Florida Doctor Gun Law Blocked By Federal Judge

MIAMI — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a first-in-the-nation law that restricted what Florida physicians can say about guns to their patients, ruling the law violates the U.S. Constitution's free speech guarantees and does not trample gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said it was important to emphasize "the free flow of truthful, non-misleading information within the doctor-patient relationship."

"This case concerns one of our Constitution's most precious rights – the freedom of speech," said Cooke, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush. "A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect or interfere with the patient's right to continue to own, possess or use firearms."

The law was passed earlier this year by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law June 2 by GOP Gov. Rick Scott. The governor, the National Rifle Association and other supporters contended it was a violation of privacy and possibly the Second Amendment for doctors to question patients about guns at home.

But physicians' groups representing some 11,000 doctors and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sued. They said the law halted meaningful discussions between doctors and patients – especially parents with guns – about keeping the weapons out of the hands of children.

Dr. Lisa Cosgrove, president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the ruling will help save lives. She said doctors routinely counsel patients about safety issues at home, on everything from backyard swimming pools to use of bike helmets.

"Sometimes it's just a reminder that if you are a gun owner, you make sure you are a responsible gun owner," said Cosgrove, a pediatrician. "Children cannot make these decisions about safety for themselves. Parents have to be the guides for that."

Daniel Vice, senior attorney with the Washington-based Brady Center, said the decision invalidates a "dangerous and blatantly unconstitutional law."

"Especially with eight kids shot and killed every day in America, it's crucial that doctors be able to talk about the severe risk of guns in the home," Vice said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Scott's office did not immediately say whether there would be an appeal, and NRA officials in Tallahassee could not be reached for comment. Cooke's ruling temporarily halts enforcement of the law, but the judge indicated that decision would likely be made permanent.

The chief Senate sponsor, Republican Sen. Greg Evers, said he was disappointed in the ruling and that he expected an appeal. The lead House supporter, GOP Rep. Jason Brodeur, said doctors could accomplish their goal by giving gun safety talks to all Floridians.

"Direct questions about firearm ownership when it has nothing to do with medical care is simply pushing a political agenda, which doesn't belong in exam rooms," Brodeur said in an email.

The law arose out of the so-called "Ocala incident," in which a young mother in 2010 was dropped from a doctor's practice because she refused to answer questions about gun ownership. Her cause found its way to the Legislature, which came up with similar instances around the state that some lawmakers compared to interrogations.

At one point, lawmakers wanted to make violations punishable by a five-year prison sentence and $5 million fine. That was eventually scaled back to disciplinary action that could include loss of a doctor's medical license and a fine up to $10,000. There were also several exceptions, such as permission to ask questions about firearms to people with mental problems.

In her ruling, Cooke said she found very little evidence of widespread harassment or discrimination of gun owners by doctors.

"It is unlikely that a concern for some patients who may be offended or uncomfortable by questions regarding firearm ownership could justify this law," she said.

___

Associated Press writer Gary Fineout in Tallahassee contributed to this story.

___

Follow Curt Anderson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Miamicurt

Comments

[marinesnake]

09:09 PM on 10/02/2011

how much money does Rick Scott get from national rifle associates for his election but it ok but if union give money to other candidate he make noise two can play same games i wonder if the N R A members voted to donate money to Scott i didnt guns do not put food on the table and pay the bills as a union member we voted who we donate to a candidate Iam N R A member i think iam going to resign from N R A they getting out of hand everybody should have machine guns AK47 too even the kids to that how these guys think

[ScorpioTop]

02:38 AM on 10/15/2011

NRA policies have led to more American deaths than terrorist attacks.

[Jay from Ottawa]

07:41 PM on 09/30/2011

While I'm not against it, I do find it odd since my doctor has never asked anything of the sorts. They usually ask relevant questions like "how active are you blah blah blah blah" which is all fine and dandy. While I have no problems with doctors asking their client if they have firearms to then talk about firearm safety, I do find it unnaceptable that a client would be dropped by her doctor because she refused to answer the question, though it all honestly, she should have been a little smarter and simply answers "no, I don't own firearms" ... it's not like that actually check.

[Bradley Scott Roon]

12:16 AM on 09/24/2011

i don't own a gun but am thinking of getting one for hunting. Venison is SOOO much healthier than that feedlot garbage in the stores. This story makes me first of all think that now if someone wants to round up the guns they will know right where to go to.

[dbrett480]

04:46 PM on 09/17/2011

Although I would find it incredibly insulting if a doctor lectured me on gun safety, I wonder if anyone has actually been counseled by their doctor about anything other than health?

