Miami federal judge sides with ‘Docs’ over ‘Glocks’ in Fla. gun rights case Read mor

[Gray Peterson]

So that was challenged in 2012 in Miami?

Sounds like they left the door cracked a bit

_

"If Rehlander is now mentally ill and dangerous, his commitment may be sought under section 3864 which, if successful, will create a presumptively valid section 922 ban; Small is already subject to such a ban as to future gun possession. See note 5 above. As for the broader problem of those hospitalized under section 3863 alone, Congress might well be able to impose a temporary ban on firearms possession or perhaps even a permanent one..."

_


Well I guess if you have no concerns tell your doctor all about your gun collection and let it wind up in the federal data base.

It's OK with me.

Your statement was basically to avoid telling doctors any issues that would cause a depression or anxiety diagnosis, or the Brady Campaign (who are the real power behind the ACA in your conspiracy theory) will pass a future law banning gun rights to folks who are just diagnosed with these or other similar diagnosnes?

Do you understand how dangerously stupid that mentality is, especially to victims of sexual violence?

I made no comment about the gun possession aspect or reporting. US v. Alvarez says you can lie about having a Congressional Medal & be protected under the 1A. You can lie, or refuse comment.

[Dave22]

Feel free to tell your doctor anything you want. I don't remember mentioning any sexual abuse...you lost me there. Dangerously stupid....well that's not the way I feel about the powers that be using medical diagnosis against the population to promote more intrusion into their lives.

Know that there may be unforeseen repercussions from the information you give your doctor once the health care bill is put into effect, and this EMR data base is on line.

This will be data mining the likes of which has never been seen before.

I take it from your tone that you don't agree with anything I've typed here.

I'm OK with that.

[NoJoke]

Your statement was basically to avoid telling doctors any issues that would cause a depression or anxiety diagnosis, or the Brady Campaign (who are the real power behind the ACA in your conspiracy theory) will pass a future law banning gun rights to folks who are just diagnosed with these or other similar diagnosnes?

Do you understand how dangerously stupid that mentality is, especially to victims of sexual violence?
.

To give some support to his position, there are questions on the San Diego LTC form that will automatically deny you - even if you have never been arrested or charged with anything.

That yes reply will deny you your right to carry (LTC).

In my mind, that is denial of the 2a.

So, is it such a stretch to expand current policies to include their crystal ball predictions to exclusion of "those who are at a higher risk", potentially - of harm (in their eyes)?

[kcbrown]

Please advise me where in the federal statute where a depression & anxiety diagnosis is a prohibitive category.....

It's not necessarily prohibitive for RKBA exercise at the moment (such things can change, of course), but it is certainly prohibitive for other kinds of activities, such as general aviation. If you are diagnosed with depression and anxiety, you will be prohibited from flying aircraft.

Dave22's advice is sound, even if not for 2A reasons.

[Gray Peterson]

It's not necessarily prohibitive for RKBA exercise at the moment (such things can change, of course), but it is certainly prohibitive for other kinds of activities, such as general aviation. If you are diagnosed with depression and anxiety, you will be prohibited from flying aircraft.

Dave22's advice is sound, even if not for 2A reasons.

My problem isn't the gun issue here. It's his suggestion that one avoid treatment if one wants to keep their RKBA...

[njineermike]

Or how about this:

Doc: guns are bad. People get hurt.

Patient: Then I'll try to avoid shooting you for now.

[Dreaded Claymore]

The physician refused to see them anymore."


Sorry kids, but that's his right as a physician. If he doesn't like guns in the household its his right to feel that way, and to structure his private business accordingly.Im all for expanding the RKBA, but forcing acceptance at the point of a tort suit does our case no favors. Just like gun laws don't stop crooks from packing, a law mandating a physician not discuss gun ownership won't stop antis from believing guns are wrong.

This. Florida can't stop physicians from asking patients about their guns any more than Oakland or San Francisco can stop SAF from advertising the Gun Rights Policy Conference on BART. In order to protect our own rights to do what we like, we have to protect the rights of others to do what we dislike.

