<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Federal Appeals Court Upholds &#8216;Docs Vs. Glocks&#8217; Bill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill</link>
	<description>Local News for Molino, Bratt, McDavid, Century, Walnut Hill, Cantonment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 13:09:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The EYE</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275642</link>
		<dc:creator>The EYE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275642</guid>
		<description>You will be asked if you fell safe in your home environment. Ask them why they need to know and they will tell you that they are required to ask and document the answer. If you say no it goes to another file???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You will be asked if you fell safe in your home environment. Ask them why they need to know and they will tell you that they are required to ask and document the answer. If you say no it goes to another file???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275627</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275627</guid>
		<description>You have to be very careful with the &quot;mental health&quot; debate because you can cast a wide net with that. For instance if you had something traumatic happen in your life (and we all have), and you happen to say to your doc.&quot;I&#039;ve felt a little depressed to day&quot;. That could come back to haunt you if you decide to purchase a gun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have to be very careful with the &#8220;mental health&#8221; debate because you can cast a wide net with that. For instance if you had something traumatic happen in your life (and we all have), and you happen to say to your doc.&#8221;I&#8217;ve felt a little depressed to day&#8221;. That could come back to haunt you if you decide to purchase a gun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Community Healthcare Worker</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275538</link>
		<dc:creator>Community Healthcare Worker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:59:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275538</guid>
		<description>I think most people read the headlines and perhaps don&#039;t understand what exactly this question is asked for.

This isn&#039;t for when you go to the doctor with a fever and he randomly asks if you own a gun. Could their be doctors that do? Of course, just like anything else that people can apply to the wrong situation.

The purpose of this IS, in fact, SUPPOSE to be used for certain mental health patients. Depending on the circumstances, it could be as basic as asking a suicidal patient if they &quot;have a plan&quot;. Statistically speaking, patients with a plan are at a MUCH higher risk of successfully killing themselves than those who don&#039;t. Asking if they have a gun just allows the doctor to access the health risks of the patient and determine how aggressively he needs to treat the patient. No different than forming a more aggressive diet plan for a higher risk cardiac patient. The fact is, guns have more of a symbolic efficiency of being able to kill stuff, or yourself, more effect then, say, a knife. The fun part about this? If your concern is privacy you can tell your doctor &quot;I&#039;m not going to answer that&quot; / &quot;it&#039;s none of your business&quot; with no legal consequences. Some as if he asked that cardiac patient how many cheese burgers he has ate in the last month. You may get a lecture, but its all in concern for your health.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think most people read the headlines and perhaps don&#8217;t understand what exactly this question is asked for.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t for when you go to the doctor with a fever and he randomly asks if you own a gun. Could their be doctors that do? Of course, just like anything else that people can apply to the wrong situation.</p>
<p>The purpose of this IS, in fact, SUPPOSE to be used for certain mental health patients. Depending on the circumstances, it could be as basic as asking a suicidal patient if they &#8220;have a plan&#8221;. Statistically speaking, patients with a plan are at a MUCH higher risk of successfully killing themselves than those who don&#8217;t. Asking if they have a gun just allows the doctor to access the health risks of the patient and determine how aggressively he needs to treat the patient. No different than forming a more aggressive diet plan for a higher risk cardiac patient. The fact is, guns have more of a symbolic efficiency of being able to kill stuff, or yourself, more effect then, say, a knife. The fun part about this? If your concern is privacy you can tell your doctor &#8220;I&#8217;m not going to answer that&#8221; / &#8220;it&#8217;s none of your business&#8221; with no legal consequences. Some as if he asked that cardiac patient how many cheese burgers he has ate in the last month. You may get a lecture, but its all in concern for your health.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Chick</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275487</link>
		<dc:creator>A Chick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275487</guid>
		<description>A doctor should be allowed to inquire about firearms only if the pateint has been admitted for mental health reasons. This could help with sucide prevention. As for other visits to the doctor, this is a good law. It is not there business if there patient has a firearm (unless with mental pateints).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A doctor should be allowed to inquire about firearms only if the pateint has been admitted for mental health reasons. This could help with sucide prevention. As for other visits to the doctor, this is a good law. It is not there business if there patient has a firearm (unless with mental pateints).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gembeaux</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275482</link>
		<dc:creator>Gembeaux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275482</guid>
		<description>Physicians have no responsibility to be my home safety advisor in any matters not directly related to my visit.
 The original efforts by the gun controllers would create a legal requirement for doctors and/or intake administrative personnel to note, on the intake form, specifically whether the patient is a gun owner, regardless of the reason for the visit.
 If the purpose of the inquiry was simply out of concern for the patients&#039; safety, doctors would have little time for anything beyond safety briefings, and certainly not medicine. After all, it would have to be determined whether patients owned not only firearms, but also ladders,  pruning shears, kitchen knives, camp stoves, power mowers, ATV&#039;s, motorcycles,  nail guns, craft scissors...the list is endless.
 But thanks for your genuine concern, there, ACLU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Physicians have no responsibility to be my home safety advisor in any matters not directly related to my visit.<br />
 The original efforts by the gun controllers would create a legal requirement for doctors and/or intake administrative personnel to note, on the intake form, specifically whether the patient is a gun owner, regardless of the reason for the visit.<br />
 If the purpose of the inquiry was simply out of concern for the patients&#8217; safety, doctors would have little time for anything beyond safety briefings, and certainly not medicine. After all, it would have to be determined whether patients owned not only firearms, but also ladders,  pruning shears, kitchen knives, camp stoves, power mowers, ATV&#8217;s, motorcycles,  nail guns, craft scissors&#8230;the list is endless.<br />
 But thanks for your genuine concern, there, ACLU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Huie Green</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275472</link>
		<dc:creator>David Huie Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275472</guid>
		<description>Bob C,
Close but reversed.  They are by law forbidden TO ask.
The law never required them to ask.

