Related Research Articles
The legislative, executive, and judicial branches, of both the United States federal government and the State of Florida, were involved in the case of Terri Schiavo. In November 1998 Michael Schiavo, husband of Terri Schiavo, first sought permission to remove his wife's feeding tube. Schiavo had suffered brain damage in February 1990, and in February 2000 had been ruled by a Florida circuit court to be in a persistent vegetative state. Her feeding tube was removed first on April 26, 2001, but was reinserted two days later on an appeal by her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is a United States nonprofit organization that supports gun rights. Founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb and headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, SAF publishes gun rights magazines and public education materials, funds conferences, provides media contacts, and has assumed a central role in sponsoring lawsuits.
Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession.
Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.
Stanley Marcus is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.
Robert Lanier Anderson III is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.
Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.
Moore v. Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
In the United States, a physician gag law is a law that prohibits physicians from asking their patients about whether the patient owns a gun. In some cases, these laws may also restrict the ability of physicians to counsel their patients about gun safety. The term was first used to describe the "Firearm Owners' Privacy Act," a law that was supported by the National Rifle Association and passed in Florida in 2011, which prohibited doctors from “making written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient.” The law passed in Florida was later challenged by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and was blocked in 2012 when judge Marcia G. Cooke, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, issued an injunction against its implementation. In 2014, Cooke's decision was reversed by a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled to uphold the law. The plaintiffs petitioned the court to be heard by the full panel of judges. In 2017, the court found the law to violate physicians' 1st Amendment Rights. Since 2011, twelve other states besides Florida have introduced similar laws, and although Florida's was the most restrictive in the country, similar laws have been enacted in Minnesota, Missouri and Montana.
The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was approved by voters in the Tuesday, November 8, 2016, general election in the State of Florida. The bill required a super-majority vote to pass, with at least 60% of voters voting for support of a state constitutional amendment. Florida already had a medical marijuana law in place, but only for those who are terminally ill and with less than a year left to live. The goal of Amendment 2 is to alleviate those suffering from these medical conditions: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic nonmalignant pain caused by a qualifying medical condition or that originates from a qualified medical condition or other debilitating medical conditions comparable to those listed. Under Amendment 2, the medical marijuana will be given to the patient if the physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient. Smoking the medication was not allowed under a statute passed by the Florida State Legislature, however this ban was struck down by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers on May 25, 2018.
The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
James Chiun-Yue Ho is a Taiwanese-born American attorney and jurist. He was nominated to serve as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by President Donald Trump, and took office in 2018. Ho formerly served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2008 to 2010.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."
Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, is an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of a South Dakota law which forced doctors to make certain disclosures to patients seeking abortions. The challenged statute required physicians to convey to their abortion-seeking patients a number of state-mandated disclosures, including a statement that abortions caused an "[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, along with its medical director Dr. Carol E. Ball, challenged the South Dakota law, arguing that it violated patients' and physicians' First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. After several appeals and remands, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the South Dakota law, holding that the mandated suicide advisement was not "unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant," and did "not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians." This supplemented the Eighth Circuit's earlier rulings in this case, where the court determined that the state was allowed to impose a restrictive emergency exception on abortion procedures and to force physicians to convey disclosures regarding the woman's relationship to the fetus and the humanity of the fetus.
Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (2002), was a freedom of speech case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over statements by anti-abortion activists who publicized personal information about specific abortion doctors, and indirectly suggested the possibility of violence against those individuals. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon that the speech was a true threat that is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
References
- 1 2 Parmet, Wendy E.; Smith, Jason A.; Miller, Matthew J. (16 June 2016). "Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida — The First Amendment, Physician Speech, and Firearm Safety". New England Journal of Medicine. 374 (24): 2304–2307. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1605740. PMID 27305190.
- ↑ Saunders, Jim (20 June 2016). "Appeal court to hear challenge to 'Docs vs. Glocks,' a law banning doctors from asking about gun ownership". Orlando Weekly. Retrieved 22 August 2016.
- 1 2 3 Palazzolo, Joe (20 June 2016). "Challenge to Florida Gun Privacy Law to Go Before Appeals Court". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 22 August 2016.
- ↑ Falls, B. (1 September 2011). "Legislation Prohibiting Physicians from Asking Patients about Guns". The Journal of Psychiatry & Law. 39 (3): 441–464. doi:10.1177/009318531103900306.
- ↑ Manderscheid, Erika (May 2015). "Return Fire: An En Banc Hearing in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida Is Necessary to Protect the First Amendment Rights of Physicians". Boston College Law Review. 56 (6).
- ↑ Weinberger, Steven E.; Lawrence, Hal C.; Henley, Douglas E.; Alden, Errol R.; Hoyt, David B. (18 October 2012). "Legislative Interference with the Patient–Physician Relationship". New England Journal of Medicine. 367 (16): 1557–1559. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1209858 .
- ↑ Alvarez, Lissette (16 February 2017). "Florida Doctors May Discuss Guns with Patients, Court Rules". New York Times. Retrieved 17 February 2017.