Source: https://everytownresearch.org/law/wollschlaeger-v-governor-state-florida-second-brief/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:04:26+00:00

Document:
This is the second amicus brief that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America has filed in the 11th Circuit in this case. This brief again urges the full 11th Circuit to re-hear a case challenging a Florida law that prohibits doctors from speaking with their patients about firearm safety. Previously, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit upheld the law; this brief urges the full court to reconsider that decision.
no stock. Accordingly, no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
from receiving such truthful information—regarding firearm safety and storage.
and decisional conflict set forth in the Petition for Rehearing En Banc at pages viii-ix.
Brief Office Counseling by Family Physicians, 16 J. Am. Bd. of Family Prac.
primary source of information about children and gun safety.
information from doctor to patient.
dissenting opinion (Op. II 78-90) and adopted by petitioners here (Pet. 4).
was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(c)(5).
communication between doctors and patients on critical issues of gun safety,” Pet. 5.
demonstrate that FOPA also infringes patients’ rights to hear that speech.
about storage practices, families improve the safety of their gun storage practices.
rehearing is necessary to correct the majority’s errors.
PARTICULAR SUBJECT—GUN OWNERSHIP AND SAFETY.
a doctor to disciplinary action. Id. § 790.338(8).
information pertinent to their children’s health and safety.
the din of conflicting and confusing communications.” Id.
public.” King v. Governor of New Jersey, 767 F.3d 216, 234 (3d Cir. 2014). See also Conant v.
Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring).
whether or not the government has decided it might make them feel uncomfortable.
And Safety Information About Raising Their Children.
curious children is a logical and important part of this dialogue.
school, doctors remain an important source of such information.
Firearm Safety Lead To Safer Firearm Storage Practices.
21.4% increase in safe storage practices among patients receiving counseling. Shari L.
safety—if parents are allowed to receive it—will save children’s lives.
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION.
improve rate of safe firearm storage).
Attitudes Toward Prevention of Firearm Injury, 160 Annals of Internal Med. 821 (2014).
Court’s precedents when it relies on a “captive audience” theory to uphold the Act.
En banc rehearing is called for to correct these errors.4 See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)(A).
Context Of The Doctor-Patient Relationship.
much as speakers’ right to disseminate it. See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S.
Absurd Logic Behind Florida’s Docs v. Glocks Law,” Slate.com, Jan. 8, 2016.
lives.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2664 (2011).
Many Patients Of Important Information About Firearm Safety.
topics, and limits only speech pertaining to firearm ownership. See Fla. Stat.
§ 790.338(2). This is quintessential content discrimination. See Police Dep’t of Chicago v.
subject matter, or its content”).
receive the counseling that their doctors would otherwise have provided.
under the Act. A reasonably risk-averse physician will just avoid the topic entirely.
similar effect. See Op. II 140-44 (Wilson, J., dissenting).
Amendment cannot tolerate this harm.
Important Ways That Undermine The Rights Of Listeners.
Court’s teachings about those rights in three important ways.
information during consultations with their doctors. Op. III 51. See Sorrell, 131 S. Ct.
public health experts deem medically necessary.
truthful information about smokeless tobacco and cigars to adult consumers”).
adequately tailored to survive strict scrutiny.
heart” can justify a content-based limitation on speech).
the centuries-old problems of voter fraud and intimidation. See 504 U.S. at 198-208.
First Amendment, not to mention the basic compact between doctor and patient.
“harassment.” En banc rehearing is necessary to correct the majority’s errors.
the judgment and injunction of the district court.

References: § 790
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 790
 v.