Brady Center sues over new "Physician Gag Law"

[LibShooter]

Bill, I dig you, too. That's why I'm sorry I just have a couple of minutes right now for conversation... so I'll be brief.

Do I have to remind you how much the government can be upset and boggled by one shooter?

I hope you're not suggesting the Second Amendment exists, in part, to give crazed gunmen access to firearms. That's going to be a hard sell. I don't think any governmental leader ever cast a vote or made a policy decision based on whether it might set off a crazy person. At least I hope not.

They privately envy Hu Jintao of China, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, etc. These and dozens of other strong men around the world have theoretically unlimited power - why can't they have that too? It's not fair! They could get so much more done if they could just sweep away the opposition!

Those in the US who think like that, or at least act like that, don't get far in American politics. The important part of your statement is in bold. Here in the 21st century, a dictator's power is mostly theoretical and limited to nations that are getting less powerful. The lesson of the last 50 or 60 years is that to exercise real power in this world, you have to share it. Even China didn't become an influential world power until they started giving their people economic freedom.

So, yes, there may be a few American bureaucrats and politicians who resent the limits on their power. However, it's not their fear of our guns that keeps them from becoming despots. It's that despots don't succeed.

There was no government for several days in my old neighborhood after hurricane Andrew tore it apart, but there were some looters about. We were responsible for preserving our own freedoms for a bit there, and were equipped to do it. Good thing, too, I think.

Well, yea... defending your home and family after a disaster is great reason to be armed. IMHO, That's not the same as defending freedom against a rogue Federal government. I understand some local governments made some stupid decisions in the aftermath of some natural disasters. The remedy to that is good government, not armed insurrection.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Publius,

You make an excellent point, in your understated way. Real government is so ineffectual, sometimes, that it may not matter whether they collect gun data on citizens via doctors or by any other illegal, sneaky or backdoor way. Real people who work in real governments have just got WAY better things to do than act on that gun ownership information, like maybe go fishing.

The real people who work in real governments are often too busy or just don't care, for whatever reason, about law-abiding citizens having guns. They know that the presence of guns in the possession of normal citizens will not cause any problem and may even help at times.

In case everyone hasn't noticed, it is ONLY leftists who even remotely care about guns and want them not to be in the hands of citizens. Hmmmm. What's up with that?

It would only be leftists who even believe that government should or could do something about guns, therefore collect gun data. Only leftists would believe that government should or could do something with that gun data. Real governments staffed by real people don't think that way. Leftists are idealists, not realists. Leftists are ideologues who believe in activist government, to further some goal or purpose or other, though exactly what it is we're never told. The rest of us, citizens and real government real staffers alike, just snooze through the whole thing.

Well, this snoozing is just UNACCEPTABLE to the leftists. Even if not snoozing, energetic citizens busily mindng their own business, and happy government staffers standing by and, God forbid , letting them, are also unacceptable.

There is an actual theory of how to gain governmental power, again ONLY believed or practiced by the left, that says chaos, tumult, unrest, unemployment, discontent, disorder, family breakdown, incivility, disfunctional schools, hunger, homelessness and so forth are positive GOOD things. If it gets bad enough, the populace will be willing to grant the government more control and power, to clean it all up. (But it won't be cleaned up; that's not part of the deal - it was only the power that was sought.) I will find the citation to where I saw that and post it. But guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens really mess this all up for the leftist. The restraint, order and tranquility that a sprinkling of guns among the law-abiding population instills in the broader population is stunning. Completely defeats this theory of the left. Therein lies another reason the left wants to eliminate guns from the citizens. Hmmm.

 

[publius]

Well, yea... defending your home and family after a disaster is great reason to be armed. IMHO, That's not the same as defending freedom against a rogue Federal government. I understand some local governments made some stupid decisions in the aftermath of some natural disasters. The remedy to that is good government, not armed insurrection.

I recently likened the second amendment to a blowout preventer on an oil rig. As we all now know, if you have to use it, it means things have already gone horribly wrong, and if you do use it, it still might not work.

It's very unlikely that a situation would emerge that I think would call for rebellion, and even more unlikely that I would think any rebellion would leave us better off.

Unlikely is not impossible.

 

[alan]

There is an article about this suit in the latest issue of Gun Week, the July 1 issue.

Personally speaking, I would have serious reservations re any medical professional inquiring into the nature of such personal possessions as I might or might not have. I have no doubt that others will have differing views, the foregoing is simply my take.

