The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

11th Circuit Gives Third Opinion Upholding Florida’s Docs v. Glocks Gun Act

Posted on January 5, 2016 by Larry Bodine
Docs v. Glocks II

Second Amendment gun rights trump First Amendment speech rights.

The 11th Circuit has issued an updated opinion in the “Docs v. Glocks” case of Wollschlaeger v. Florida. The third ruling in this case again upholds Florida’s Firearm Owners Privacy Act that

  • restricts doctors from inquiring and making any record about a patient’s firearm-ownership and
  • prohibits discussion of firearm ownership and storage unless the doctor believes it is relevant to the patient’s care or safety.

The physicians in the case sought a review of the case citing a Supreme Court ruling in an Arizona case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ that applied the strict scrutiny test to a content based speech restriction, finding the restriction unconstitutional.  Instead, the court sua sponte (on its own motion) reconsidered and revised its opinion, changing its position on the level of scrutiny to be used for restrictions on professional speech.

Prior opinion applied intermediate scrutiny

In the earlier opinion, the court determined that in order for the regulation on physician speech to be constitutional, the Act had to meet the intermediate scrutiny standard.  The court determined that the Act was constitutional because it advanced the substantial state interest of protecting patient’s privacy rights and from harmful professional practices through regulating physicians conduct while only incidentally affecting physician speech.

See also: 11th Circuit Stifles Physician Discussion of Gun Safety

What level of scrutiny?

In the third revised opinion, the court refused to indicate what level of scrutiny must apply to the Act. It did make note that the decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert “makes clear that all content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny” but that professional speech before Reed received intermediate scrutiny and that since Reed “it is hardly clear that anything has changed.”

The court stated that it “need not decide [the] difficult question” of the level of scrutiny to be applied to professional speech, but found that the Act survived the strict scrutiny standard.  The court further wrote, “We pass no judgement on what level of scrutiny should apply here, but would of course hold that the Act also survives any less demanding level of scrutiny.”

The court, using much of the same information and wording from the previous opinion, found that the state of Florida had a compelling interest to protect patient’s fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to protect patient privacy.

The court wrote that although a physician’s questions about gun ownership “may not stop the patient from owning a gun, complete prohibition is hardly required to infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Such speech chills the patient’s exercise of his rights and that is sufficient.”

The court again focused on the fiduciary relationship between the physician and patient, and wrote that the imbalance of power could leave patients in a “position of great vulnerability” unable to stand up for their rights.

Gun ownership ‘cherished by American society’

The court also discussed the state interest in protecting the privacy of patient’s gun-ownership status from medical records.  The physicians in the case argued that gun ownership is not sacrosanct and does not give rise to a compelling privacy interest because gun ownership is disclosed to state and federal government.  The physicians further argued that existing state and federal laws sufficiently protect patient privacy.

The court disagreed, finding a person’s gun ownership status was sacrosanct because gun rights are “indisputably more valued and cherished by American society.”  The court also discusses its support of a ban of gun ownership records because of the potential for “hacking and data breaches” that may cause patient records to “fall into the wrong hands.”

The court emphasized that physicians should not be able to discuss gun ownership with patients without good cause and safety concerns for the patient.  However, some safety risks go undetected, including for suicide and domestic violence risk, which contribute to the more than 21,000 firearm suicides and 11,000 firearm homicides that occur each year.

The case is Wollschlaeger v. Florida, Case number 12-14009 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit.

Posted in Blog, Civil Rights

One thought on “11th Circuit Gives Third Opinion Upholding Florida’s Docs v. Glocks Gun Act”

  1. Jewels Salazar on January 21, 2016 at 2:12 am said:

    Yes, I am so happy that the 11th Circuit Court of Florida agrees that it is not a aa a Dr. right on gun laws. I fill very strongly that it is none of there concern who has. And who can’t have guns. There oath is medical and to save lives. Not take away away Americans Second Ammendment Rights. Thank You I hope all other states states follow this.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.