Posted on 03/05/2016 3:44:25 AM PST by marktwain
The Eleventh Circuit court of appeals, in an unusual decision, has decided to hear the case of Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger, et al. v. Governor State of FL, et al. in the matter of the Firearm Owners Privacy Act (FOPA). The FOPA provided that doctors and other health care professionals could not use their professional position of power in order to collect private information from firearms owners, and potentially make that information available to third parties and numerous government agencies. FOPA had been struck down by the district court, then upheld in three different rulings by the three judge panel of the 11th Circuit. From news4jax.com:
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled the arguments for June 21 in Atlanta, according to a document posted on the court's website.An en banc proceeding is relatively rare, but they do take place now and then. The decision to invoke the en banc hearing of the case was published on February 26th, about two weeks after Supreme Court Justice Scalia's death. It is not precisely clear when the decision was made. It is normally done by a vote of all the justices on the Court. The decision in this case is extremely important, because the ruling of the three judge panel destroyed the most significant current tactic in the disarmist arsenal, which is the medicalization of gun control, the process of changing the use of weapons from personal choice, whether responsible or criminal, into a theory where the choice of the individual is immaterial, and guns are treated as disease vectors, as viruses and bacteria are. The earlier three judge panel found that guns were not disease vectors, a pretty easy decision, one would think. From the decision(pdf):
A three-judge panel has issued three rulings that upheld the law, with the most-recent ruling in December.
But the full appeals court then decided to take up the issue in what is known as an en banc proceeding.
With this great authority comes great responsibility. To protect patients, society has long imposed upon physicians certain duties and restrictions that define the boundaries of good medical care. In keeping with this tradition, the State passed the Act. 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.The three judge panel also found that a physician who categorically tells a patient that it is unsafe to own a gun, without a specific medical reason, is chilling the exercise of the patient's Second Amendment rights.
It is of course an interference with Second Amendment rights for a trusted physician to tell his patient—for no medically relevant reason whatsoever—that it is unsafe to own a gun. Though such actions, on their own, may not stop the patient from owning a gun, complete prohibition is hardly required to infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Such speech chills the patient’s exercise of his rights and that is sufficient.Whether the whole Eleventh Circuit will uphold the decision of the three judge panel is not certain. It will be months before we know the answer to that question.
Blah, blah, blah! If most doctors were all that interested in that “great responsibility” wouldn't love the service we get from Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants so much.
Any one that answers any ? from a Dr. on firearms is an idiot
It shouldn’t matter to most people - simply LIE to the doctors and tell them you don’t own guns.
Of course you can also tell some version of the truth...something like I own guns, but I keep them safely locked up.
Or you can say it is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
...anyone care to guess which houses will be searched first?
If you doctor asks, it is like Tom Gresham says: “It is not a sin to lie to someone who isn’t entitled to the truth.”
>>
The three judge panel also found that a physician who categorically tells a patient that it is unsafe to own a gun, without a specific medical reason, is chilling the exercise of the patient’s Second Amendment rights.
<<
According to Barney Frank, “government is just a word for the things we do together.” Thus, Government, as the desired monopoly owner of any guns, must therefore by this logic be supra-human, a being of its own creation. And likewise our wise overlords who give themselves permission to have personal security details of armed men.
An in the above, the Founding Fathers have again shown their incredible wisdom and insight into human nature, and how humans and human governments view power and view the citizens over which they seek to have power.
The Second Amendment is so abhorrent to the left for how it witnesses against their lust for absolute power over the unalienable rights of others and against the Creator who gives every human those rights.
This nonsense began with the radically left wing and anti-gun organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), whose political posturing became so offensive that a former AAP president broke off and formed the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), that is called “conservative”, even though they are generally apolitical, and believe in traditional medical care and ethics.
There is no end to the leftist antics of the AAP, so parents seeking care for their children need to be warned that they should use only ACPeds pediatricians, lest their children’s (opinionated) medical information be given to the government.
There is no subtlety here. If you are not a leftist, the AAP will abuse your children and you.
This article, this case, demonstrate why the Dem nominee MUST be defeated. Whether Trump, Cruz, Rubio or the man in the Moon is the Republican nominee, he gets my vote. While there is no guarantee that a Republican President’s SC nominee will truly be an originalist and protect the 2nd Amendment, it is a matter of metaphysical certainty that such a Dem nominee will vote to void the protections of the 2nd.
We have a STRONG common interest in uniting against the Dems. Stop the destructive bickering! [This is aimed at no particular person, just the general FReeper community].
Bravo! Well said.
At the end, we must hand together, as Ben Franklin said.
So my question is, is the current ruling left standing until the final opinion is released, and does it apply outside the 11th circuit’s boundaries?
My understanding is that the rulings by the 3 judge panel are undone by the decision to hear the case en banc. That leaves the district court ruling intact, which declares that doctors have a free speech right to ask any questions they like and place that data anywhere they want, essentially. If the first amendment covers their questions, is certainly covers them transmitting the information elsewhere.
So we will have to see what the whole 11th Circuit decides on the matter, and it could well take many months.
In the 9th Circuit a year or a year and a half for an en banc ruling is not unusual.
The problem is that the electronic medical records software mandated by Obamacare and approved by the APA billing has a standard list of questions, one of which is “do you own a gun?”
My doctors ask, “Do you feel safe at home?” Nothing about guns per se.
The problem is that the electronic medical records software mandated by Obamacare and approved by the APA billing has a standard list of questions, one of which is “do you own a gun?”
I would like to document that. Could you point me to any useful links?
I’ve had an OBGYN, primary care doctor and two pediatricians ask it and state it is part of their medical records system standard questionnaire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.