While the law that The Brady Group seeks to overturn is, to some people questionable, in my view, the sort of questioning the law seeks to bar is even more questionable.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Publius,
I agree that

It's very unlikely that a situation would emerge that I think would call for rebellion

and I am not advocating rebellion. I am advocating keeping the restraining influence on government power provided by an unknown, but large, number of guns existing out among the law-abiding populace. But I repeat myself.

Let me step down off that soap box and direct your attention to the country of Syria. What is happening in Syria could not happen in most parts of the U.S.A, PRECISELY BECAUSE way too many of us have guns. In Syria, it is mostly NOT the government that is going around from place to place torturing, killing, raping and robbing Shiites. It is mostly thug gangs (and rogue military units) made up of Alawi sect men. The Alawi minority has been powerful over the years, forming an important part of the Ba'ath political party (the Assad family were Alawi) which is the dominant political power in Syria. So it is really the government of Syria that is instigating the violence but using unofficial thugs, for the most part. But I think that thug gangs are populated by cowards. If every time a gang entered a neighborhood to terrorize it, one or two of them took gun shot wounds, the gang violence would be over in less than one day.

Think of every other third world humanitarian catastrophe. Rowanda: 800,000 killed with machetes. Darfur: 100,000 to 1,000,000 (?) killed by thug gangs with small arms, but mostly by being driven off their land, their livelihoods destroyed. The list goes on and on. Look at the Mexican side of our southern border. Even sometimes in first world countries: Krystal Nacht and other brown shirt terrorism in Germany in the 1930s. Any unarmed populace is subject to spiralling violence by a small number of perpetrators, often instigated by behind-the-scenes government types or people wanting to capture control of the "government" (whatever that actually means in the society). [As an aside: This is one reason why the vast majority of tyrants around the world hate Israel; the Israeli people are not sheep; most have served in the military and are allowed to keep guns in their houses. Israel is not vulnerable to destabilization by violent thuggery of a minority. The tyrant's real fear is that their own people will learn from the Israeli peoples' example.]

So, in summary, it is not that I am paranoid about "The Government", per se. Rather, I see various factions of people and a portion of the people involved in government (or hoping to control the overnment) wanting to disarm the American people. Some power-hungry people will gladly use gangs, thugs, pseudo-military groups and amateur mercenaries to violently disrupt society so that they can take over. But the American people have to be disarmed first or it won't work.

Back to the OP point, the Florida law forbidding government collection of gun data: Any time I see ANY party in society trying to limit guns (the government is just the most potentially damaging party), I ALWAYS assume that the reason that party is trying to eliminate guns has something to do with gaining power. I cannot think of a single valid reason why one party would want to eliminate OTHER PEOPLE'S guns otherwise. Can anyone teach me what that other valid reason is? It sure ain't child safety, as the OP about the Florida law shows that Florida legislators and governor understand.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

A copy of the Brady Center's Complaint is attached.

Unfortunately, Ed Mullins, the Brady Center's local attorney is a brilliant attorney with substantial federal court experience.

The key issue, at least at first blush, is whether or not the government can regulate the advice people give professionally to patients/clients, even if it is arguably within the patients/clients best interest. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can so regulate. See Milavetz.

Has anyone else explored this issue?

 

[Tony50ae]

Hmm it may be within the 1st amendment rights of doctors to ask the question, but to record it down on paper? That may be where the fight actually lies.

 

[LibShooter]

Hmm it may be within the 1st amendment rights of doctors to ask the question, but to record it down on paper?

No, I think the First Amendment protects what folks write as well as what they say. The Government can prohibit government agencies asking about what the doc wrote down.

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

For you nay-sayers on this thread, need I remind you that the FL law is NOT some spur of the moment, knee-jerk reaction, but is instead the result of a malicious and long-standing campaign by multiple organizations to deliberately abuse the authority of physicians in order to advance a blatantly anti-rights political agenda?

 

[LibShooter]

...the result of a malicious and long-standing campaign by multiple organizations to deliberately abuse the authority of physicians in order to advance a blatantly anti-rights political agenda?

Those organizations have every right to advance whatever political agenda they want to.

 

[Samari Jack]

I'm not keen on lying to my doctor.

Then tell him/her it is none of their business, or answer a question with a question such as "what does that question have to do with a sore throat". Another would be "do you ALWAYS wash your hands with soap and water between patients"? Or "do you have and use condoms?"

Sometimes medical people need to be reminded that another name for patient is customer, at least for the next few years.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

I am not sure what, if any, constitutional freedoms are involved in this.

Physicians practice under license of the state. They are subject to any laws and conditions the state puts on them.

-Doc

 

[LibShooter]

Physicians practice under license of the state. They are subject to any laws and conditions the state puts on them.

