|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Preposterous' Ruling Gives Gun Rights Groups Early Christmas Gift
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A federal appeals court’s reasoning that a state’s “compelling interest” in protecting its citizens’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms outweighs the First Amendment rights of physicians seeking to inquire about their patients’ firearm ownership is “preposterous,” attorney Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, of Ropes & Gray in Washington, told me in reaction to the latest opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in a closely watched case known popularly as “Docs v. Glocks." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/19/2015)
|
Ridiculous.
The issue is that physicians who ask these questions are philosophically anti-gun, and exact penalties on those patients who admit gun ownership, such as terminating service, or cataloging gun owners who have been their patients via their personal medical records, which are then available to the federal government.
This is NOT a First Amendment issue; it is a civil rights discrimination issue. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
