Wollschlaeger v. Florida

Choose wisely

My Ophthalmologist is an avid shooter and has several piston AR's. Like any commodity, choose your doctors. If they offend you look for another one. This is too much energy devoted to a ridiculous non-issue. :cool:
 
It's not a non-issue.

In a broader sense it shows how third parties can foster a political agenda that has real negative impacts to the people that they try to force into conformity.

My oldest daughter mentioned to her class that her father shoots guns. That's all she said.

I got a call from the school counselor and got the thrid degree about it. The woman seemed not to be listening to me when I told her my firearms were locked and not accesible to children. Despite what I told her - she went on to tell me about the dangers of children with firearms and the school's zero tolerance policy. I told her I thought the school's zero tolerance policy was a good thing, and I was sure it could only protect my children, and my kids would never run afoul of it becasue there was no way they could ever access my firearms. That seemed to anger her so she took another five minutes of my time repeating verbatim everything she had said previously. She obviously had an agenda - to convince me that guns are bad and that I needed to get rid of them. Why repeat her shpeel after I acknowledged what she had said and told her that my firearms were secured? She wasn't satisfied with that, she didn't like that oprion - that I had firearms but that they were secure. She wanted to impose her will on me - which meant getting rid of my firearms. I also got a call from the school nurse shortly after that. The tone of that call had a different bent - it seemed to be aimed at determining if my house was a safe environment for my children and if the kids were in danger in my house. The nurse cited statistics about the children killed with firearms etc...

It was very alarming. I was afraid that there would be some follow up visit from DCFS to ensure that my firearms were indeed secured and locked up.
 
I understand what the proponents of the law were trying to do. However, I don't agree with them, as I like all the rights in the Bill of Rights, to include the 1st Amendment. I also like the 14th...

But anyway, I think we would be much better served if the major gun rights organizations simply kept an online database of physicians who ask about guns. That could be used to apply market forces to the problem. Establish the database, and advertise it to members.

We, in turn, could send links to the database to our friends and loved ones. We could then collectively let those doctors know why they had lost our business.

The same legal rationale that protects the doctors' freedom of speech when they ask such questions, should also protect datatbases that tell us which doctors do the asking.
 
Today's editorial in the New York Times should be of no surprise to anyone who frequents this forum, but it is indicative of what we struggle against.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/pandering-to-the-gun-lobby.html

It's opinion, of course, so it's hard to call one's opinion a lie, but there are certainly half-truths in the piece. Obviously, The Times has elected to misinterpret the intent (and the effect) of the Florida legislation, as well as accuse the Supreme Court of misinterpreting the scope of the Second Amendment, but that seems to be the way that things work with the Paper of Record.
 
The hubris of the MSM never ceases to amaze me:

...the Supreme Court, in its ruling that misread the Second Amendment as a personal right to bear arms...
Click to expand...

This is written by some person who majored in journalism or communications and over the course of the 6 years it took them to graduate from college, took one law course and only because it was a pre-req. But they are obviously a self-appointed expert on the law while the members of the Supreme Court are fools prone to misread the constitution.
 
Amazing how your views of the issue cloud your understanding of legal issues. But it happens to all.

The issue is whether a city can overrule a state law?

The Times agrees as they don't like guns. But would they support a state reinstating slavery (they would if they didn't agree with some current constitutional interpretations).

Or some of the presidential candidates saying it was OK for a local entity to block the house of worship of religion they don't like.

As to FL voters, they can turn out the rascals. Or they can approve of their actions.

As for the issue at hand, unfortunately, I don't think you can restrain doctor's questions. If that question is used to discriminate then action is needed. Oh, wait - that implies that the RKBA should be protected as a basis to prevent discrimination. Oh, wait - again - that would mean that employers can't discriminate against gun carry, if SD is a basic right. Oh, what about my property rights. OH, does the doc have property rights - it is his business - so he is king of his castle and can say every crazy thing he wants.

OH, NO - wheels within wheels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top