Archive for bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Open discussion on just about any topic
 


       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Local politics
bieramar

New Florida Laws

In case some of ya'll missed it, there were 160 NEW laws effective in Florida last Friday.  

I thought a GOP Senate, GOP House and GOP Governor would have resulted in less government, not more?   Maybe they're all RINOS?
---

See:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/07...eam-160-new-laws-effective-today/
puc reducks

Re: New Florida Laws

bieramar wrote:
In case some of ya'll missed it, there were 160 NEW laws effective in Florida last Friday.

I thought a GOP Senate, GOP House and GOP Governor would have resulted in less government, not more? Maybe they're all RINOS?
---

See:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/07...eam-160-new-laws-effective-today/



"I'll think about it tomorrow, Rhrett."
bieramar

Judge blocks enforcement of law restricting what docs can ask about guns

September 14, 2011

MIAMI - A federal judge in Miami has blocked enforcement of afirst-in-the-nation Florida law restricting what physicians can say about guns to their patients.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ruled Wednesday that the law violates the [U.S.] Constitution's free speech protections for both doctors and patients.

The law pushed by gun rights supporters took effect June 2. It was immediately challenged by physicians' groups who contended it violates longstanding preventative medical practices.

Supporters claimed the doctors' questions are an invasion of privacy.

The measure was watered down by state lawmakers to allow exceptions. For example a doctor could ask a person with mental problems about guns at home.

Still physicians were concerned a patient could file a complaint that might lead to loss of their medical licenses and fines up to $10,000.
---
Article and after-comments: http://staugustine.com/news/local...ting-what-docs-can-ask-about-guns
===

Campaigner Scott did promise that a lot of new jobs would be created if he were elected Governor.  I didn't realize he was talking about attorneys and legal staffs.

I've lost count of how many lawsuits are challenging the many new laws passed by the "less government" Republicans in Florida.

This instant "guns and doctors" law was another attempt of a minority enforcing their beliefs on others.  
Luckily we in the U.S. still have the protection and guarantor of the "rule of law" in the courts when one person's perceived "right" conflicts with another's.
tsiya

The concept of doctors asking about firearms in the home originated with anti RKBA activists many years ago.
I instructed my daughter to keep her mouth shut 40 years ago and did the same more recently with my grandson. If I live long enough to have great grandchildren I'll do it again.
You can take your big brother government and your damned village and shove them where the Sun doesn't shine, or Chicago, whichever is most convenient!
Phred

Good law.

It's none of my doctor's business if I own, or have access to, a gun or not.  As a matter of fact when I read about this law I didn't know doctors were actually questioning their patients about guns.

Another law also passed concerning those who choose to carry a concealed weapon.  "Printing" was a problem for CCW permit holders

For those that may not know, printing is accidentally showing the outline of your weapon under your clothes.  Penalties included fines and possible jail time plus confiscating the firearm.

The new law makes allowances for those accidents, including acts of mother nature, such as the wind blowing the tail of your jacket up and exposing that pretty little .380 to the world.  No penalties now.

Another good law.
coebul

bieramar wrote:


This instant "guns and doctors" law was another attempt of a minority enforcing their beliefs on others.
Luckily we in the U.S. still have the protection and guarantor of the "rule of law" in the courts when one person's perceived "right" conflicts with another's.
Dems do it all the time.  Prime example?  0bama care.
tsiya

Phred wrote:
Good law.

It's none of my doctor's business if I own, or have access to, a gun or not. As a matter of fact when I read about this law I didn't know doctors were actually questioning their patients about guns.

Another law also passed concerning those who choose to carry a concealed weapon. "Printing" was a problem for CCW permit holders

For those that may not know, printing is accidentally showing the outline of your weapon under your clothes. Penalties included fines and possible jail time plus confiscating the firearm.

The new law makes allowances for those accidents, including acts of mother nature, such as the wind blowing the tail of your jacket up and exposing that pretty little .380 to the world. No penalties now.

Another good law.


Some pediatricians have been asking little kids for a long time, and about personal family matters other than guns. I had one appointment 8 or 10 years ago where the doctor started digging on the gun issue and I found another doctor.
If some damned liberal doctor decides you have emotional problems you can end up with a SWAT team breaking down your door, and many liberals believe every gun owner has emotional problems.
bieramar

Phred wrote:
Good law.

It's none of my doctor's business if I own, or have access to, a gun or not. As a matter of fact when I read about this law I didn't know doctors were actually questioning their patients about guns.


I haven't seen many doctors in my life so far - less than two dozen IIRC - but I've never been asked about gun ownership or access.

However during my professional life in child abuse, suicide prevention and other mental health issues, including in NE Florida counties in the early 1970s, I did encounter docs who asked about gun access in homes of patients who themselves were suicidal, lacked impulse control, exhibited antisocial violent behaviour etc., or who lived in homes with those potential disasters.

The Florida legislature did modify the original proposed law to allow for docs to ask when they have reasoned suspicions - which makes sense to me, having had crazed people sticking guns in my face, and also having had innocents killed and injured on my watch.

Doctors have rights also, and that is the legal issue.  My prediction is that the courts will expand and more properly define the exceptions, i.e., when docs can question about weapons without violating the new law.
tsiya

Problem is, slopes ARE slippery, and if you give "progressives" an inch they will take a mile and come back for more tomorrow.
Someone once said that tyranny begins with a foundation of good intentions.
They were correct!
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
Problem is, slopes ARE slippery, and if you give "progressives" an inch they will take a mile and come back for more tomorrow.
Someone once said that tyranny begins with a foundation of good intentions.
They were correct!


