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
MA Supreme Judicial Court Holds Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional But Upholds New Law

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

MA Supreme Judicial Court Holds Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional But Upholds New Law

On March 11, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued two decisions concerning the Commonwealth’s firearms carry licensing scheme for nonresidents.

Vermont: Crossover Day Defeats All Anti-Gun Bills for 2025

Friday, March 14, 2025

Vermont: Crossover Day Defeats All Anti-Gun Bills for 2025

Today, March 14th, is  the "crossover" deadline in the Vermont legislature. Bills that fail to advance out of the chamber of origin are considered "dead" for the session.

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Expansion Bill Scheduled for Hearing on Tuesday

Friday, March 14, 2025

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Expansion Bill Scheduled for Hearing on Tuesday

On Tuesday, March 18th, the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 5098, a gun-free zone expansion bill. The hearing has been set for 10:30AM.

Washington Post Admits that Anti-gun Lawfare “Cannot be the Solution” to Crime

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Washington Post Admits that Anti-gun Lawfare “Cannot be the Solution” to Crime

In a turnabout worthy of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Washington Post (WAPO) published an editorial last Tuesday criticizing the gun control movement for ignoring the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and pursing its agenda in ...

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, February 7, 2025

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

Today, the White House announced a new Executive Order to protect and expand the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. This is the first action taken by President Donald J. Trump to carry through ...

Canada: A Fresh Gun Ban as Trudeau Exits

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Canada: A Fresh Gun Ban as Trudeau Exits

Just three months ago, Canada’s Liberal government announced that an additional 324 so-called “assault-style” firearms had been added to the list of banned guns established under then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2020.

VPC Recycles Old Campaign Against .50 Caliber Rifles

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

VPC Recycles Old Campaign Against .50 Caliber Rifles

It’s been some time since we have talked about one of the oldest, most extreme anti-gun organizations, the Violence Policy Center (VPC).  Back in 2022, we noted the organization wanted then-president Joe Biden’s administration to reclassify ...

Oregon Court Of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision, Lifts Hold on Ballot Measure 114

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Oregon Court Of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision, Lifts Hold on Ballot Measure 114

On Wednesday, March 12th, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had declared unconstitutional Ballot Measure 114, which imposed a permit-to-purchase scheme and banned the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. ...

Washington Post Gets It Almost Right About Restoration of Second Amendment Rights

News  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Washington Post Gets It Almost Right About Restoration of Second Amendment Rights

Last week brought yet another installment in the ongoing saga of The Washington Post’s (WAPO) pivot toward “individual liberties and free markets” in its opinion section.

Oregon: Permit-to-Purchase and FFL-Killer Bills in Committee Next Week!

Friday, March 14, 2025

Oregon: Permit-to-Purchase and FFL-Killer Bills in Committee Next Week!

In the wake of this week's court decision on Ballot Measure 114, anti-gun radicals in the legislature intend to add insult to injury. 

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.