[Dahveed1]

02:35 AM on 09/17/2011

While its irritating for your doctor to be using your visit with them to sell their political agenda, perhaps this could have been handled better by going to a better doctor, say one that is concerned with your actual health and not your political views. It seems like a law about this is really not needed.

[JimInHouston]

07:03 PM on 09/17/2011

"perhaps this could have been handled better by going to a better doctor"

This is not always possible or practical.

[Dahveed1]

08:20 PM on 09/17/2011

This is true. Many small rural places do not have multiple doctors to visit. Of course, I would suspect that many rural doctors would also be hunters and own guns.

[stonewalker]

08:44 PM on 09/16/2011

Meh, I sort of hope the Bradies win this one. It will be the only one.

[Sharon Norris]

07:07 PM on 09/16/2011

NRA is trying to restrict all other rights except those of gun owner. They didn't even limit the law to prohibiting the doctor from asking questions about gun ownership or requiring the doctor to care for the patient anyway -- they took a broad approach and tried to prohibit any discussion at all of the subject =-- just watch them try the same thing with other groups in future...

[OdinsEye]

07:55 PM on 09/16/2011

You are quite misinformed about the law.

[OdinsEye]

04:07 PM on 09/16/2011

Here is some information that even under this law, doctors could still share with parents/patients:

[OdinsEye]

04:39 PM on 09/16/2011

--------

Parents play a key role in developing safe practices and are ultimately responsible for the behavior and safety of their children. Because isolated lessons and concepts can be quickly forgotten, repetition will help children remember standard safety procedures.

In a home where guns are kept, the degree of safety a child has rests squarely on the child's parents.

There is no particular age to talk with your child about gun safety. A good time to introduce the subject is the first time he or she shows an interest in firearms, even toy pistols or rifles. Talking openly and honestly about gun safety with your child is usually more effective than just ordering him or her to "Stay out of the gun closet," and leaving it at that. Such statements may just stimulate a child's natural curiosity to investigate further.

Most states impose some form of legal duty on adults to take reasonable steps to deny access by children to dangerous substances or instruments. It is the individual gun owner's responsibility to understand and follow all laws regarding gun purchase, ownership, storage, transport, etc. Contact your state police and/or local police for information regarding such laws.

Store guns so that they are inaccessible to children and other unauthorized users. Gun shops sell a wide variety of safes, cases, and other security devices. While specific security measures may vary, a parent must, in every case, assess the exposure of the firearm and absolutely ensure that it is inaccessible to a child.

[OdinsEye]

05:11 PM on 09/16/2011

More info which could be shared even under this law:

There are three basic steps to safely having firearms in a home where children are present or may be present:

1) Educate: Teach young children not to play with or touch firearms. As they get older, begin explaining to them the rules for safe handling of firearms. For those who are old enough, explain the legal issues involved with the handling of firearms.

2) Unload: All firearms which are not under the immediate, direct control of a responsible person or not secured should be unloaded.

3) Secure: All firearms which are not under the immediate, direct control of a responsible person should be secured.

Following just these three simple steps greatly reduces the chances that a child will gain access to a loaded firearm and shoot it.

For those who wish to have a loaded firearm ready for defensive purposes, there are several good safes out there such as the ones by GunVault which secure the firearm and yet can be rapidly opened if necessary.

[OdinsEye]

04:03 PM on 09/16/2011

Now, having already completely demolished the "eight kids shot and killed every day in America" claim ( see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/OdinsEye/florida-doctor-gun-law_n_962849_108136392.html ) , another consideration to keep in mind is that this stat deals with the age of the victim, it has nothing to do with the age of the actor.

Not all of these kids are killed by their own hand or at the hands of an actor under 18 years old. We know that people 18 and over have had accidents which resulted in the death of someone under 18. We definitely know of cases where an actor 18 years old or older intentionally killed someone under 18.

So, while stats on the ages of the actors is not availible, we know that the number of kids shot or shot and killed by themselves or by another kid is even LESS than the numbers I gave from the CDC.

[G NBanner]

11:11 AM on 09/16/2011

Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, Policemen, Postmen, Sanitary Engineers, Teachers, Brick Layers, Nurses, Legal Aids, Telemarketers, Account Executive, Anesthesiologist, Applications Systems Analyst, Appraiser, Associate, Bookkeeper, Business Analyst, Celebrant, Accountant, Claims Examiner, Clinical Psychologist, College Professor, Commercial Property Manager, Community Organizer, Comptroller, Computer Software Program Manager, Computer/Network Security Consultant, Construction Manager
Field Service Engineer, Finance Director, Hotel General Manager, Human Resources Manager, Lobbyist, Manufacturing Engineer, Network Administrator, Nonprofit Executive, Office Manager, Outside Sales Representative, Personal Trainer/Fitness Instructor, Pharmacist, Plant Manager, Product Marketing Manager, Property Manager, Psychiatrist, Quality Assurance Manager, Railroad Conductor/Yardmaster, Real Estate Agent, Recruiter, Sales Director, Securities Trader, Software Developer, Speech-Language Pathologist, Systems Engineer, Veterinarian, and Warehouse Supervisors.

