NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents

[Byron In Exile]

No.

I think the language needlessly creates an ambiguous standard.

Is "should" merely advisory or is it some sort of passive-aggressive mandate?

Is good faith objectively or subjectively measured?

It's a statute waiting to be tested in court.

My articulation of the law would use clear mandates: shall keep no written records, shall respect the patient's wishes, and shall not discriminate. My articulation would also obviate the need for a good-faith safety valve.

I asked, "So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?"

You answer that with a description of your articulation of a law which is more strict than the one that exists, but preface it with "No."

What do you mean by "no"?

 

[Ishmael]

I asked, "So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?"

You answer that with a description of your articulation of a law which is more strict than the one that exists, but preface it with "No."

What do you mean by "no"?

He's an attorney, easily confused reality.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

He's an attorney,

Doesn't sound like one to me.

 

[Ishmael]

Doesn't sound like one to me.

You can take that up with him, to this date I have no dispute there.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

I asked, "So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?"

You answer that with a description of your articulation of a law which is more strict than the one that exists, but preface it with "No."

What do you mean by "no"?

Really?

You asked, "So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?"

And you're confused when I answer, "No. I think the language needlessly creates an ambiguous standard," and then explained why I thought it was needlessly ambiguous?

I am sorry you were confused by my direct answer to your question. Little did I know that for you to understand, I needed to answer, "No, I do not think that. I think...."

Given my explanation of "no" by explicitly stating what I think, I had no idea you'd interpret that to mean "No, I think the law is not strict enough." Maybe the line intervening between "no" and "I think" was confusing?

Do you often let your inner pedant confuse you so?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Really?

You asked, "So you think the law isn't strict enough? — that there should be no exceptions allowed regarding inquiries about firearm ownership made in good faith?"

And you're confused when I answer, "No. I think the language needlessly creates an ambiguous standard," and then explained why I thought it was needlessly ambiguous?

I am sorry you were confused by my direct answer to your question. Little did I know that for you to understand, I needed to answer, "No, I do not think that. I think...."

Given my explanation of "no" by explicitly stating what I think, I had no idea you'd interpret that to mean "No, I think the law is not strict enough." Maybe the line intervening between "no" and "I think" was confusing?

Your explanation of your "no" "answer" contradicts it.

Sez you, "My articulation of the law would use clear mandates: shall keep no written records, shall respect the patient's wishes, and shall not discriminate. My articulation would also obviate the need for a good-faith safety valve."

If the law were written as you suggest that would result in it being more strict than it is now.

And yet you say "no," that's not what you want.

Do you often let your inner pedant confuse you so?

Do you often talk in circles and make no sense, hoping nobody will notice?

 

[Byron In Exile]

You can take that up with him, to this date I have no dispute there.

I don't need to. He's obviously not one.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't need to. He's obviously not one.

Grasping at straws to make an argument is not a disqualification. I've seen weaker fly through the SCOTUS.

He and Perg, as well as others are trying to make this a 1st amendment case, it's not.

You can talk all you want, I don't have to listen (Like being married to a bitch). If I am forced to listen, someone is going to pay.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

Grasping at straws to make an argument is not a disqualification. I've seen weaker fly through the SCOTUS.

He and Perg, as well as others are trying to make this a 1st amendment case, it's not.

It clearly isn't a 1st Amendment case. I just don't see a lawyer making a ridiculous argument like that without being paid to do it, nor can I see one resorting to the sort of transparent tap dance routine CJH is performing here even then.

 

[cjh]

Your explanation of your "no" "answer" contradicts it.

Sez you, "My articulation of the law would use clear mandates: shall keep no written records, shall respect the patient's wishes, and shall not discriminate. My articulation would also obviate the need for a good-faith safety valve."

If the law were written as you suggest that would result in it being more strict than it is now.

And yet you say "no," that's not what you want.

Do you often talk in circles and make no sense, hoping nobody will notice?

It would not be more strict. It would simply be more clear. And by being more clear, there would be no need for a good-faith safety valve.

Your supposition of what I was thinking was not what I was thinking. So the correct answer was, "No." No, that is not what I think.

You must wear an extra-large in pedant.

Tell me how restricting the content of what a doctor does or does not tell a client does not implicate the First Amendment?

 

[cjh]

It clearly isn't a 1st Amendment case. I just don't see a lawyer making a ridiculous argument like that without being paid to do it, nor can I see one resorting to the sort of transparent tap dance routine CJH is performing here even then.

This is from a case in which the DEA tried to punish physicians who counseled patients about the use of marijuana. The DEA argued it could do so since federal law prohibits using marijuana for any purpose, much less for medicinal purposes.

Plaintiffs assert, and defendants appear to concede, that the government's policy implicates First Amendment rights. In seeking to restrict what doctors may legally say to their patients concerning the use of medical marijuana, the government seeks to regulate physician-patient dialogue based on the content of that dialogue. "It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct. 2510, 2516 (1995) (citing Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972)). This proposition is even stronger in situations in which the government targets particular views of the speaker on a given subject. See Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2516; Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) ('If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.") . This case presents just that situation. Finding itself in disagreement with plaintiff
physicians' views about the efficacy of medical marijuana, the government has announced a policy which significantly inhibits communication of those views.
The government concedes that it may not prohibit "discussion" of marijuana, see, e.g., Boyd Decl. Ex. D (Letter from Kathleen Moriarty Mueller, Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch, United States Department of Justice, to Graham Boyd, Attorney, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon & Rubin 1-2 (Feb. 7, 1997)); but the government attempts to justify its policy of sanctioning physicians on the unremarkable and undisputed proposition that the government can regulate
distribution and possession of drugs. The government's statutory authority to regulate that conduct, however, does not allow the government to quash protected speech about it. See NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 (1964) ("[A] governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.") . The government's fear that frank dialogue between physicians and patients about medical marijuana might foster drug use, see Defendants' opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Defs.' Opp'n") at 19-20, does not justify infringing First Amendment freedoms. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1508 (1996) ("The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good."). 5

http://***************/viewer?a=v&q...hBaJNN&sig=AHIEtbRlnbFe_aRrOcKF991YkmpeeFqs9A

So, explain to me how restricting a physician's right to talk about gun safety does not restrict the content of the physician's speech? How does it not interfere with the patient's right to hear the content of the speech?

 

[Byron In Exile]

It would not be more strict. It would simply be more clear. And by being more clear, there would be no need for a good-faith safety valve.

Bullshit. It would be more strict. Rather than not allow physicians to inquire about a patient's firearm ownership, except when that physician in good faith believes that the information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, your "articulation" would not allow it at all.

That's more strict, regardless of what song and dance you choose to perform next.

Your supposition of what I was thinking was not what I was thinking. So the correct answer was, "No." No, that is not what I think.

You must wear an extra-large in pedant.

You must enjoy wearing your ass like a hat.

Tell me how restricting the content of what a doctor does or does not tell a client does not implicate the First Amendment?

The law doesn't restrict what a doctor does or does not tell a client.

Maybe you should read it.

 

[Byron In Exile]

This is from a case in which the DEA tried to punish physicians who counseled patients about the use of marijuana. The DEA argued it could do so since federal law prohibits using marijuana for any purpose, much less for medicinal purposes.

So, explain to me how restricting a physician's right to talk about gun safety does not restrict the content of the physician's speech? How does it not interfere with the patient's right to hear the content of the speech?

First explain to me how the law in question interferes with a physician's right to talk about gun safety.

 

[cjh]

Bullshit. It would be more strict. Rather than not allow physicians to inquire about a patient's firearm ownership, except when that physician in good faith believes that the information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, your "articulation" would not allow it at all.

That's more strict, regardless of what song and dance you choose to perform next.