The fear is that the federal government would break into patient records to learn who all is armed and eliminate them

David for trustworthy governments</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob C,<br />
Close but reversed.  They are by law forbidden TO ask.<br />
The law never required them to ask.</p>
<p>The fear is that the federal government would break into patient records to learn who all is armed and eliminate them</p>
<p>David for trustworthy governments</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy Carter</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275470</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy Carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275470</guid>
		<description>Kathy,
It has nothing to do with safety. If it did the Docs would have brochures that covered all aspects of safety in your home. It is about gun registration when the Doc puts down firearm info into your permanent record. That record is open to many different agencies, just read the disclaimer that you sign as part of your new patient paperwork. The reason this bill appeared is because of pediatricians in south Florida who were refusing to take or service those who had firearms. Discrimination and illegal. Gun registration of any type is an affront to the 2nd Amendment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kathy,<br />
It has nothing to do with safety. If it did the Docs would have brochures that covered all aspects of safety in your home. It is about gun registration when the Doc puts down firearm info into your permanent record. That record is open to many different agencies, just read the disclaimer that you sign as part of your new patient paperwork. The reason this bill appeared is because of pediatricians in south Florida who were refusing to take or service those who had firearms. Discrimination and illegal. Gun registration of any type is an affront to the 2nd Amendment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M in Bratt</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275467</link>
		<dc:creator>M in Bratt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275467</guid>
		<description>Most patients don&#039;t realize that all the information that they provide to their Dr. is part of their medical records, and part of the Obamacare law is that the federal government in the form of the IRS is now the custodian of  all medical records.  If you don&#039;t believe that one, just ask your Dr. or Congressman.  I for one don&#039;t particularly want the federal government to know whether I own a gun or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most patients don&#8217;t realize that all the information that they provide to their Dr. is part of their medical records, and part of the Obamacare law is that the federal government in the form of the IRS is now the custodian of  all medical records.  If you don&#8217;t believe that one, just ask your Dr. or Congressman.  I for one don&#8217;t particularly want the federal government to know whether I own a gun or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob C</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275460</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275460</guid>
		<description>If I am reading this correctly the physicians are no longer Required by Law to ask if I have a gun in my home.

That is a good thing.

Joel...Like you, I have never had a health care provider ever ask about a gun in my home. 

Yes, they do ask if I smoke or consume alcohol but that can impact my health and I have no problem with those questions.

One could argue that the reasoning behind the old and now overturned law for medical persons to ask about firearms in the home would be so certain reporting requirements -- medical insurance -- could gather information for decisions on providing insurance coverage or perhaps for the government agencies to have another indication of who does have firearms in their home.

Why don&#039;t doctors ask if I have working smoke alarms in my home? 
Fires kill and harm many more people than guns in the home.

Thank you to the courts for showing good sense in overturning the law that would have required my doctor to ask about firearms or anything else in my home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I am reading this correctly the physicians are no longer Required by Law to ask if I have a gun in my home.</p>
<p>That is a good thing.</p>
<p>Joel&#8230;Like you, I have never had a health care provider ever ask about a gun in my home. </p>
<p>Yes, they do ask if I smoke or consume alcohol but that can impact my health and I have no problem with those questions.</p>
<p>One could argue that the reasoning behind the old and now overturned law for medical persons to ask about firearms in the home would be so certain reporting requirements &#8212; medical insurance &#8212; could gather information for decisions on providing insurance coverage or perhaps for the government agencies to have another indication of who does have firearms in their home.</p>
<p>Why don&#8217;t doctors ask if I have working smoke alarms in my home?<br />
Fires kill and harm many more people than guns in the home.</p>
<p>Thank you to the courts for showing good sense in overturning the law that would have required my doctor to ask about firearms or anything else in my home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathy</title>
		<link>http://www.northescambia.com/2014/07/federal-appeals-court-upholds-docs-vs-glocks-bill/comment-page-1#comment-275452</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northescambia.com/?p=185662#comment-275452</guid>
		<description>Well of course they have no right to be concerned, there are no senseless shootings in America, we are the land of common sense, and there is obviously no mental illness that might cause someone to shoot a lot of people out of irrational thought processes. My gun is more important than any life out there. My right is more important than any one else&#039;s life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well of course they have no right to be concerned, there are no senseless shootings in America, we are the land of common sense, and there is obviously no mental illness that might cause someone to shoot a lot of people out of irrational thought processes. My gun is more important than any life out there. My right is more important than any one else&#8217;s life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