Those laws and conditions have to pass Constitutional muster. For instance, they couldn't require the doc to attend a Baptist church to practice in Florida.

 

[Al Norris]

Those organizations have every right to advance whatever political agenda they want to.

Quite Right. They (the organizations) have that right, within the political arena.

As individual Doctors, they do not have the right to advance any political agenda upon their patients.

 

[tuckerdog1]

My ex Dr. ( because he recently retired ), knew I have guns. Because he spent a good amount of time bragging to me about his guns

Never got any lectures about safety or possible harm to others.

Tuckerdog1

 

[Balrog]

Passing a law like this is a slippery slope. Why couldn't Phillip Morris file a lawsuit to prevent doctors from asking about cigarettes?

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Dr's are in a position of power and authority, people feel inclined to answer their questions more then they normally would.

We don't need laws to protect the sensitive feelings of people afraid that someone might say something mean to them.

 

[Jeff F]

Damn, I was just at the doctors office waiting for my wife and there were some Guns and Ammo and Shooting Times magazines in the waiting room. Lucky me, lot nicer then browsing through a Womans Health magazine.

 

[Mudinyeri]

A copy of the Brady Center's Complaint is attached.

Unfortunately, Ed Mullins, the Brady Center's local attorney is a brilliant attorney with substantial federal court experience.

The key issue, at least at first blush, is whether or not the government can regulate the advice people give professionally to patients/clients, even if it is arguably within the patients/clients best interest. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can so regulate. See Milavetz.

Has anyone else explored this issue?

If that is the case and we're talking about "professional advice" then I would think doctors would need to participate in and graduate from a firearms safety course prior to providing such advice. Without such training, this is not professional advice and the doctor is providing guidance on a subject wherein s/he has no qualifications.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Without such training, this is not professional advice and the doctor is providing guidance on a subject wherein s/he has no qualifications.

Exactly - that's the winning argument here, I think. Doctor's by virtue of their trade know as much about gun safety as a gunsmith knows about surgery, so it is not inappropriate for the government to regulate it.

I think you don't even want to bring up the Second Amendment if you are the State of Florida defending this case, because that makes the speech political - where First Amendment protection is strongest. You want to focus the argument on whether the government can make the determination of what topics are appropriate for a doctor to discuss with his patients. I.e. can a doctor be prohibited from recommending X type of treatment.

The real problem I see defending the statue is the exceptions carved right into it..

(1) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 may not intentionally enter any disclosed information concerning firearm ownership into the patient's medical record if the practitioner knows that such information is not relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others.


(2) A health care practitioner licensed under chapter 456 or a health care facility licensed under chapter 395 shall respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care practitioner or health care facility that in good faith believes that this information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others, may make such a verbal or written inquiry.

s 790.338 Fla. Stat. (2011)

This "good faith" "relevant" language is a loophole big enough to swallow the whole dang law. Ever gun-grabbing, do-gooder, brady-stroking doctor who lectures patients about the evils of firearms believes, in his heart, that "this information is relevant to the patients [] safety, or the safety of others." Unless the doctor is dumb enough to say that he really just wants to harass patients about guns for no good reason, the state is going to find it hard as heck to do anything about it.

 

[Al Norris]

The Brady's are bent out of shape, because the NRA has petitioned to intervene.

The docket is here. Regardless, here's what has happened since this case was first reported:

06/10/2011 8 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1[RECAP] Complaint, by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter. Lucy Gee served on 6/7/2011, answer due 6/28/2011. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/10/2011)

06/10/2011 9 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1[RECAP] Complaint, by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter. Frank Farmer served on 6/7/2011, answer due 6/28/2011. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/10/2011)

06/14/2011 10 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1[RECAP] Complaint, by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter. Elizabeth Dudek served on 6/9/2011, answer due 6/30/2011. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/14/2011 11 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1[RECAP] Complaint, by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter. Kurt S. Browning served on 6/9/2001, answer due 6/30/2001. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/14/2011 12 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1[RECAP] Complaint, by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter. Rick Scott served on 6/9/2011, answer due 6/30/2011. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/17/2011 13 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff for Pretrial Proceedings. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/16/2011. (tm) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

06/17/2011 14 Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/16/2011. (tm) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