All true.

Now what does that have to do with a law preventing a private citizen (a doctor) from asking a guest in his/her home (office) whether or not (s)he has a weapon, or has one at home?

That is exactly what a doctor and patient communication is - a voluntary private citizen interchange.

The gun-owning patient, or the guest in your home, can lie.  
Or decline to answer, at which time the doctor, or the resident in the home, can decline to allow the patient/guest in the office/home.

So you find another doc, or someone else to visit.

The only government tyranny here is the Florida law itself!
tsiya

When minor children are involved it's a different matter.

What do you think of doctors refusing service if their questions aren't answered? It has happened.
bieramar

tsiya wrote:
When minor children are involved it's a different matter.

What do you think of doctors refusing service if their questions aren't answered? It has happened.


I think it is the doctor's right to choose to refuse to treat for any reasons of his/her own - with two exceptions:
1) if it is a life/death emergency, and/or
2) if the refusal doesn't violate constitutional laws.

And even the life/death emergency obligation to treat is conditioned on if a Good Samaritan law exists.

Doctors aren't gods, even if some of them think they are.

They are service providers and - within existing laws - can choose whom to serve.



(Doesn't mean I wasn't pissed when my 5-year-old daughter was refused further treatment at St. Augustine General Hospital, after an emergency pressure bandage was applied by a pharmacist in the hospital's Drug Store to stop the blood gushing from her forehead. I had to drive across town to Flagler Hospital E.R. for the six stitches to be sewn - the delay resulting in a life-long scar.

The reason my child was refused service was because of my previous actions, as described here: http://bumrejects.myfreeforum.org/about88.html )
bieramar

Judge bars enforcement of 'docs v. Glocks' law

The News Service of Florida
By MICHAEL PELTIER
July 2, 2012

TALLAHASSEE - Saying it was based on anecdotal information and unfounded conjecture, a federal judge has barred enforcement of a 2011 state law that restricted doctors from asking patients about guns in their houses.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ruled Friday that lawmakers had failed to make the case that gun owners were being unduly burdened by the law, which restricted doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

In a 25-page ruling, Cook permanently barred the state from enforcing the law, known officially as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and the United Sportsmen of Florida, the bill (HB 155) was approved by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Rick Scott in 2011.

The bill easily passed both chambers along largely party line votes of 88-30 in the House and 27-10 in the Senate.

"What is curious about this law and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners speech is that it aims to restrict a practitioners ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient," Cook wrote. "The purpose of preventive medicine is to discuss with a patient topics that, while perhaps not relevant to a patients medical safety at the time, inform the patient about general concerns that may arise in the future."

A coalition of groups including the Florida Pediatric Society and the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed suit in federal court in Miami, raising a litany of concerns over patient-doctor relationships and First Amendment Rights.

Cooke issued a temporary injunction in September, saying at the time the group had a good chance of winning its case against the Florida Department of Health.

Critics of the bill, led by Florida pediatricians, said the law interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and muzzled health care practitioners from asking pertinent questions regarding safety issues in the home.

Queries regarding guns at home, physicians argued, are part of a routine battery of questions including whether the home has a swimming pool and whether dangerous chemicals are properly stored.

Supporters said a gun ownership was a private matter. They cited an Ocala case in which a physician dropped a patient after she refused to answer questions about whether the family had guns in the home.

Cooke said neither supporters of the bill nor their attorneys could provide more than anecdotal information proving that prohibiting physicians from asking such questions would result in widespread discrimination against gun owners. They also could not show that Second Amendment guarantees would be jeopardized, Cooke concluded.

"I do not disagree that the government has such an interest in protecting its citizens fundamental rights," Cooke wrote. "The Firearm Owners Privacy Act, however, simply does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. The states arguments rest on a legislative illusion."

Gun control advocates, who have accused lawmakers and Gov. Scott of pandering to the NRA and other politically active pro-gun groups, lauded Cooke's ruling on Monday.

"Guns kill eight children every day," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center. "The government cannot tell us or our doctors that we are prohibited from discussing the deadly risks posed by guns."

"We thank the court for recognizing that pediatricians need to maintain an open dialogue with our patients and work with parents in order to keep children safe," said Dr. Mobeen Rathore, Florida Pediatric Society president.

"Discovering potential risks and providing education on how to prevent injury fulfills the patient-physician relationship."

The Department of Health has not determined if it will appeal the decision, but House sponsor Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said an appeal is likely.

"I expect the ruling to be appealed to the 11th Circuit (Court of Appeals in Atlanta,)" Brodeur said. "But that will depend on the wording of the ruling. I haven't read it yet so we'll have to see."

Barring any appeal, at least one key supporter said he thinks gun owner rights advocates and medical professionals can come to terms.

Lawmakers, for example, last year crafted a bill that had enough protections that the Florida Medical Association did not oppose it.

"It's an issue worth addressing next session," Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, said Monday. "I'm optimistic that we can allow the reasonable application of medicine and protect constitutional rights."
=====

Scroll back to page 1 of this thread for extensive discussion of this now permanently banned law.

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Local politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum