{"id":777,"date":"2017-02-17T01:14:00","date_gmt":"2017-02-17T01:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2017\/02\/17\/11th-circuit-rules-against-florida-in\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:27:29","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:27:29","slug":"11th-circuit-rules-against-florida-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=777","title":{"rendered":"11th Circuit Rules Against Florida In &#8220;Docs V. Glocks&#8221; Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:8755,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\\\/opinions\\\/pub\\\/files\\\/201214009.enbc.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\\\/opinions\\\/pub\\\/files\\\/201214009.enbc.pdf&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8756,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.fjc.gov\\\/servlet\\\/nGetInfo?jid=2831&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8757,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.fjc.gov\\\/servlet\\\/nGetInfo?jid=1477&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8758,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.fjc.gov\\\/servlet\\\/nGetInfo?jid=3050&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8759,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/www.fjc.gov\\\/servlet\\\/nGetInfo?jid=2393&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/files\/201214009.enbc.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling en banc found that parts of &nbsp;the State of Florida&#8217;s Firearms Owners Privacy Act were unconstitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech<\/a>. This 10-1 overturned an earlier ruling by a 3-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that had ruled in favor of the act. The case, <i>Wollschlager v. Florida<\/i>, had been euphemistically called &nbsp;the &#8220;Docs v. Glocks case&#8221;. The State of Florida had brought this case to the 11th Circuit on appeal from the US District Court for the District of South Florida.<\/p>\n<p>In reaction to anecdotal evidence that some doctors, particularly pediatricians, were refusing treatment to children whose parents refused to answer questions regarding firearms as well as &#8220;interrogating&#8221; children regarding firearms outside the presence of their parents, the Florida Legislature passed the act in 2011. The Firearms Owners Privacy Act added provisions to medical privacy concerning firearms ownership and included disciplinary measures for violating this privacy. The provisions at issue were the ones dealing with record keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment.<\/p>\n<p>There were two majority opinions on this case from the court. The first by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/servlet\/nGetInfo?jid=2831&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan<\/a>, an Obama appointee, found that:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>Exercising plenary review, see ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade County<br \/>\nSch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1206 (11th Cir. 2009), and applying heightened scrutiny<br \/>\nas articulated in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 563\u201367, 571\u201372 (2011),<br \/>\n<b>we agree with the district court that FOPA\u2019s content-based restrictions\u2014the<br \/>\nrecord-keeping, inquiry, and anti-harassment provisions\u2014violate the First<br \/>\nAmendment as it applies to the states.<\/b> See U.S. Const. amend. I (\u201cCongress shall<br \/>\nmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech[.]\u201d); Stromberg v. California,<br \/>\n283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931) (\u201c[T]he conception of liberty under the due process<br \/>\nclause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of free speech.\u201d). And<br \/>\nbecause these three provisions do not survive heightened scrutiny under Sorrell,<br \/>\nwe need not address whether strict scrutiny should apply to them. We also<br \/>\nconclude, <b>this time contrary to the district court, that FOPA\u2019s anti-discrimination<br \/>\nprovision\u2014as construed to apply to certain conduct by doctors and medical<br \/>\nprofessionals\u2014is not unconstitutional.<\/b> Finally, we concur with the district court\u2019s<br \/>\nassessment that the unconstitutional provisions of FOPA can be severed from the<br \/>\nrest of the Act.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>He concluded by remanding the case back to District Court so that their permanent injunction could be amended to reflect the findings of the Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/servlet\/nGetInfo?jid=1477&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Judge Stanley Marcus, a Clinton appointee<\/a>, agreed with the other majority opinion but was rather skeptical that the anti-discrimination section of the law wouldn&#8217;t be used to also regulate speech.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>I also worry that the discrimination provision appears to be a variant of the<br \/>\nharassment provision. Because the majority opinion strikes down the harassment<br \/>\nprovision, my concern is that the state will now use the discrimination provision to<br \/>\npunish harassing conduct. The Act defines neither harassment nor discrimination.<br \/>\nIt seems to me that the same speech that constituted harassment could now<br \/>\nconstitute \u201cdiscriminatory harassment\u201d3 and thus be prohibited.