The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 30, 2011, 10:45 AM   #26
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,961
I haven't read the complaint, but I've been keeping up on the blurbs on this one, so I have only a rough idea of what's really going on. In and of itself, I do not have a problem with doctors asking about firearms in the home, and giving basic, general advice on safety. I do not see it as being all that different from asking about swimming pools or household cleaners. I also don't insist on a doctor being a Red Cross certified lifeguard to tell parents not to leave their 2-year-old unattended at the pool.

Where I take issue is with some of the medical organizations attempting to have firearm violence classified as a "disease," and then equating firearm ownership with firearm violence. The two are not even close to synonymous. I also have some serious concerns about what happens to that information once the doctors have it. IOW, will insurance companies raise life insurance premiums for firearms owners?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2011, 02:16 PM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,846
Quote:
I haven't read the complaint, but I've been keeping up on the blurbs on this one, so I have only a rough idea of what's really going on. In and of itself, I do not have a problem with doctors asking about firearms in the home, and giving basic, general advice on safety. I do not see it as being all that different from asking about swimming pools or household cleaners. I also don't insist on a doctor being a Red Cross certified lifeguard to tell parents not to leave their 2-year-old unattended at the pool.

Where I take issue is with some of the medical organizations attempting to have firearm violence classified as a "disease," and then equating firearm ownership with firearm violence. The two are not even close to synonymous. I also have some serious concerns about what happens to that information once the doctors have it. IOW, will insurance companies raise life insurance premiums for firearms owners?
Therin lies the difference that I think many people are getting hung up on. You can give very basic safety advice without even needing to ask if there are firearms in the house. There is a huge difference between telling Mrs. First Time Mom that she should keep any firearms and ammunition that may be in the house out of reach of her toddler and telling Grandma that she should not have a gun in the house becuase someone will take it away and kill her with it.

The issue isn't about giving general safety advice, that's been a widespread and common practice for decades. The issue is about physicians asking unneccessry and invasive personal questions of their patients for no reason other than to advance a political agenda under the guise of "public health."

Restrictions on such questioning is nothing new, questions about religeon, sexual orientation, and other such issues are commonly restricted unless medically pertinent to that particular case. For example, Jehova's Witnesses do not believe in recieving blood products. Rather than flat out ask every patient "what is your religeon?", patients with conditions that may require blood products are often asked "Do you have any religeous belief that would prevent you from recieving blood or blood products?"

Ideally, it would be a non-issue as a patient has the right to refuse answer any question or undergo any treatment. Unfortunately, many patients, particularly those that lack education, are not fully aware of their rights and some medical professionals use heavy-handed tactics to exploit that.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 30, 2011, 05:21 PM   #28
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
My big problem is #1 I don't trust any person with Brady. They can say they just want to regulate firearms but we know that is a lie. They want to ban handguns. So why would I trust any Doctor who is in cahoots with Brady?

It all starts out innocent....

I work with the military as a civilian. I have to deal with medical records and medical information as it relates to individual readiness. Every so often the military members have to have a physical exam.

Imagine my surprise when I get back information that a military members access to firearms is restricted. I usually notify the Commander and Sr. NCO in charge. WE are scratching our heads because we know these people and the pieces of the puzzle don't fit. The commander calls the individual in to counsel him.

The individual is like WHAT! As you know the military has a big problem with PTSD so they are looking for it big time. When you talk to the individual he says I told the Doc nothing about having behavioral health problems. The deal is the Doc never asks that. He asks a series of questions about it. If you answer yes then you get tagged. Most of the times the person is just having a bad hair week or month nothing on a permanent basis.

This can be a doctor or a nurse practitioner asking these questions. Who may have no background in mental health issues.

We then have to send the individual to a "qualified" mental health proffesional to get them cleared.

Imagine how easy it would be to slip this in a medical exam. Imagine then the Doctor making a call to law enforcement that this person has firearms and has mental health problems and is a danger to himself and others....

If you give the Brady folks and inch they will take 10 miles.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 02:54 PM   #29
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,545
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us...ed.html?ref=us

Looks like the implementation of the FL law has been halted for the moment.