You must enjoy wearing your ass like a hat.

The law doesn't restrict what a doctor does or does not tell a client.

Maybe you should read it.

I've read.

It's ambiguous.

The "should" does not save it from having first amendment implications.

My articulation contains no "shall not talk about guns.' It simply mandates respect if the patient elects not to.

There's a reason many think you are a dick.

I sign on with them.

 

[cjh]

First explain to me how the law in question interferes with a physician's right to talk about gun safety.

It interferes with the content of speech, period. It necessarily implicates the first amendment.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I've read.

It's ambiguous.

The "should" does not save it from having first amendment implications.

The "should" is irrelevant in that respect.

My articulation contains no "shall not talk about guns.'

I didn't say it did. The current law doesn't either.

It simply mandates respect if the patient elects not to.

So how does your "articulation" "mandate respect" without "interfering with the content of speech"?

There's a reason many think you are a dick.

There are several reasons I think you're one.

I sign on with them.

Explain to me why I should care.

 

[cjh]

The "should" is irrelevant in that respect.

I didn't say it did. The current law doesn't either.

So how does your "articulation" "mandate respect" without "interfering with the content of speech"?

There are several reasons I think you're one.

Explain to me why I should care.

Byron, you're dancing on a pinhead.

Have fun.

P.S. -- Sonny discusses music theory much more convincingly than you.

 

[sigh]

There is no finish to this one, and everything is related to the cost of delivering health care - including the topic of this discussion.

The topic (as the OP wishes) is that an gun control education is preventative care and should be basically a billed item on insurance forms.

I don't remember anyone in here saying that. In fact, Perg agreed with me that information about gun ownership should not be included in medical records. You can't charge an insurance company for a service you can't document as providing.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though. There's apparently no finish to this discussion.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron, you're dancing on a pinhead.

Have fun.

So how does your "articulation" "mandate respect" without "interfering with the content of speech"?

^ I guess when you're presented with a question that demonstrates an error in your logic, the best you can manage is to take a parting shot and bail.

P.S. -- Sonny discusses music theory much more convincingly than you.

Coming from you, that's a fairly pathetic way of saying you're butthurted.

 

[cjh]

So how does your "articulation" "mandate respect" without "interfering with the content of speech"?

^ I guess when you're presented with a question that demonstrates an error in your logic, the best you can manage is to take a parting shot and bail.

Coming from you, that's a fairly pathetic way of saying you're butthurted.

I am, actually.

See, I respected your opinion.

You needlessly made really pedantic arguments and then clothed them in a personal attack. An unprovoked one.

I expect that of Vette and Kohladude.

But not of you. I was wrong.

So, yeah, silly as it may be it caught me off guard. And it hurt.

Live and learn.

Have fun with you big brain. And your little social skills.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I am, actually.

See, I respected your opinion.

You needlessly made really pedantic arguments and then clothed them in a personal attack. An unprovoked one.

I expect that of Vette and Kohladude.

But not of you. I was wrong.

So, yeah, silly as it may be it caught me off guard. And it hurt.

Live and learn.

Have fun with you big brain. And your little social skills.

From my point of view, the chain of insults ran like this:

C: Do you often let your inner pedant confuse you so?

B: Do you often talk in circles and make no sense, hoping nobody will notice?

C: You must wear an extra-large in pedant.

B: You must enjoy wearing your ass like a hat.

C: There's a reason many think you are a dick.

B: There are several reasons I think you're one.

Each insult of mine was a response to an insult of yours. If your complaint is only that mine were better, I'll cop to that. The "pedantic" insult is unoriginal and shopworn. But if you thought I was overly concerned with minute details, wouldn't it be easier to simply address them without the insults? If they're minute details, then they ought to be easy to deal with. I don't mind a rollicking insult-fest along with a discussion, but don't start that ball rolling and then get upset about the fact that it is.

