Your rights are not being restricted

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah. Odd title for me right? But in this case it is the truth.

Your right is not being restricted.

Issue du jour is from the Sunshine State.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/15/business-us-doctors-guns_8681049.html

From the lede "A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a first-in-the-nation law that restricted what Florida physicians can say about guns to their patients, ruling the law violates the U.S. Constitution's free speech guarantees and does not trample gun rights."

Doctors have an obligation (whether or not they live up to that is a different matter) to inform their patients about safety and health. Doctors also have the right to free speech.

Except there is no good poetry.

A doctor talking with a patient about gun safety is adhering to the ethical requirements of his field AND exercising his right to free speech.

Simply put here - The NRA got this one wrong.

A gun, left alone, is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force has to act on the gun.

A pool is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force as to act on the pool.

A one-foot high pile of heroin is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force as to act on the heroin.

The danger, in case you haven't figured it out, is human intervention.

People need to know how to handle, react to and responsibly use guns. If you don't know what to do with a gun, leave it alone and call someone (like me, law enforcement, another gun owner) who does. A doctor may or may not be the best source of firearm information (I know some who hunt as much as I do). But a doctor is a good source of basic safety information.

When balanced, all is well.

From the story - "The law arose out of the so-called "Ocala incident," in which a young mother in 2010 was dropped from a doctor's practice because she refused to answer questions about gun ownership."

I don't have a problem with this. The doctor has the right to run his practice as he see fit, at least he does right now. With the national health care plan this could change.

Some of you may object to this. If you do, then will you let someone dictate how you run your business and force you to do things you'd rather not?

Be fair. That's what I'm asking for.

While I do not know the doctor's sympathies toward guns, it also doesn't matter. The doc has a right to gather important information about his patients. If he feels firearms is an important bit of information, that's OK with me. If the patients don't like it, they can find another doctor.

The doctor here was completely within his rights. Florida attempted to undermine his rights. The judge in this case saw it correctly.

"This case concerns one of our Constitution's most precious rights - the freedom of speech," said Cooke, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush. "A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect or interfere with the patient's right to continue to own, possess or use firearms."

Regardless of your opinion on firearms and free speech, both are protected by the Constitution. Talking with and giving someone information about firearms does not restrict in any way the Second Amendment and fully supports the First Amendment.

And that is the truth.