Jul 302012

Governor Rick Scott announced today (July 30, 2012) on his web site an appeal of the U.S. District Court restraining order on the Docs v Glocks law. Here’s his news release:

“The Department of Health today filed an appeal to the federal court decision blocking enforcement of the Firearm Owner’s Privacy Act. This law was carefully crafted to respect the First Amendment while ensuring a patient’s constitutional right to own or possess a firearm without discrimination. I signed this legislation into law because I believe it is constitutional and I will continue to defend it.”

It isn’t over yet. Kudos to Governor Scott for working to see it through.

 Posted by at 11:54 pm
Jul 262012

In the wake of the July 20, 2012 Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, it’s instructive to review the official stance of the Department of Homeland Security on active shooter scenarios (hat tip to Dan Gifford). DHS provides instructional materials, including a booklet and a poster targeted to civilians in workplaces. Both documents give useful information about what to expect in this horrifying, life-threatening scenario, but the advice given to potential victims is downright bizarre:

Take action

  • Only when your life is in imminent danger
  • Attempt to incapacitate the shooter
  • Act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter

Throw items at the shooter? Act with physical aggression? Seriously?

Why is there no advice for legally armed citizens to consider shooting the active shooter? Since Columbine, police tactics have shifted priorities toward rapidly identifying and neutralizing the active shooter. From previous mass shootings like the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting and the 1997 Pearl, Mississippi school shooting we have learned that armed intervention by potential victims at the scene has prevented deaths and injuries. The DHS could propose in its materials the option of legal, armed intervention by one of the potential victims. Such a statement would be a powerful endorsement of an ethical and practical preventive solution to the further slaughter of innocents.

So why would DHS not address the obvious and give its authority in its written materials to this potent lifesaving option? Is it out of ignorance or political correctness? Such trivial advice is an insult to the American citizens the DHS is sworn to protect.

 Posted by at 2:51 am
Jul 102012

A U. S. District Court judge has handed down a permanent injunction against Florida’s Docs v Glocks law (BERND WOLLSCHLAEGER, et al., Plaintiffs vs. FRANK FARMER, et al., Defendants). The unfavorable ruling for the law should come as no surprise, since Judge Marcia Cooke telegraphed her disapproval of the law in a temporary injunction last September (BERND WOLLSCHLAEGER, et al., Plaintiffs vs. FRANK FARMER, et al., Defendants). In that ruling she accused the state of Florida of “attempt[ing] to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case.” On that basis she abruptly dismissed any need for her to address the State’s Second Amendment arguments.

In this latest ruling her elaborate justification that the law violates doctors’ right of free speech is based on that speech being “truthful and non-misleading.” The judge completely ignores the obvious and highly publicized American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) campaign over the last 20 years to get doctors to push their gun control advocacy agenda. It’s hard for a thinking person to believe that gun control advocacy can be described as “truthful and non-misleading” when it’s presented with a façade of promoting gun safety.

I think there’s a good chance the state of Florida will appeal. But even if the state doesn’t appeal, doctors have been put on notice that the public is watching. When doctors start working the AAP’s anti-gun agenda on patients who come to them for medical care, they now know they’re stepping into a minefield.


 Posted by at 4:54 pm