06/24/2011 15 First AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Elizabeth Dudek, Frank Farmer, George Thomas, Jason Rosenberg, Zachariah P. Zachariah, Elisabeth Tucker, Trina Espinola, Merle Stringer, James Orr, Gary Winchester, Nabil El Sanadi, Robert Nuss, Onelia Lage, Fred Bearison, Donald Mullins, Brigitte Rivera Goersch, Bradley Levine, filed by American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Tommy Schechtman, Judith Schaechter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, Bernd Wollschlaeger, American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Shannon Fox-Levine.(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 17 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Lisa Cosgrove. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 18 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Stuart Himmelstein. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 19 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Robert Raspa. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 20 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Bruce Manheim, Jr., Esq.. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 21 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Judith Schaechter, M.D.. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 22 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Tommy Schechtman. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 23 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 24 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Shannon Fox-Levine. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 25 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Elizabeth King. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 26 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Lance Goodman. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 27 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. N. Lawrence Edwards. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 28 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Roland Gutierrez. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 29 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Stanley Sack. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 30 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. June Leland. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 31 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Dr. Katherine Welty. re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law - Declaration - by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 32 MOTION for Hearing re 16 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Accompanying Memorandum of Law by American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Inc., Shannon Fox-Levine, Roland Gutierrez, Stanley Sack, Judith Schaechter, Tommy Schechtman, Bernd Wollschlaeger. (Mullins, Edward) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011 33 Summons Issued as to George Thomas. (abe) (Main Document 33 replaced on 6/27/2011) (abe). (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/24/2011 34 Summons Issued as to Fred Bearison, Nabil El Sanadi, Trina Espinola, Onelia Lage, Bradley Levine, Donald Mullins, Robert Nuss, James Orr, Brigitte Rivera Goersch, Jason Rosenberg, Merle Stringer, Elisabeth Tucker, Gary Winchester, Zachariah P. Zachariah. (abe) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 35 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Gregory Morgen Cesarano on behalf of National Rifle Association (Cesarano, Gregory) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 36 Proposed MOTION to Intervene and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by National Rifle Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cesarano, Gregory) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 37 Corporate Disclosure Statement by National Rifle Association (Cesarano, Gregory) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 38 Proposed MOTION to Expedite and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by National Rifle Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cesarano, Gregory) (Entered: 06/27/2011)​

06/27/2011 39 *Endorsed Order Setting Expedited Briefing Schedule. Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before July 5, 2011, at 12:00 p.m. Plaintiffs shall file a Reply on or before July 8, 2011. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/27/2011. (scy) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 40 ENDORSED ORDER granting 32 Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing. A hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for July 13, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/27/2011. (scy) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 41 AMENDED ORDER setting hearing on 16 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Motion Hearing set for 7/13/2011, at 10:00 a.m., before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/27/2011. (scy) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011 42 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jason Vail on behalf of Frank Farmer (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/28/2011 43 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule. Responses on 36 Motion to Intervene shall be filed on or before July 1, 2011. Replies shall be filed on or before July 5, 2011. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/28/2011. (scy) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

06/28/2011 44 RESPONSE in Support re 36 Proposed MOTION to Intervene and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Frank Farmer. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

Only items 36 and 38 have been RECAPed (see links above)- which are the items that have the Brady's panties in a wad.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Forgive my ignorance, but how did doctors get into the safety business in the first place? How are they qualified to discuss preventive safety in my home workshop, around my pool, riding my bicycle, riding my motorcycle, driving my car, etc?

Is the doctor's office a convenient place to make preventive safety information available, e.g. printed brochures in a rack near the exit? Sure. Do doctors receive specific education and training in multiple areas of preventive safey? Maybe that's a recent addition to medical college curriculum that I'm unaware of.

 

[Strykervet]

Well you know the antis aren't going to drop it anytime soon, so if we are going to politicize healthcare, then we need to do it on our terms. Call and ask your doctor about his or her stance on the issue and make your choice based on that. If he or she is against firearms, then it may be time to part ways. Most of you wouldn't shop at a store that doesn't support gun rights, but you'd go tell a doctor all about yourself that may have the authority to strip you of those coveted rights?

 

[Strykervet]

Forgive my ignorance, but how did doctors get into the safety business in the first place? How are they qualified to discuss preventive safety in my home workshop, around my pool, riding my bicycle, riding my motorcycle, driving my car, etc?

Is the doctor's office a convenient place to make preventive safety information available, e.g. printed brochures in a rack near the exit? Sure. Do doctors receive specific education and training in multiple areas of preventive safey? Maybe that's a recent addition to medical college curriculum that I'm unaware of.

THEY didn't, as a whole. They were conscripted by the antis. Of course there are a few anti doctors that would love to see this, that have no problem enforcing the Constitution as they see fit on a person by person basis from the comfort of their office.

 

[LibShooter]

As individual Doctors, they do not have the right to advance any political agenda upon their patients.

I think they do. The government shouldn't be in the business of banning certain topics of conversation between doctors and patients. They don't tell barbers what they can or can't talk about with their customers.