Courts to Reexamine Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act

Firearm ownership and open carry laws have become a public health issue and some
doctors in Florida are being prevented from discussing it. Photo: WikipediaCommons.

Florida doctors may get their wish, as a piece of legislation that discourages them from asking patients about their guns will be reexamined by a federal court.

The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act is a Florida law that discourages doctors from asking their patients whether or not they own a firearm, unless it is required for their treatment. As you can imagine, the legality of their gun ownership does not come up often in medical treatment, and this restriction can cause many legal problems. Luckily, a federal appeals court agreed to rehear the dispute of this law.  

The situation is naturally intensified by the fact that it is occurring in Florida, a state that is notorious for high-profile gun laws and gun-related news stories. Take, for example, the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman or the passing of Florida house bill HB 163, a controversial open carry law. (Visit Kendall Coffey’s Spinning the Law blog for a quick summary.)

Here’s a basic history of the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act:

• Governor Rick Scott signed it into law in 2011.
• In 2012, a federal judge struck down the law based on First Amendment grounds.
• In 2014, a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that.

In fact, this is the same appeals court that has now voted to review the case again. The court didn’t give a reason for why they want to revisit this law, but it is important to note that this time their entire bench will review it (instead of the three-judge panel from 2014).

Doug Hallward-Driemeier, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement that he is pleased that the 11th Circuit Court has granted their request for a rehearing of the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act. “Florida’s law is inconsistent with the First Amendment because it singles out doctors’ speech about guns for restriction because the government disagrees with their message,” he said. “That is precisely what the First Amendment protects us against.”