[wash]

My recollection of the genesis of this law wasn't that people were worried about doctors asking them about guns, it was about people worried that doctors were asking their kids about their guns.

Certain doctors and medical schools are desperately trying to frame gun ownership as a "public health" issue. Then they leverage CPS to further their anti-gun agenda.

In previous generations, you could tell your children "tell the doctor everything, you can trust them" now it's not like that.

Honestly most doctors are not as well equipped as me to deal with my health, I only use them to get diagnostic tests and prescription drugs that I don't have access to. The last time I wanted to start a new medication, I knew more about the drug and it's side effects than my doctor and properly suggested a diagnostic test that my doctor didn't even consider.

Doctors are far from infallible and a surprisingly small amount of research can make you more informed about your own health than your average doctor.

My point is that Doctors mostly don't deserve the amount of respect that their title commands and some will abuse every privilege that they can command.

[Shotgun Man]

If a doctor can be prohibited from asking about guns, he can similarly be prohibited from inquiring about contraception, interests in risky sporting activities, and all manner of things. This law is stupid.

By the same token, there should be no law mandating that medical professionals inquire about gun ownership.

[Dave22]

In previous generations, you could tell your children "tell the doctor everything, you can trust them" now it's not like that.

I think some of you are getting it.

The poster that commented on medical schools advocating anti gun policy under the guise of a public health hazard is correct.

...but also know not all docs are anti gun.

[IVC]

If a doctor can be prohibited from asking about guns, he can similarly be prohibited from inquiring about contraception, interests in risky sporting activities, and all manner of things. This law is stupid.

Apples and oranges. The questions about guns are used for sole purpose of discrimination and have nothing to do with any of the health issues (unless you swallowed a gun or did something equally stupid). No diagnosis or treatment will be different based on gun ownership.

However, asking about guns perpetuates the "public health" issue, where "guns kill people" so it's up to doctors to ask about it and "cure gun owners from guns." Eerily similar to trying to "cure" some other groups of people because "their kind is danger to the society."

[IVC]

This. Florida can't stop physicians from asking patients about their guns any more than Oakland or San Francisco can stop SAF from advertising the Gun Rights Policy Conference on BART. In order to protect our own rights to do what we like, we have to protect the rights of others to do what we dislike.

You have it backwards. Doctors refusing service based on gun ownership is exactly like BART refusing to run SAF advertisements because they don't like guns.

Doctors can hate guns in private. Refusing someone for being a gun owner should be looked upon no differently than refusing someone because they are black. One is free to be a bigot in private, but it changes when they are in position of power, or if they are certified by a government entity.

[Shotgun Man]

Apples and oranges. The questions about guns are used for sole purpose of discrimination and have nothing to do with any of the health issues (unless you swallowed a gun or did something equally stupid). No diagnosis or treatment will be different based on gun ownership.

However, asking about guns perpetuates the "public health" issue, where "guns kill people" so it's up to doctors to ask about it and "cure gun owners from guns." Eerily similar to trying to "cure" some other groups of people because "their kind is danger to the society."

A doctor might ask about guns to a patient given to seizures, to warn him not to place his finger on the trigger if he feels a seizure coming on.

Similarly, a sleepwalking patient might be guided by a doctor's gentle advice to take mild precautions.

[IVC]

A doctor might ask about guns to a patient given to seizures, to warn him not to place his finger on the trigger if he feels a seizure coming on.

Similarly, a sleepwalking patient might be guided by a doctor's gentle advice to take mild precautions.

This applies to any machinery, cutlery, tools, etc. A general warning would be sufficient for this purpose.

Remember, infringement is if there exists a less intrusive way of doing things, but they choose not to use it because of the background agenda.

[GaryV]

This was a bad decision, in that the judge completely mischaracterized what the law does, and then ruled that her entirely made-up version was unconstitutional because of stuff that isn't even in the law. Nothing in the law prohibits discussing guns. Physicians are only prohibited from requesting that patients disclose gun ownership. Any other discussion of guns and gun safety are expressly allowed.