Federal Judge Bars Enforcement Of Doctor Gun Question Law

September 15, 2011

A new state law prohibiting health care providers from asking patients about guns cannot be enforced while the merits of the new law are being litigated, a federal judge in Miami ruled Wednesday in a temporary victory for physicians in the battle between the First and Second Amendments.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke granted a temporary injunction to a group of physicians who filed suit over the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was passed by lawmakers in May and signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott.

In a 22-page ruling, Cooke dismissed the argument that allowing health care providers to query their patients on gun ownership violated the patient’s Second Amendment right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

“A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own or use firearms,” Cooke wrote.

The lawsuit was filed in June on behalf of a group of physicians who argued their First Amendment right of free speech was being violated if they could not speak freely with their patients about guns. Health care providers sometimes ask patients, especially those with young children, if they own guns and how those weapons are stored.

Witnesses testified during legislative debate that the queries were part of a battery of questions often given to patients to address potential health hazards in the home such as the storage of poisons or whether the patient owns a pool.

“It is hard to imagine that even legislators who voted for this bill thought that the state could legislate the doctor-patient relationship – in this case by imposing a gag order on doctors prohibiting them from asking about firearms and ammunition,” said Howard Simon of the ACLU of Florida, which opposed the law, following the ruling Wednesday.

The measure (HB 155) was backed heavily by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

Cooke said the law doesn’t just infringe on doctors’ speech rights, it restricts the right of patients to receive information about safety issues.

Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said he stood by the intent of the bill, which he said was to protect the privacy of gun owners. “Direct questions about firearm ownership when it has nothing to do with medical care is simply pushing a political agenda, which doesn’t belong in exam rooms,” Brodeur said. “If physicians are worried about safety then I encourage them to give the safety talk to all patients. It is important to note that firearm safety talks are not prohibited at all.”

That is a reference to the fact that bill was watered down considerably from its original language, allowing for doctors to discuss some safety issues if they believe someone might be in danger because of the presence of a gun. In some discussions of the legislation this year, the example of a suicidal patient who says he plans to use a gun to kill himself was used. A doctor might be justified in that case in asking if the patient actually has a gun.

Brodeur said he thought that if doctors were discussing gun safety with all patients, instead of only with those patients who they know have guns, it would likely make the state even more safe because more people would have that talk with a physician.

Marion Hammer, former NRA national president and executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida who lobbied extensively in favor of HB 155 didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But through the debate over the measure, Hammer said the difference between discussion by doctors of guns as a potential safety issue and things like poisons or swimming pools is the constitutional protection afforded by the constitution to the keeping of guns.

By granting the injunction Cooke ruled that the physicians in the case have a substantial likelihood of success in their pending challenge and that granting the injunction would not harm the public interest.

“The state’s interest in assuring the privacy of this piece of information from practitioners does not appear to be a compelling one,” wrote Cooke, noting that states and the federal government already heavily regulate firearms ownership and sales.

“Information regarding gun ownership is not sacrosanct.”
By Michael Peltier
The News Service of Florida

Bloomberg Presses Blueprint for Ending Gun Rights

by Raquel Okyay (more by this author)

Posted 09/13/2011 ET

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is on a war path against gun owners – again. This time he is exploiting an incident that occurred over Labor Day weekend between NYC police officers and one armed criminal gunman that resulted in the tragic shooting and death of an innocent bystander.

Bloomberg is calling for Federal involvement, regulation and enforcement of gun control rules in both NYC and in every city, state, in the Nation. Except he neglects to tell us that gun control rules does not reduce violent crime rates. Instead his real goal is to advertise and promote his personal project “A Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns” rather than addressing the task of reducing crimes in the city that elected him mayor.

“We cannot tolerate it; there are just too many guns on the streets and we have to do something about it,” he said. Bloomberg was very specific about what needs to be done to tackle the problem: “We need the federal government to step up. Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., both sides of the aisle.” The New American

MAIG, the outfit created and funded by multi billionaire Bloomberg does just that – it seeks to circumvent Congress through Federal regulation of gun laws by means of 7 Federal agencies of enforcement. In their Executive Summary, they concede “the coalition has identified 40 opportunities in six areas where the Administration could enhance enforcement of existing laws without Congressional action.”

It means having the Obama administration monitor, restrain and prevent private gun ownership, sales, and production without the consent of the People via their representatives in Congress, and worse, with an ultimate goal of participating in a full-ledged gun grab from innocent Americans, arguing all along that criminal behavior is not the cause of violent crime – gun ownership is. We cannot kid ourselves; it can happen if we let our guard down.

Bloomberg’s plan is another level of bureaucratic censorship that places an additional burden on law abiding Americans who are in the business of owning or selling firearms. Under MAIG guidelines innocent Americans must prove their innocence and answer to unelected Federal agencies, which are making up rules as they go along. This is a clear infringement upon our right to keep and bear arms in the privacy of our own home.

Indeed in violation of the 2^nd and 4^th Amendments to the United States Constitution if enacted, not that Mr. Bloomberg pays much attention to the Constitution, as indicated by his constant bickering of how all Americans should conduct their lives. He is the perpetual gun hating, United Nations’ loving, Nanny-state Mayor.

Select recommendations included in ‘Blueprint for Federal Action’ and the Federal agencies that will enforce the rules:

-Improving gun background checks: Perform background checks on employees of federally licensed dealers during audit inspections -ATF, FBI. (Burden on innocent people.)

-Policing problematic gun shows: Investigate private sellers at gun shows who appear to be unlawfully engaged in the business - ATF. (Violation of 4^th Amendment.)

-Supplementing ATF Resources and Improving Its Structure: Establish an Interstate Firearms Trafficking Unit run by a Deputy Chief for Interstate Firearms Trafficking- ATF, DOJ, OMB. (Yet another layer of control.)

-More Effective Crime Gun Tracing: Create a new Office of Tactical Trace Analysis at the National Tracing Center to determine which dealers have a high number of traces compared to their sales volume - ATF, DOG, OMG. (Big brother watching You.)

-More Effective Partnerships Among Government, Law Enforcement, Community Groups and Responsible Gun Industry Representatives: Increase support for community programs that generate intelligence about firearms trafficking - DOJ, OMB. (Propaganda.)

-Enforcement of Existing Laws on Especially Dangerous Firearms: Resume enforcement of the ban on the importation of non-sporting purpose firearms- DHS, ATF, DOJ. (Violation of 2^nd Amendment.)

Gun control legislation serves one purpose: To limit the amount of guns that are manufactured and distributed to law abiding American citizens. Just because Mayor Bloomberg hates guns does not mean we put the Constitution to the side -- ignore its meaning.  If he thinks with power and money he can bypass the Constitution, he is dead wrong.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=46129

Jeri Muoio's gun ban at West Palm Beach city hall draws fire

By Andrew Abramson

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Posted: 10:55 p.m. Sunday, Sept. 11, 2011

Mayor Jeri Muoio might negotiate on some issues, but when it comes to guns in city hall, she holds her ground: No weapons allowed.

She has even invoked a rare executive order to ban weapons in the building where the city carries out its business, citing the safety of residents.

"You absolutely cannot come into this building with a gun," Muoio said at a city commission meeting last month. "If you're coming into city hall, leave your guns or weapons at home or in your car."

Muoio's stance is drawing the ire of pro-gun-rights lawmakers and lobbyists, who say she's not abiding by a state law set to take effect Oct. 1.

The legislation says state gun laws override local regulation of firearms and ammunition, and that if any "county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity" doesn't abide by the laws, the official who is responsible can be fined up to $5,000 and removed from office by the governor.

On Tuesday, the West Palm Beach City Commission voted to change its ordinance to meet the state requirements. That meant taking out references to guns in city law and referring residents to state law. Final approval is set for Sept. 19.

Muoio said the city would comply but added, "I think the legislature got it wrong on this." And she and City Attorney Claudia McKenna said they don't believe complying with state law means allowing guns in city hall.

'Meetings' at issue

According to state statute, guns are banned in "any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality or special district."

McKenna, at a meeting with commissioners last month, said state law clearly bans weapons in "meetings of government bodies." But she added: "Of course, we have continuous meetings in this building."

Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell said the law should apply to all public meetings in city hall, including citizen task forces, since they make recommendations to the commission. Mitchell said the city doesn't have the manpower to police residents roaming city hall with guns while keeping others out of meetings.

At the same time, Mitchell questioned Muoio's executive order banning guns, saying the mayor can't supersede state law.

"While that might be uncomfortable, if that's what the law is, that's what the law is," Mitchell said.

Marion Hammer, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association in Tallahassee and a former NRA president, said that state law bans guns only in official meetings with the city commission - not typical day-to-day staff meetings that take place in city hall. A task force isn't a "governing body," she said.

Florida Atlantic University constitutional law professor Timothy Lenz said he's never seen the law interpreted, and he understands both sides of the argument.

Any public meeting in the state, for instance, has to be conducted in the sunshine, Lenz said. "That's not just like the policymaking bodies, but any official body (like a task force)," he said. However, he added, "whether that would be considered a governing authority, I don't know."

State Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, who co-sponsored the state law, said he interprets it to mean citizens can bring guns into city halls. What they can't do is walk into a room where a public meeting is being held, he said.

"When I go into city hall or the courthouse, I always leave my gun in the truck. I always err on the side of caution," Evers said. "But as long as you don't carry that gun into a meeting, they cannot restrict you from having it."

Concern over Giffords shooting

West Palm Beach officials became sensitive about guns in January, when then-Mayor Lois Frankel noticed that William McCray, an off-duty Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy and outspoken city critic, was carrying a gun. Frankel called a halt to the meeting, claiming there were technical difficulties, then ordered Police Chief Delsa Bush to remove McCray.

Asked about it afterward, Frankel cited the shooting at an Arizona political rally a few weeks earlier of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as a reason for heightened concern. After that West Palm commission meeting, the city posted signs at the city hall entrance, banning guns in the building.

McCray contends state law allows him to have a gun at a city meeting, since he is a law enforcement officer.

Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Teri Barbera, however, said that while her agency allows off-duty deputies to be armed, its policy is to respect the wishes of city and county commissions, as well as courthouse judges, who often don't allow guns while in session.

State Rep. Mark Pafford, D-West Palm Beach, said "a lot of well-intended laws and ordinances are going to be wiped out because of the change in state law."

Guns allowed at Capitol

But Pafford noted that guns are allowed in the state Capitol in Tallahassee. Residents with a concealed weapons permit go through a metal detector, show their weapon and then are escorted by a law enforcement officer .

Pafford, who was an aide to Frankel when she was a state representative, recalled that she once received a death threat and an officer was stationed outside her legislative office.

Frankel said Friday she didn't recall that incident but didn't doubt it, because there was political heat over abortion then.

As for Muoio, Hammer wants her fined when the new law takes effect.

"The mayor is willfully and knowingly violating the law under the color of authority," Hammer said.

Muoio insists she's just protecting residents and city employees.

"Our intention," Muoio said, "is to keep the people in this building safe."

Florida forces cities to pull local gun laws

State begins enforcing statute that bars firearms ordinances

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ New York Times

Published 12:01 a.m., Sunday, September 11, 2011 MIAMI -- \The signs -- "No Guns Allowed" -- are being stripped from many Florida parks, government buildings, libraries and airports. And local ordinances that bar people from shooting weapons in their yards, firing up into the air or taking a gun into an airport are coming off the books.

Since 1987, local governments in Florida have been barred from creating and enforcing their own gun ordinances.

Few cities and counties paid attention, though, believing that gun laws in places like Miami might need to be more restrictive than the state laws applicable in rural Apalachicola, for example.

But this year the state Legislature passed a new law that forces counties and municipalities to do away with, and stop enforcing, their own firearms and ammunition ordinances by Oct. 1. Mayors, council and commission members will risk a $5,000 fine and removal from office if they "knowingly and willfully violate" the law. Towns that enforce their ordinances risk a $100,000 fine.

To comply with the law, cities and counties are poring over their gun ordinances, repealing laws and removing gun-related signs.

In Palm Beach County, that means removing ordinances that ban people from taking guns into county government buildings and local parks and from firing guns in some of its most urban areas.

State lawmakers who supported the bill, which was backed by the National Rifle Association, said complaining local governments were overreacting.

"The notion that a city ordinance stops violence is patently absurd," said state Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Fort Walton Beach Republican who sponsored the bill. "People lawfully carrying weapons with permits are rarely part of the problem."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Florida-forces-cities-to-pull-local-gun-laws-2164827.php#ixzz1Xe2lFVI3

Walgreens Pharmacist Fired for Shooting His Own Gun During Robbery

Everyone in Michigan thinks Walgreens pharmacist Jeremy Hoven is a hero for using his own gun to scare off two armed men during a late night robbery at the store. Well, everyone that is except for his employer, who has subsequently fired Hoven from his pharmacy job for violating the company's non-escalation policy. I can't even begin to imagine what the Walgreens' bosses could be thinking with such an idiotic decision. It's not every day that someone loses their job for saving his own life and the lives of his co-workers.

As if the story of an employee shooting a gun purely out of self-defense wasn't infuriating enough, here are some more details to rile you up: Hoven says the reason he even had the gun (and a concealed weapons permit) in the first place is because after the store was robbed back in 2006, Walgreens failed to improve security, and he felt unsafe.

In addition to inadequate security, there's this ridiculous business of Walgreens' "non-escalation" policy. If you watch the frightening video below, you can see exactly what occurred during the robbery. Two masked men enter the store and hold up an employee at gunpoint. That's when Hoven draws his own gun and fires several downward shots in their direction. He justified his decision to shoot this way: "I was reacting out of fear, and the adrenaline was taking over ... You could have probably taken my pulse from my breath because my heart was beating that much." I'd say that's a pretty convincing justification.

As you can see, the thieves are clearly shaken by the shots and run out of the store. No one was harmed; the robbery attempt failed. Far from "escalating" the situation, Hoven stopped it.

If you ask me, Walgreens should be giving this man a raise -- not the sack. Still, the company is maintaining that Hoven had no right to carry or discharge a weapon in their store at any time. Hopefully, Hoven will get what should be coming to him -- a promotion and/or reward! -- when his lawsuit is decided.