Interesting issue is whether the state can stop a doc from asking anything vs. I don't like my doc asking such and should deal with him or her as I would with any bad service provider using the force of the marketplace.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:36 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
The order granting the PI is here.

What is interesting at this point, is the reasoning the Judge uses to uphold 1A rights. This can easily be turned towards 2A issues, in other cases.

I would now have to also say that I think the Judge is correct.<-- I've just reversed myself!
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:39 PM   #31
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
The biggest disconnect here is that it ISN'T free speech - I'm paying for it! If I am paying for his time than I want it focused on the issues I came to be seen for, NOT political grandstanding. He is free to mount a soapbox in front of his office during his lunch hour to expound on whatever he feels, but NOT when I am footing the bill.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 04:16 PM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,545
But that is a free market decision as compared to legislative matter. You are free to go elsewhere. If you were compelled by something or other to use that doctor, I could see it as a judicial matter.

Personally, I would tell the doctor - MYOB and if it influences our interaction, then Bye, bye.

Luckily here, my Docs are fine with this and I have to ask them questions about shooting and my FOG array of concerns.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old September 15, 2011, 05:00 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Similarly, the American College of Physicians (“ACP”) and its Florida chapter (“FACP”) advance the position that a physician has a “critical role” in providing preventive injury counseling on diet, exercise, substance abuse, domestic violence, risky recreational activities, use of swimming pools and smoke detectors, and firearms safety.
So how many of this group's physician members routinely ask their patients about and/or counsel their patients about the inherent hazards involved in activities such as motorcycle riding, sports car racing, horseback riding, sky diving, mixed martial arts combat competition, ...?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 10:12 PM   #34
Johannes_Paulsen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 282
Quote:
So how many of this group's physician members routinely ask their patients about and/or counsel their patients about the inherent hazards involved in activities such as motorcycle riding, sports car racing, horseback riding, sky diving, mixed martial arts combat competition, ...?
Probably not that often.

Still doesn't justify the Florida law, though.
Johannes_Paulsen is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 10:13 PM   #35
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,901
I find this very interesting because I skeet shoot with my family doctor fairly regularly.

He shoots for the same reason as many of us do - it's a fun way to unwind after a long week of work. Funny thing, I guess.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 09:00 AM   #36
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I don't think the Florida law will stand. 1st Amendment rights usually get very broad interpretation.

I'm thinking they will protect doctors rights to advise their patients however they see fit - even if it is ill advised, politically motivated or whatever.

I could be wrong, but I think the law will be overturned.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 09:08 AM   #37
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
It's interesting to note though that homosexuality underwent an exact opposite treatment as what's occurring with firearms.

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1973. Doctors would even inquire into some of the signs that adolesents might be struggling with it.

If a doctor today did the same kind of inquiries in regards to this that were routinely done in the late 60s, their career would be ended in a very public way, in the national media. This is an example of how a topic became strictly off limits for physicians to bring up with their patients, or parents of patients.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 09:14 AM   #38
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,000
It becomes a problem when,,,

Your doctor asks you about gun in your home,,,
You refuse to answer his questions for whatever reason,,,
He puts that refusal in your medical records and the insurance company denies coverage.

That's the situation a California doctor (Kaiser Medical insurance) threatened me and my wife with.

Aarond
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 09:22 AM   #39
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The phrase:

"Bring Lawyers, Guns, and Money..."

I have a feeling the only way to get doctors (and Medical Insurance Companies) to stop these shenanigans is to sue them into the ground when they do it...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 09:52 AM   #40
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I would venture to say that an argument can be made that a parent who smokes in the presence of their children, and keeps cigarettes in the house poses more of a health hazard to their kids than the sportsman or hunter who possesses firearms and teaches their children responsible gun ownership and shooting.