What you consider "needless" arguments or "needless" attention to detail may seem that way to you, because you know what you're thinking inside your head. I don't. Glossing over seemingly small questions can lead to stagnant arguments, sometimes over something as minor as two people using slightly different definitions of the same word. It happens here constantly. So, sorry if it seemed that I was arguing just to be arguing: but to me it didn't seem that you were properly articulating your articulation.

For what it's worth, I think I better understand your objection, but for one thing I still don't see how your proposal gets around that objection. How can the law "mandate respect" on the part of a physician without restraining what that physician says?

On the subject of content of speech, the law only affects written or verbal requests for information. Such requests don't convey any information to the patient. The physician is free to do the latter with any content — to advise the patient that "guns should never be left within reach of children," for example. The physician can pontificate about firearm safety to whatever extent the poor patient is willing to hear it.

Anyway, if you didn't mean to call me a confused pedant, and a dick, leaving aside the question of whether I am a dick, then I apologize for calling you a dick and saying you wear your ass like a hat. I still think it was funny, though.

 

[Peregrinator]

"Patients/customers" are not employees.

How observant. And how obtuse, they may as well be in a world of managed care and assigned physicians.


Ishmael

Let me put it to you another way. Lawyers, doctors, carpenters, plumbers, whatever, are all my employees. That observation is based solely on the knowledge of who the money flows from and to.



Ishmael


Ishmael

......

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't go to attorneys for medical information, nor do I expect the plumber to rewire my ceiling fan. I give doctors zero credibility concerning firearm safety, particularly when they are advocating non-ownership, when I have trained experts at my disposal whose advice costs peanuts when compared to the physician.


Ishmael


Ishmael

If an attorney offered you medical information, would you run and cry to the state legislature to make him stop? Because that is precisely what you're advocating here. "He's nagging me about my cholesterol intake! Bad lawyer! Make him stop!"

 

[Peregrinator]

1) He and Perg, as well as others are trying to make this a 1st amendment case, it's not.

2) You can talk all you want, I don't have to listen (Like being married to a bitch). If I am forced to listen, someone is going to pay.

Ishmael

1) Bullshit.

2) Exactly the point I've been making throughout the thread. You've been hiding behind the apron of the state all along and refusing to admit it.

 

[Peregrinator]

One more time for the very short memories here:

Below is a synopsis of the text of the bill in question;

"Privacy of Firearm Owners: 1)Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; 2)provides exception; 3)provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; 4)provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; 5)provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; 6)clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; 7)prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; 8)prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; 9)prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; 10)clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; 11)provides for disciplinary action."

Ishmael

I just wanted to take another look at what the law actually says.

1) That's fine; the information is irrelevant anyway, and I see this as protecting 2nd amendment rights.

2) I wish I knew what exception(s) were included.

3) Equally fine, and completely unnecessary. The patient is free not to answer, free to find another doctor. Only a true interventionist would support this.

4) Necessary, if the law has to exist at all. EMT's go into people's homes when said people are not at their best. "Scene Safety" is the mantra of all prehospital providers, and knowing whether there's a gun around is part of that.

5) Patient may already decline to provide such information. Unnecessary legislation.

6) Good. Physicians like any other service provider have the right to choose their customers subject to obvious limitations eg race, gender, etc.

7) No reason that the facilities or providers should know about gun ownership. Not a good reason, imho, to refuse care, but the law is intrusive and interventionist.

8) I would need to know how "harassment" is defined in the law. I would also think that any sort of harassment is already regulated. The patient is free to choose another doctor in any case. Or sue the harassing one.

9) This is ridiculous. I've been denied coverage because I engage in "activities in the mountains using ropes or other equipment." If any increased risk of payoff is fair game, they all should be. That's what actuarial science is all about.

10) Whatever.

11) Provides for the Florida Legislature to decide what a doctor should and shouldn't say to a patient's legal guardians at the point of that gun held by the long arm of the interventionist government. Fantastic.