unless they get to plug in numbers too.





"The CDC, the nation’s main health protection agency, has budgeted $10 million to study Lyme disease, $105 million on the effects of tobacco and $67 million on diabetes — yet it doesn’t get a single dollar of funding to research firearm deaths..."


Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, didn’t mince words about the NRA’s bullying in a 2012 interview with an Atlanta paper.... “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA,” Rosenberg said.

[aikoaiko]

55. This case didn't have anything to do with research or data.

[LanternWaste]

57. Right. It had to do with doctors asking patients questions related to gun ownership, yes?

Right. It had to do with doctors asking patients questions related to gun ownership, yes?

[aikoaiko]

58. Yes, in order to prevent doctors from denying medical services

as a patient in a practice.

This law does not prevent a doctor from sharing guns in home safety info or any other public health info.

[LanternWaste]

59. That's precisely how I read it. But thanks for the relevance...?

That's precisely how I read it. But thanks for the relevance of your missive...?

[gerogie2]

77. Conservatives rail against government interference in dr & patient relationship

But they are for it when it comes to health care for women and homicidal/suicidal patients being asked if there is gun in the house.

[aikoaiko]

89. That's not quite accurate. The law allowed such questions is medically necessary or for safety.

CS/CS/HB 155 - Privacy of Firearm Owners
General Bill by Health & Human Services Committee and Criminal Justice Subcommittee and Brodeur (CO-SPONSORS) Ahern; Artiles; Baxley; Caldwell; Corcoran; McKeel; Nuñez; Pilon; Smith; Stargel; Trujillo; Van Zant
Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.
Effective Date: June 2, 2011
Last Event: 06/02/11 Chapter No. 2011-112 on Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:21 AM

[Paladin]

84. Wayne LaPierre, kindly stay the fuck out of my doctor's office.

"Irrelevant private matters," my ass.

[ManiacJoe]

90. Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the history of this law.