Judge blocks Florida law gagging doctors' gun talk

Related Topics

MIAMI | Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:54am EDT

MIAMI (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Florida law limiting what doctors can say about guns to their patients, saying it violated free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state and Governor Rick Scott, a Tea Party-backed Republican and former healthcare executive, from enforcing the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act with immediate effect.

The law took effect in June and was believed to be the first of its kind in the country. Florida has some of the most liberal firearms laws anywhere in the United States and vigorously protects private gun ownership.

With all but a few exceptions, the Florida law barred doctors from questioning their patients about guns in their homes or from having discussions with them about firearms safety.

Gun rights supporters had argued that such questioning from doctors violated their right to privacy.

But in her written argument granting the injunction, Cooke reasoned that the law also "chilled" free speech.

"This case concerns one of our Constitution's most precious rights -- the freedom of speech," she said.

"The law curtails practitioners' ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients," Cooke said.

"The Firearm Owners' Privacy Act thus implicates practitioners' First Amendment rights of free speech," she said. Just as importantly, Cooke said the law "implicates patients' freedom to receive information about firearms safety, which the First Amendment protects."

'OUTRAGEOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

Attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence were among those who pushed for the ruling blocking the Florida gag law, and the Washington-based group called the decision a breakthrough in efforts to limit the risks posed by firearms.

"We are pleased that the court has blocked the gun lobby's outrageous and unconstitutional attempt to stop doctors from warning about the severe risks posed by guns in the home," Dennis Henigan, acting president of the Brady Center, said in a statement.

"With more than 4,000 children and teens shot in gun accidents every year, it is crucial that doctors be able to warn parents that guns in the home pose a serious risk of injury or death," he said.

Plaintiffs in the case included the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

In her ruling, Cooke noted those groups published practice guidelines and policy statements recommending that doctors routinely provide counseling and guidance on the prevention of injuries, including automotive safety and firearms safety.

"Information regarding firearm ownership is not sacrosanct," Cooke wrote in her ruling. "Federal and state statues heavily regulate firearm ownership, possession and sale and require firearm owners to provide personal information in certain circumstances."

Opponents of the law said it subjected healthcare providers to possible sanctions, including fines and loss of license, if they discussed or recorded information in a patient's chart about firearms safety that a medical board later determined to be irrelevant or "unnecessarily harassing."

(Editing by Pascal Fletcher, Cynthia Osterman and Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
pyronius wrote:
Thank god… Its absurd to think that a doctor simply asking if you own a gun is a violation of any right. for one you don’t have to answer and even so, nothing protects your right to secretly own a gun and keep people from asking. the doctors in question don’t want to take your guns away or even prevent you from doing dangerous things with them, they just want to make sure the few imbeciles out there who don’t understand the dangers an unsecured firearm pose to a child are informed. I’m all for gun ownership and thoroughly enjoy firing them, but there are some stupid people in the world who probably shouldn’t own them, and as that isn’t possible in this country should at least be made aware of general child safety tips.

I honestly can’t understand the thought process of the people who originally wrote this law. where did they think their rights were being violated? it also seems to imply that they assumed during the process that doctors themselves were not people, but rather some sort of robotic federal agent and as such didn’t deserve rights themselves.

Sep 15, 2011 12:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WRL wrote:
pyronius: I couldn’t agree with you more. I can’t imagine what they were thinking when they conceived this law.

Sep 15, 2011 1:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NashvilleDave wrote:
I’m a gun owner and FORMER NRA member. Stupidity like this is why I will NEVER support that organization again. I don’t support ultra-liberals when they want to pass, “my rights are more important than yours” laws. I don’t know what makes the ultra-right wingers think I’ll support them when they do the same!

But since their law got struck down and they now have to face the obviously unbearable possibility that their doctor might ask them if they own a gun, let me offer this bit of advice. If your doctor asks you tell him, “none of your business.” There! That was easy wasn’t it? And we didn’t even have to trample on anyone’s rights to work through it!!!

Sep 15, 2011 1:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.