Everyone should be free to tell you that guns are bad that you are only going to hurt yourself and the only way to keep them from hurting you is by adopting sensible and reasonable policies that register and eventually disarm the public though no one is talking about handgun bans.

http://tinyurl.com/4k346he

[Iconcoclast]

05:06 AM on 09/16/2011

otoh lying to intrusive jerks is always a good alternative. Once, when I was driving through the Canada border, the border guard asked me if I had any firearms in my home in the USA. After a short WTF moment, I calmly lied and said "No". The border guard accepted my passport and I went for a nice skiing trip in Whistler, BC.

My young son was in the car with me at the time. He knew I owned multiple firearms, so I felt obligated to explain to him why I lied to the border guard. My explanation was simple: my ownership of firearms in the USA was none of her business. So she deserved the lie.

In the same way, a doctor attempting to intrude on matters that are none of his business deserves a lie. I would feel little or no compunction about lying to a nosy busybody of a quack who wanted to know about what firearms I owned.

[OdinsEye]

03:05 PM on 09/16/2011

Had you answered "Yes", they probably would have searched your vehicle.

[Iconcoclast]

05:48 PM on 09/16/2011

Probably. But that concerned me less than being placed on some sort of Canada watchlist as an evil US gun owner. Then I would be harassed much more often when entering Canada.

[Conlaw Bloganon]

01:04 AM on 09/16/2011

I'm a gun owner and an NRA member, and I strongly endorse this ruling. The doctor has every right in the world to pose such questions. And the patient has every right in the world to decline to answer. An educated patient, though, will likely respond, "Well, at least I don't have a swimming pool." Home swimming pools and bath tubs, of course, kill about 20x as many children every year as do gun accidents.

[Marcus Bryner]

12:38 AM on 09/16/2011

This is stupid. I'm an MD, I own a 357 magnum revolver & 22 rifle, and I'm 100% for gun-rights. But shouldn't pediatricians ask these kind of questions as a matter of course along with the questions like do you have a fence around your pool, do your kids wear helmets, etc. ?? If the patient/parent says "none of your business," you just go on...

[OdinsEye]

03:00 PM on 09/16/2011

The biggest issue is what they do with this knowedge. Unfortunately, when one woman refused to answer, the doctor did not "just go on".

As the article states, "The law arose out of the so-called "Ocala incident," in which a young mother in 2010 was dropped from a doctor's practice because she refused to answer questions about gun ownership. Her cause found its way to the Legislature, which came up with similar instances around the state that some lawmakers compared to interrogations."

They were sharing these answers with insurance companies, harassing patients, using the information to support political ends, dropping patients, etc. If they had simply used the information to determine whether or not to give them a pamphlet on firearm safety, it would never have been an problem.

[OdinsEye]

03:03 PM on 09/16/2011

The law in question does not stop a doctor from providing informatio­n about firearm safety.

It stops doctors from asking if firearms are present in the home, with certain exceptions where there is a specific patient issue where a patient might be a danger to themselves or others.

It stops doctors from recording informatio­n regarding the presence of firearms or about the refusal to answer questions about the presense of firearms.

It stops doctors from sharing with insurance companies informatio­n regarding the presense of firearms or refusal to answer questions about the presense of firearms.

It stops doctors from haras.sing patients who possess firearms or who refuse to answer questions about the presense of firearms.

It stops doctors from discrimina­ting against or refusing to treat patients who possess firearms or refuse to answer questions about the presense of firearms.

[OdinsEye]

09:50 PM on 09/15/2011

"Daniel Vice, senior attorney with the Washington-based Brady Center, said the decision invalidates a "dangerous and blatantly unconstitutional law."

"Especially with eight kids shot and killed every day in America, it's crucial that doctors be able to talk about the severe risk of guns in the home," Vice said." -- from the article.

Vice is incorrect. The actual number is half that. The Brady Center's claim is based on data which includes adults. They have a long history of doing this, having claimed in the past that it was 13 kids a day and when having their data set exposed, they reduced it to 11, then 9 and now 8, each time having their data set exposed, and yet they still insist on including adults in this claim.

