DATE: July 27, 2014
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
On Friday, July 25, 2013, in a 2-1 opinion the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued a strong opinion upholding Florida's law to protect the privacy rights of firearms owners and stop anti-gun doctors from interrogating parents and children about gun ownership. It is a huge win in a case the media has named the "Docs & Glocks" case.
To read the 11th U.S. DCA Opinion click here.
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. ruled that the D.C. ban on gun carry rights was unconstitutional.
Please click here to read Emily Miller’s article, Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional, on foxnews.com, about this win.
To read the Opinion click here.
BACKGROUND ON THE FLORIDA CASE
In 2011, following passage of House Bill 155 Privacy of Firearms Owners by Representative Jason Brodeur, Senator Greg Evers and others, the Brady Campaign initiated a legal action against Governor Rick Scott in U.S. District Court in Miami, to stop enforcement of the law.
Joining the Washington, D.C. based gun control organization was the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous anti-gun doctor organizations in the country and in Florida. The judge in Miami granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law alleging a violation of the First Amendment rights of doctors and claiming the law was unconstitutionally vague.
On behalf of Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed an appeal in U.S. 11th Circuit DCA and was joined by NRA and other organizations.
The 11th Circuit panel decision was 2-1 in our favor. The Court ruled that the law does not violate First Amendment rights and is not unconstitutionally vague.
from the opinion --
"In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters. As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care."