Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat

Friday, July 31, 2015

Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat

Anti-gun doctors may need to get their own blood pressure checked after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again upheld Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act

As we reported last summer, the law was passed after an escalating series of events in which patients were harassed or denied access to services because they refused to be interrogated by their doctors about their ownership of firearms.  A group of Florida doctors committed to the idea of haranguing patients for exercising their Second Amendment rights sued, claiming a First Amendment right to grill patients about firearm ownership, even where it isn’t relevant to the patient’s care.

Unsurprisingly, the appellate court upheld the law last July, stating: “The essence of the Act is simple: medical practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’ firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the patient with good medical care.” Far from a ban on doctors’ expressing their views about firearms or other public policy or medical issues, the court held, the Act merely “protects a patient’s ability to receive effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.” 

It’s no secret that the medical establishment has long been hostile toward the private ownership of firearms. No less a doctor than President Obama’s pick for U.S. Surgeon General has engaged in anti-gun activism.  Even WebMD.com, a common online source for medical information, counsels parents to “to avoid keeping guns and firearms in the home,” and only provides recommendations for “secure” storage when purging the home of firearms altogether “is not possible.” This history, as well as outright discrimination against patients who refused to discuss their gun ownership, formed the backdrop for Florida’s law.

It’s also no surprise that the plaintiffs and other gun control advocates were not happy with the loss the Eleventh Circuit handed to them back in 2014. “Censorship in Your Doctor’s Office,” huffed the New York Times. A Florida physician’s group called the decision “egregious” and “dangerous” and claimed it would silence “life-saving conversations.” 

In any case, the panel of judges that issued the original opinion decided on their own initiative to revisit their original analysis. The results of that reconsideration were issued on Tuesday, in a revised 77-page opinion. Spoiler alert: the doctors still lose and patient privacy still wins.

Whereas the original opinion characterized the regulated behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – rather than pure speech, the revised opinion delves more deeply into the First Amendment claims raised by the plaintiffs. Finding that inquiries into gun ownership, entries about gun ownership in medical records, and even verbal “harassment” of gun owners are all forms of “speech” protected by the First Amendment, the court then considers the seriousness of the regulatory intrusion and level of scrutiny to be applied to it. 

The court observes, “All regulations of speech are not created equal in the eyes of the First Amendment.” Here, the court characterizes the regulated expression as “professional speech.” It then finds the government has a freer hand to regulate in this context because of “the authority—duty, even—of States to regulate the practice of professions to ‘shield the public against the untrustworthy, the incompetent, or the irresponsible.’” In this case, “The State made the commonsense determination that inquiry about firearm ownership, a topic which many of its citizens find highly private, falls outside the bounds of good medical care to the extent the physician knows such inquiry to be entirely irrelevant to the medical care or safety of a patient or any person.” The court therefore determines that “intermediate scrutiny” is the proper standard for evaluating the law.

The court identifies the state’s interests in enacting the law as “protecting the public by regulating the medical profession so as to safeguard patient privacy,” which it finds “substantial” enough to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. It then goes on to find that the law’s requirements have a “direct and material” relationship to alleviating those harms. Citing the legislative record of complaints against physicians, and the limited nature of the restrictions imposed by the law, the court determines “’simple common sense’ furnishes ample support for the legislature’s decision.” “The State need not point to peer-reviewed studies or conduct extensive surveys,” the opinion states, “to establish that proscribing highly intrusive speech that physicians themselves do not believe to be relevant or necessary directly advances the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from harmful or ineffective professional practices and safeguarding their privacy.”

We certainly agree, and we credit the Court for its thorough, well-reasoned opinion. Whether it’s the final word in the case, however, remains to be seen. One of the three judges hearing the case filed a lengthy dissent, echoing the familiar refrain that doctors’  must be free to address the “public health problem” posed by firearms according to their own beliefs. The plaintiffs still have the options of petitioning the full roster of Eleventh Circuit judges to hear the case en banc or to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. 

TRENDING NOW
Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

During a July 21 CNN “presidential town hall,” Joe Biden expressed his support for a ban on commonly-owned handguns. Responding to a question about the recent increase in violent crime, the career politician stated,

Great Expectations, Empty Promises: Gun Control in Washington State

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

Great Expectations, Empty Promises: Gun Control in Washington State

For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), the organization pushing ...

How Anti-Gun Research Works

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

How Anti-Gun Research Works

The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Ignores Violent Crime While Playing Politics with Gun Owners

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Ignores Violent Crime While Playing Politics with Gun Owners

Similar to many other urban areas of the country, St. Louis saw a dramatic increase in homicide in 2020. The Gateway to the West’s homicide rate per 100 thousand residents exploded from 64.5 in 2019 to 87.2 in 2020. The homicide ...

Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

Last September we reported on the saga of Ka'Mauri Harrison, a Louisiana elementary school student who was suspended for having a BB gun that happened to come into view while the fourth grader was participating in online ...

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Yesterday, SB 118, Constitutional Carry, was defeated due to several Senators reversing their initial vote of support on the bill.  Two of the Senators who flip-flopped were Senators Patrick Connick (SD-8) and Louie Bernard (SD-31). 

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. NRA-ILA’s opening brief is located here.

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. And just last week, NRA-ILA filed the opening brief in this crucial case, which is located here.

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Monday, June 30, 2014

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.