FloridaCarry.org

[Jzumrick]

I note you are opposing the bill that would remove wordage added to the state code forbidding physician for asking about guns in the home. Since this bill was judged an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment it should be removed from the code to prevent arrests and prosecutions in the court that will be thrown out and waist public money. The proper way to deal with this issue is to repeal the old and write a new law that is constitutional.

For members information the reason that physician asked about firearms in the home is to try and prevent home accidents which is the leading cause of death in children older than one year. This information is usually obtained by asking the parents to fill out questionnaires which a believe contain 16 questions asking among other things the presence of a home swimming pool, certain chemicals, and if there is a firearm which I believe is question 15. The feedback parents get varies with the child's age and for firearms would be keep it out of the reach of the child for ages 2 of so, or keep it locked up for older children. Any disclosure of this information is already governed by several federal and state laws which ban disclosure without the written permission of the parent or patient. Physicians call this preventative medicine.

Anyone who had bothered to read the actual text of the law would have realized that much of the information reported on it was misstated. The original version was so poorly written that it applied a third degree felony charge if convicted that would mean jail, a large fine, and permanent loss of one license to practice medicine. Seems to me like a major over reaction. Or as one out of state newspaper said an issue by an over reaction on the part of both sides of the debate to a small issue.

Better to have spent more resources on arguing the open carry bill by collecting data to better define the nature of the problem and document occurrences of problems with police about accidental exposure even if charges are not filed. Like what seems to having in the Miami area.

[Misty02]

I personally oppose just about any inquiries into our personal life and/or habits, unless "I" deem it is important to disclose it. I’m enough of a grownup to understand the other person may have the right to ask and I have the right to decline answering. The problem comes about if my declination to disclose leads to that other person taking any action. Or, as it happened in another state, should the answer be in the affirmative, the physician takes it upon himself to contact the authorities because "his/her" personal views (not the law) are different.

I would also have no issues with a physician handing me a brochure and letting me know additional information is available if I desire it or providing a link to additional resources. Forcing the issue or demanding an answer is not something I would look at favorably and yes, I would perceive it as an invasion of privacy. As a consumer I have the right to determine what is this person’s business and what is not (whether I’m right or not). As the owner of his/her practice, they have a right to refuse accepting me as their patient. Any action they take thereafter that negatively impacts me or my family would be dealt with within the legal means available, and not kindly.

I guess it boils down to either: (1) a general question one may or may not answer without consequence, or (2) coercing a patient to provide personal information they don’t wish to provide. I have no problem with the first one, but do with the later.

[Rich7553]

The statute was not ruled unconstitutional. A preliminary injunction was granted. The judge must still consider arguments prior to making it a permanent injunction, and the state still has the option to appeal the ruling.

[Rich7553]

Like what seems to having in the Miami area.

What is happening in Miami?

[collegeboy]

Rich,

Glad you cleared up that ". . . declared unconstitutional. . ." statement.
I hadn't heard that and was wondering what it was about.

I was aware of the injunction but had not heard if it had yet been resolved.
So, I gather there is another proposed law that would overturn what was just passed last session?

[Rich7553]

Rich,

Glad you cleared up that ". . . declared unconstitutional. . ." statement.
I hadn't heard that and was wondering what it was about.

I was aware of the injunction but had not heard if it had yet been resolved.
So, I gather there is another proposed law that would overturn what was just passed last session?

Yes, those bills are SB248/HB4015, but neither have met a committee yet. They are on the fast track to death.

[Jzumrick]

I stand corrected. Better to wait until the court resolves the case.

One point I was trying to make is that the pediatrics program is trying to reduce accidental death in children. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to do the same. Seems there is something in common between the groups. I feel the original bill lost site of this common goal.

Right now I am more concerned by the lack of bills expanding our 2nd amendment rights.n

[Rich7553]

I stand corrected. Better to wait until the court resolves the case.

One point I was trying to make is that the pediatrics program is trying to reduce accidental death in children. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to do the same. Seems there is something in common between the groups. I feel the original bill lost site of this common goal.

Right now I am more concerned by the lack of bills expanding our 2nd amendment rights.n

Would it surprise you to learn that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had advocated a complete ban on guns? Here's what their own website stated:

"Safety & Prevention-Where We Stand: Gun Safety

The most effective way to prevent firearm-related injury to children is to keep guns out of homes and communities. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports gun-control legislation. We believe that handguns, deadly air guns, and assault weapons should be banned.

Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play, but if they are not, they must be stored locked and unloaded. Loaded firearms and unloaded firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children."

Amazingly enough, the statement above appeared on the AAP website until 3/9/11, coinciding with the Florida legislative committee hearings on the privacy bill. Perhaps they felt that their own published statement would be perceived as being anti-2A. Hmmm. It was quietly replaced with one that calls for safe storage and handling in lieu of banning.

The cry of "it's for the children" is used by the AAP. The AAP claims 3,000 child deaths by firearm per year. This figure is arrived at by including suicides, murders, and classification of ages 0 - 24 as "children" in order to capture gang violence deaths. This is to intentionally inflate the figure and garner the support of the uninformed. The AAP maintains that through counseling parents by their pediatricians to either remove firearms from the home or to use gun locks, gun safes, and separation of guns and ammo, these figures will be reduced. With regards to suicide, the absence of firearms would merely change the method of suicide by a despondent person. Many teens have hung themselves or overdosed on prescription medication. Does the AAP advocate the removal of rope, cord, and wire from homes? No. As far as murder and gang violence is concerned, how would removal or safe storage of a firearm in the home eliminate those deaths, which occur mainly outside the home? Answer: it wouldn't.

The only true category reflecting the AAP's concern about firearms in the home is accidental deaths by firearms, and only within the 0 - 15 (or so) age group. Care to guess how many deaths per year nationwide are reported by the CDC under those parameters? About 120, a far cry from the 3,000 figure the AAP would have you believe. And according to the FBI and CDC, that number is dropping every year.

So the AAP is being intentionally disingenuous with regards to the scope of the problem. With the move to electronic medical records, and the federal government's presumed ability to "snoop" in those records without so much as a court order, it becomes clear that this very well may be a backdoor registration system disguised as a noble program to protect children.

[Wheels]

I stand corrected. Better to wait until the court resolves the case.

One point I was trying to make is that the pediatrics program is trying to reduce accidental death in children. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to do the same. Seems there is something in common between the groups. I feel the original bill lost site of this common goal.

Right now I am more concerned by the lack of bills expanding our 2nd amendment rights.n

If that is their goal then they can advise every parent:

"If you have any firearms in your home they should be safely stored to prevent accidents. In addition whether or not you have guns in your house, you should teach your children what to do if they encounter a gun since it could happen somewhere besides your home."

That would meet what you state as their goal without asking anyone if they own a gun.