<\/p>\n<p>However, I also recognize that the Supreme Court has stated that<br \/>\nanti-discrimination provisions prohibiting discriminatory conduct \u201cdo not, as a<br \/>\ngeneral matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.\u201d See Hurley v. IrishAm.<br \/>\nGay, Lesbian &amp; Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 571\u201372, 115 S. Ct.<br \/>\n2338, 2346 (1995). Based on this guiding principle, and on a narrow reading of<br \/>\nthe provision, I would not strike down the discrimination provision. But I remain<br \/>\nskeptical of the government\u2019s motivation behind this Act. And I urge that in all<br \/>\nfuture cases reviewing content- and viewpoint-based speech regulations we remain<br \/>\nsteadfast in our resolve to protect speech and be wary of any law that muzzles<br \/>\nentire categories of speech.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Judge William Pryor, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/servlet\/nGetInfo?jid=3050&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a Bush appointee<\/a> and presumed finalist for the recent Supreme Court vacancy, also wrote a concurring opinion. He argued that both the First and Second Amendments were important. However, in the course of protecting one right, another right should not be slighted.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>We should not be swayed by the argument that the First Amendment may be<br \/>\ncurtailed when other constitutional rights need \u201cprotection.\u201d In this context,<br \/>\n\u201cprotection\u201d is a misnomer. <b>The Constitution protects individual rights from<br \/>\ngovernment infringement, but freedom thrives on private persuasion.<\/b> That the<br \/>\ngovernment may not establish a religion, U.S. Const. Amend. I., or ban handguns,<br \/>\nU.S. Const. Amend. II, does not suggest that private individuals may not start a<br \/>\nchurch or give away their guns. The Second Amendment is not infringed when<br \/>\nprivate actors argue that guns are dangerous any more than when private actors<br \/>\nsupport the positions of the National Rifle Association. The \u201ctheory of our<br \/>\nConstitution\u201d is that \u201cthe best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself<br \/>\naccepted in the competition of the market.\u201d Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616,<br \/>\n630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The Florida Legislature overstepped the<br \/>\nboundaries of the First Amendment when it determined that the proper remedy for<br \/>\nspeech it considered \u201cevil\u201d was \u201cenforced silence,\u201d as opposed to \u201cmore speech.\u201d<br \/>\nWhitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Finally, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/servlet\/nGetInfo?jid=2393&amp;cid=999&amp;ctype=na&amp;instate=na\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Judge &nbsp;Gerald Tjoflat, a Ford appointee,<\/a> wrote a blistering dissent which called into question the appropriate level of scrutiny applied by the majority opinions. Unlike the rest of his colleagues, he found that FOPA was narrowly tailored and would have passed even strict scrutiny. He concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>The majority and I agree that Florida possesses a substantial interest in<br \/>\nprotecting both Floridians\u2019 reasonable expectation of privacy during medical<br \/>\ntreatment and the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights. If that is so,<br \/>\nthen it is hard to imagine a law more precisely tailored to advance those substantial<br \/>\nstate interests than the one presently before us. The Act does not categorically<br \/>\nrestrict the speech of medical professionals on the subject of firearms. Instead, it<br \/>\nsimply requires an individualized, good faith judgment of the necessity of speech<br \/>\nrelated to firearm ownership to provide competent medical care to a patient. The<br \/>\nindividualized assessment of medical appropriateness required under the Act does<br \/>\nnot foreclose the ability of a physician to question a patient, but instead carefully<br \/>\nweighs that right against Florida\u2019s undoubtedly substantial interest in regulating<br \/>\nthe medical profession to protect the constitutional rights of all Floridians. In my<br \/>\njudgment, the Act \u201cnarrowly protects patients in a focused manner in order to<br \/>\nadvance the State\u2019s compelling interest in protecting the Second Amendment\u2019s<br \/>\nguarantee to keep and bear arms and patients\u2019 privacy rights in their medical<br \/>\nrecords, exactly the sort of tailoring [even] strict scrutiny requires.\u201d Id. at 1201.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues\u2019 judgment that the First<br \/>\nAmendment requires us to declare Florida\u2019s well-considered legislative judgment<br \/>\nunconstitutional.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling en banc found that parts of &nbsp;the State of Florida&#8217;s Firearms Owners&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":2,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1648,1649,436,1650],"class_list":["post-777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-11th-circuit","tag-docs-v-glocks","tag-free-speech","tag-wollschlager-v-florida"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/777","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=777"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/777\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10988,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/777\/revisions\/10988"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}