Trying to track the IHOP gun's path from China

By Pete Williams, NBC News chief justice correspondent
The assault rifle used in the deadly shooting at a Nevada IHOP restaurant came from a Chinese company whose weapons imports have been banned since 1994, authorities say, but it’s unclear how the gunman acquired the AK-47 rifle.

Law enforcement officials say the man who fired the shots Tuesday in Carson City, Eduardo Sencion, had three weapons: two AK-47-style rifles and a handgun.

The officials say the actual shooting was committed with a Norinco Arms AK-47. Norinco, the Chinese company, is a global supplier of firearms and military weapons.

Since 1994, the United States has banned all imports of Norinco weapons into the United States (other than shotguns), but dealers were allowed to sell any stock they acquired before the import ban went into effect.

An attempt to trace where and how Sencion acquired the weapon has not come up with an answer. The dealer who originally sold the weapon has since gone out of business, which complicates the tracing effort.

Nevada IHOP shooter was 'gentle, kind man'
The gun could have been legally purchased. It could have been imported before the Norinco ban. The Clinton-era assault weapons ban applied to weapons like it, but the law expired in 2004. When Barack Obama first came into office, the administration suggested it would ask Congress to reimpose the ban, but that idea was quickly abandoned.

Officials say Sencion had two other weapons with him, apparently in the van he drove to the restaurant — a handgun and a second AK-47. The other AK-47 was a Romarm Cugir, made by a Romanian weapons company. The handgun was a Colt .38 revolver.
http://www.bobproctor-training.net/decision-by-bob-proctor/#

Republicans refuse to confirm leader for ATF despite its troubles

Former officials say the agency, which ran a botched sting operation, needs a permanent director to guide it. But nominees to the post have met opposition from gun-rights groups.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
8:27 PM PDT, September 6, 2011
Reporting from Washington

Congressional Republicans have been upset at the management at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which authorized a botched sting operation near the Mexican border that put guns in the hands of drug criminals.

But Republican leaders, responding to complaints from gun-rights lobbyists, have refused to confirm a director for the bureau since it was split from the Treasury Department eight years ago.

"They have had nothing but acting directors. Do you wonder why some things would go wrong there?" said John Killorin, a retired special agent from Atlanta and president of the ATF Assn. "This is a major law enforcement agency, and they need a confirmed director with the full responsibility and authority to run it."

President Obama's nominee, an ATF special agent from Chicago, has yet to have a Senate hearing.

President George W. Bush faced the same problem. His nominee, Michael J. Sullivan, was a well-regarded U.S. attorney in Boston and an ally of then-Atty. Gen John Ashcroft. But Idaho Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both Republicans, blocked his confirmation in the Senate in response to complaints from an Idaho gun dealer.

"People said to me at the time that if Mike Sullivan can't be confirmed, then no one was going to be confirmed," recalled Sullivan, who served as acting ATF director while remaining as the top federal prosecutor in Boston. "The agency needs a full-time leader. People there say morale is very low. They have felt abandoned because they didn't have a leader who had the confidence of the people at the Justice Department and the White House."

Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the failure to confirm the president's nominee to head the bureau did not explain the management failures at the bureau.

"While a Senate-approved director would be nice for the ATF, it wouldn't have stopped the disastrous mistakes made in the Fast and Furious strategy," he said, referring to the sting operation. "The acting director reported to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general, so there should have been accountability."

The bureau has a long and colorful history. The first Congress imposed taxes on whiskey, and its agents were part of the Treasury Department. In the Prohibition era, its agents fought the illegal trade in booze, and they included Eliot Ness in Chicago. But more recently, its main duty has been enforcing federal gun laws.

Eight years ago, Congress removed the bureau from the Treasury Department and made it a separate law enforcement agency under the Justice Department. For the first time, lawmakers put its director under political control by requiring Senate confirmation of the president's nominee.

Since then, no one has been confirmed. Both nominees have drawn opposition from gun-rights groups, including the powerful National Rifle Assn. Obama nominated Andrew Traver, the ATF's special agent in Chicago, to lead the bureau, but his nomination has gone nowhere in the Senate.

"This president has consistently nominated hardened gun control advocates into positions that restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans," Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America, said in explaining the group's opposition.

Gun control advocates say these critics are opposed to the ATF itself.

"The bottom line is the gun lobby will oppose any nominee who promises to be a strong and effective director of the ATF," said Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Fast and Furious is what happens when you don't have a strong director," he said.

Two years ago, Kenneth E. Melson, an expert on forensic science, was named the acting director of the ATF. He stepped down last month in the aftermath of the failed sting operation. In his place, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. named B. Todd Jones, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, as acting director. Officials said he would commute from Minneapolis, where he continues to hold his prosecutor's post.

david.savage@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times