[Francois Bergeron]

09:21 AM on 09/16/2011

:o)

The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006—a 6 percent increase from 2005. This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.

[OdinsEye]

01:43 PM on 09/16/2011

"The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens "

Children and TEENS. That includes ADULTS aged 18 and 19. FURTHERMORE, the latest data is from 2007, you cite 2006's numbers

Looking at the CDC data, when you only include non-adults (kids), from 1999 to 2007 (latest year of final data available), and not counting legal interventions (justified shootings by police or civilian defenders) the highest year recorded 1,767 deaths via firearms. The most recent year, 2007, recorded 1,511. The average for those 9 years is 1,491.

To get the data you present (3,184), you have to include adults age 18 and 19. In 2006, not counting legal interventions, there were 3,184 deaths via firearms for age 0-19. From 1999 to 2007, the highest number recorded was 3,365. 2007 recorded 3,042. The average for those 9 years is 3,004.

All of this information can be veried from the CDC's WISQARS research tool.

.
.

IOW, what I posted is correct. The number of "kids" is half what Mr Vice states.

[OdinsEye]

01:50 PM on 09/16/2011

Tables do not normally work well, but here is the data:

A // B // C // D
Year // 0-19 total firearm deaths // 0-19 Legal Int. w/ firearms // Yearly Total sans Legal Int.
1999 // 3,385 // 20 // 3,365
2000 // 3,042 // 30 // 3,012
2001 // 2,937 // 26 // 2,911
2002 // 2,893 // 26 // 2,867
2003 // 2,849 // 22 // 2,827
2004 // 2,852 // 27 // 2,825
2005 // 3,027 // 21 // 3,006
2006 // 3,218 // 34 // 3,184
2007 // 3,067 // 25 // 3,042
Total // 27,270 // 231 // 27,039
.. // .. // Avg // 3,004

A // B // C // D
Year // 0-17 total firearm deaths // 0-17 Legal Int. w/ firearms // Yearly Total sans Legal Int.
1999 // 1,776 // 9 // 1,767
2000 // 1,544 // 15 // 1,529
2001 // 1,433 // 6 // 1,427
2002 // 1,443 // 7 // 1,436
2003 // 1,317 // 8 // 1,309
2004 // 1,385 // 6 // 1,379
2005 // 1,490 // 5 // 1,485
2006 // 1,593 // 14 // 1,579
2007 // 1,520 // 9 // 1,511
Total // 13,501 // 79 // 13,422
.. // .. // Avg // 1,491

[Francois Bergeron]

09:24 AM on 09/16/2011

Hi again.
Once again, these numbers consistantly change depending on where you look.
Each year, there are 34,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. How many of those dead are children, and has that number increased in the last few years? Here are the facts.

Safety expert Gavin de Becker found out while researching his books, The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift, that:

Every day, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover — 15 do not.

Read more on FamilyEducation: http://life.familyeducation.com/school-safety-month/violence/29712.html#ixzz1Y7b7rBtj

[OdinsEye]

02:11 PM on 09/16/2011

"Once again, these numbers consistant­ly change depending on where you look."

I cite directly from the CDC and do not rely on third or fourth party research or reports.

"Each year, there are 34,000 gun-relate­d deaths in the U.S."

Not quite.

From 1999 to 2007, the latest year of final data available from the CDC, the highest recorded in one year sans legal interventions, was 30,873. Of the 9 years, 6 recorded numbers less than 30,000. The average for those 9 years is 29,664.

"How many of those dead are children,"

Of those nine years, the average per year is 1,491.

" Here are the facts....Every day, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover — 15 do not."

His "facts" are not correct. He is repeating an older claim by the gun control lobby of 15 children per day (roughly 5,475 per year). To get that number they included ages 18 through 24. The gun control lobby got soundly smacked on this fib a long time ago. (see my original post)

[OdinsEye]

02:29 PM on 09/16/2011

" Here are the facts....E­very day, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover — 15 do not."


75 per day would be roughly 27,375 per year.

Again, using the CDC data directly, not relying on third or fouth parties, from the year 2001 to 2009 (last year of final data available from the CDC for non-fatal injuries), for children age 0-17, the highest number recorded in one year was 9,714. The average was 7,733 per year.

This excludes any fatal injuries. Your source combines fatal and non-fatal injuries.

Adding fatal (1,491) and non-fatal averages (7,733) together gives 9,224. That works out to 25 per day. That is a far cry from 75.

[OdinsEye]

05:46 PM on 09/15/2011

The law in question does NOT stop a doctor from giving parents information about firearm safety.