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
Last Chance for Gun Owners to Ask U.S. House to Amend the Reconciliation Bill

News  

Monday, May 19, 2025

Last Chance for Gun Owners to Ask U.S. House to Amend the Reconciliation Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives has another chance to amend the current Reconciliation Bill making its way through Congress. The Reconciliation Bill would currently rescind the unconstitutional tax on suppressors, but it doesn’t remove them ...

Trump DOJ Settles Lawsuits Involving Forced Reset Triggers

News  

Monday, May 19, 2025

Trump DOJ Settles Lawsuits Involving Forced Reset Triggers

On Friday, May 16, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the settlement of several lawsuits arising from the Biden-Harris regime’s attempt to reclassify forced reset triggers (FRTs) as “machineguns.” DOJ’s announcement cited President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting ...

Clueless Anti-gun Democrats Dig Themselves an Ever Deeper Hole

Monday, May 19, 2025

Clueless Anti-gun Democrats Dig Themselves an Ever Deeper Hole

Anyone reading the firearm-related news these days is reminded that anti-gun Democrats appear oblivious to the blunt message sent by millions of American voters last fall. Despite Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris blowing through a mountain ...

Another Court Determines Magazines Aren’t “Arms” in Upholding Arbitrary Limits

News  

Monday, May 19, 2025

Another Court Determines Magazines Aren’t “Arms” in Upholding Arbitrary Limits

Last week, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on magazines that hold over ten rounds, overturning a lower court order that had deemed it unconstitutional. The 7-2 decision in State v. Gator’s Custom ...

House Committee on Ways and Means Advances Legislation Involving Suppressors

News  

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

House Committee on Ways and Means Advances Legislation Involving Suppressors

Early this morning, The House Committee on Ways & Means, led by Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO-08) finished a markup of their section of the Reconciliation Bill. Included in this legislation was a provision which would ...

Rocky Times for Gun Owners in the Rocky Mountain State

News  

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Rocky Times for Gun Owners in the Rocky Mountain State

As the Colorado legislative session closes, its 2025 edition will long be remembered and lamented as a historic assault on the Second Amendment.

Illinois: Legislation to Shut Down Gun Manufacturers in Committee Tomorrow

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Illinois: Legislation to Shut Down Gun Manufacturers in Committee Tomorrow

Tomorrow, the House Gun Violence Prevention Committee will hear House Bill 3320, a dangerous proposal that could effectively shut down firearm manufacturing in Illinois. Please use the Take Action button below to contact committee members and ...

Arizona: Governor Hobbs Vetoes Three Pro-Gun Bills Passed by Legislature

Friday, May 16, 2025

Arizona: Governor Hobbs Vetoes Three Pro-Gun Bills Passed by Legislature

Despite strong support from the Arizona Legislature, Governor Katie Hobbs has vetoed Senate Bills 1014, 1020, and 1143, each of which sought to protect and enhance the rights of law-abiding gun owners in the Grand Canyon ...

Is Hogg’s time up at the DNC?

News  

Monday, May 19, 2025

Is Hogg’s time up at the DNC?

The last time we mentioned David Hogg, he had been selected to be a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and wasted no time making some (many?) regret that choice. Why? Because one of ...

Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

News  

Friday, March 21, 2025

Trump Administration Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Provision

On March 20, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published an interim final rule entitled, Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority. That bland title belies the historic nature of the measure, which is aimed at reviving ...

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.