It may be example of another boogieman that doctors hunt.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 11:09 AM   #41
CUBAN REDNECK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: SW FLORIDA
Posts: 246
Choose wisely

My Ophthalmologist is an avid shooter and has several piston AR's. Like any commodity, choose your doctors. If they offend you look for another one. This is too much energy devoted to a ridiculous non-issue.
CUBAN REDNECK is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 11:38 AM   #42
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
It's not a non-issue.

In a broader sense it shows how third parties can foster a political agenda that has real negative impacts to the people that they try to force into conformity.

My oldest daughter mentioned to her class that her father shoots guns. That's all she said.

I got a call from the school counselor and got the thrid degree about it. The woman seemed not to be listening to me when I told her my firearms were locked and not accesible to children. Despite what I told her - she went on to tell me about the dangers of children with firearms and the school's zero tolerance policy. I told her I thought the school's zero tolerance policy was a good thing, and I was sure it could only protect my children, and my kids would never run afoul of it becasue there was no way they could ever access my firearms. That seemed to anger her so she took another five minutes of my time repeating verbatim everything she had said previously. She obviously had an agenda - to convince me that guns are bad and that I needed to get rid of them. Why repeat her shpeel after I acknowledged what she had said and told her that my firearms were secured? She wasn't satisfied with that, she didn't like that oprion - that I had firearms but that they were secure. She wanted to impose her will on me - which meant getting rid of my firearms. I also got a call from the school nurse shortly after that. The tone of that call had a different bent - it seemed to be aimed at determining if my house was a safe environment for my children and if the kids were in danger in my house. The nurse cited statistics about the children killed with firearms etc...

It was very alarming. I was afraid that there would be some follow up visit from DCFS to ensure that my firearms were indeed secured and locked up.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 12:15 PM   #43
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I understand what the proponents of the law were trying to do. However, I don't agree with them, as I like all the rights in the Bill of Rights, to include the 1st Amendment. I also like the 14th...

But anyway, I think we would be much better served if the major gun rights organizations simply kept an online database of physicians who ask about guns. That could be used to apply market forces to the problem. Establish the database, and advertise it to members.

We, in turn, could send links to the database to our friends and loved ones. We could then collectively let those doctors know why they had lost our business.

The same legal rationale that protects the doctors' freedom of speech when they ask such questions, should also protect datatbases that tell us which doctors do the asking.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 01:00 PM   #44
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,901
Today's editorial in the New York Times should be of no surprise to anyone who frequents this forum, but it is indicative of what we struggle against.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/op...gun-lobby.html

It's opinion, of course, so it's hard to call one's opinion a lie, but there are certainly half-truths in the piece. Obviously, The Times has elected to misinterpret the intent (and the effect) of the Florida legislation, as well as accuse the Supreme Court of misinterpreting the scope of the Second Amendment, but that seems to be the way that things work with the Paper of Record.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 02:43 PM   #45
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The hubris of the MSM never ceases to amaze me:

Quote:
...the Supreme Court, in its ruling that misread the Second Amendment as a personal right to bear arms...
This is written by some person who majored in journalism or communications and over the course of the 6 years it took them to graduate from college, took one law course and only because it was a pre-req. But they are obviously a self-appointed expert on the law while the members of the Supreme Court are fools prone to misread the constitution.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 17, 2011, 09:46 AM   #46
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,545
Amazing how your views of the issue cloud your understanding of legal issues. But it happens to all.

The issue is whether a city can overrule a state law?

The Times agrees as they don't like guns. But would they support a state reinstating slavery (they would if they didn't agree with some current constitutional interpretations).

Or some of the presidential candidates saying it was OK for a local entity to block the house of worship of religion they don't like.

As to FL voters, they can turn out the rascals. Or they can approve of their actions.

As for the issue at hand, unfortunately, I don't think you can restrain doctor's questions. If that question is used to discriminate then action is needed. Oh, wait - that implies that the RKBA should be protected as a basis to prevent discrimination. Oh, wait - again - that would mean that employers can't discriminate against gun carry, if SD is a basic right. Oh, what about my property rights. OH, does the doc have property rights - it is his business - so he is king of his castle and can say every crazy thing he wants.

OH, NO - wheels within wheels.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11760 seconds with 9 queries