|
|
|
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 |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
