Pity the Poor Gun Owner!

Here's food for thought:  you know how many bad -- I mean just awful -- truly clueless, idiotic, rambling schmucks on the road there are on any given day in South Florida?

Now imagine them packing concealed weaponry and standing ready to "assist" in a volatile active-shooter situation at your nearby Publix.

These are the same people I wouldn't trust to successfully make a left turn on Douglas!

Oh well, too bad nosy doctors want to know whether their patients are shooting people or not:
The Act codifies the commonsense conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care—especially not when that inquiry or record-keeping constitutes such a substantial intrusion upon patient privacy—and that good medical care never requires the discrimination or harassment of firearm owners.

In doing so, the Act plays an important role in protecting what gets into a patient’s record, thereby protecting the patient from having that information disclosed, whether deliberately or inadvertently. The Act closes a small but important hole in Florida’s larger patient-privacy-protection scheme. Given this understanding of the Act, and in light of the longstanding authority of States to define the boundaries of good medical practice, we hold that the Act is, on its face, a permissible restriction of physician speech. Physicians remain free—as they have always been—to assert their First Amendment rights as an affirmative defense in any actions brought against them. But we will not, by striking down the Act, effectively hand Plaintiffs a declaration that such a defense will be successful.

Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and vacate the injunction against enforcement of the Act.
Does Judge T work for the Florida Legislature?

Because this reads like a lot of public policy -- even endorsement -- of what he terms a "commonsense conclusion" that is not exactly apparent to everyone.

And who decides what is "unnecessary to a patient's care" -- our NRA friend$ in Tally or the doctor herself?

All rights must bow down to the Second Amendment -- and look how good that's working out!

Methinks Judge Cooke got this one right.


  1. Love the dissent.

  2. So if the doctor asks a question that the doctor thinks is pertinent to medical care, gets indicted, and is facing conviction, that doctor may raise the first amendment as a defense. Methinks that is too late.


Post a Comment