The biggest joke in civilization is, "A Bear and a Rabbit are talking a ...." I gotta run, maybe later.

They can ask anything. You don't have to answer. You can even lie, provided there's no law against that. If that happens, then there's a problem.
Why would a doctor engage in such a conversion to begin with? Does it sort of start out like the Birds and Bees talk, "Have you considered protection when polishing your pistol".
How does that work?
I wouldn't be pop-off at the doctor, I wouldn't tell him to mind his business. Just answer it, "no, I have no guns", "or what an odd question - why do you ask?" - now you have him answering questions :-)
Especially, if them asking is because of Gov't demand for statistics - which would be the bigger concern of mine. Lying is legal unless under oath.

Yes, I know all about that carpetbagger governor of ours. In the last election, he stuffed absentee ballot kits mailed to Fairfax County residents with Democratic Party campaign material. But in Virginia a governor is not re-eligible, and this year we get to elect a replacement, so it's too late in the "season" to remove him on impeachment.

Correct, gun ownership is legal, but the anti-Constitutional forces are as active in VA as anywhere else. Look at the ass of a governor that was elected by the Beltway establishment. The order to question parents came through the medical channels, American Academy of Pediatrics being one example (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org.... There are two goals for this - discouraging gun ownership and building a national gun registry, with the health records acting as a conduit. Surely, you don't believe that your computerized health records, which are transmitted nationally and which reside on multiple servers, including government owned, are confidential?

The real questions here are, "Do you have tell the truth?" And, "What happens if you don't?" "Who are they going to tell?"

The VA has never asked me, but they do precede every encounter with, "Are you thinking of suicide?" or some form of it. Even when you call them the recorded message asks, and you always get the message, never an actual person. Apparently they have a policy against answering the phone with a live person. Just my two cents worth of complaint.

Here's one reference: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
to quote: "Physician counseling of parents about firearm safety appears to be effective, but firearm safety education programs directed at children are ineffective." Besides the above statement being false, this is one example of the direction given to the pediatricians. One can make an argument that the direction is from a "professional" organization, not the government itself. Of course, one must be very naive to think so, as the data that the pediatrician enters into the health records is now accessible government-wide. There are other references, which would simply require more time to look up, but they are there and the ends of these threads all go up to the Obama administration.

This is Virginia you're talking about. Here in Virginia, gun ownership is entirely lawful.

If you read the actual article, it does list how this came to be brought before the court system in the first place. And if you read the article, it is the gun lobby who was objecting to the requirement in the first place.

Can you cite a state or local law that requires a doctor to do this? It would be a major breach of doctor-patient confidentiality, and I would expect the gun lobby to be seriously up in arms about it (pun intended).

The court case cited by the O.P. was about a law forbidding doctors from discussing guns, not a law requiring them to do so and to report their findings to the government.

You are naive to think that the purpose crafted into the ACA was only for some idiotic purpose of personal safety. The DROS is made up of records that remain on site in the gun dealer's place of business, it's not sent to some government vault. The dems have been demanding a national record system for decades, even though there is zero linkage between lawful ownership and crime, drugs, etc. They simply stuck it in there and it's about to be repealed anyway.

Never underestimate how information in a medical record could serve some future political purpose.

I don't pay some doc thousands to tell me that my dozens of firearms are going to somehow be a threat to my health, he can read labs and use the medical decision support system like most of them. I've proven many times that an AR sitting on my back patio didn't jump up and rob a bank while I'm cleaning another one and enjoying an iced tea.

It's always something with that agenda - it's the full autos, then the AR 15, then the semi auto rifles, then large magazines, even though the FBI database shows that well over 90% of gun crimes are with a handgun and the AR is only a tiny percentage of the remaining 10% where a long gun was even used (hunting rifle, shotguns, etc.)

Their whole argument is bullshit, start to finish. This is just one more element.

Here's my argument. Do I get a refund and reimbursement at my professional salary if I get up and walk out because I won't answer and don't care to listen to their first amendment speech? They can say it, I don't have to listen to it. They can do their Truman club dinners too, doesn't mean I would go or make a donation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to an audience, college students need the right to an A as well if they don't want to sit in a chair and be brainwashed either.

It shouldn't be, but in some States and under the ACA, government wants to compel doctors to ask this question and report the answers back to the government. This lawsuit was specifically in regards to this use of the information, because it would penalize doctors who refused to participate AND penalize patients who refused to give the information.

Can you explain what part about this is "free speech" and what attempted infringement you see?

The patient is not required to give the doctor any information about his views on guns or whether he owns any. If the doctor demands this information as a precursor to treatment, the patient can either (1) find another doctor, or (2) lie to the current doctor to protect his/her privacy. Lying to your doctor is unwise in most situations, but as far as I know it is not a crime.

Seriously? Defending freedom of speech is “naïve”? I think it’s naïve to expect that you can fix the consequences of bad legislation with more bad legislation. It’s a never-ending cycle that adds to the overall level of government control.

Asking a question to which one shouldnt have to answer just invites an answer that the questioner wants to hear.

you can always so you don't own any.

Nice response.

I have just posted the same in response to CircuitGuy, but I see this issue popping up in many responses here - this is not a First Amendment issue. When a doctor is directed to ask a certain question and pass the answer up the chain to his government controllers, then that doctor is acting as a surrogate for the government. And the government has no right to ask that question. The 1st A exists to protect the rights of the people to speak as they wish, not for the government to interrogate the people.

the judicial system has become the biggest joke of civilization...

This is not a First A issue. When a doctor is directed to ask a certain question and pass the answer up the chain to his government controllers, then that doctor is acting as a surrogate for the government. And the government has no right to ask that question.

I watched my kids' pediatrician carefully when I lived in VA. Any question in that direction would have resulted in a new pediatrician, with the old one knowing why the business was getting lighter. As it turned out, it never happened; whether the doctor was pro-2A or intelligent enough not to touch that subject, I don't know.

My response was to ask the doctor about her sexual preferences, and when she said it was none of my damn business, I said "I think you got your answer."

At least sometimes, it goes into those records.

I HAD a physician who asked such questions, inserted them into my record, and added other things that were either incorrect or misinterpreted. I fired her.

Yup, I don't trust them at all. So nope no guns for me.

I'm a senior citizen who lives in open carry Alabama and sees my medical doctor every 4 months due to having Type 2 diabetes.
My MD would have to ask me if I have a firearm because I believe concealed carry is a better strategy partly due to ignoired gun free zones such as banks..
Me dino would say, "Want to see it? It's in a pocket holster that looks kinda like a wallet when I first pull it out."
Should I ever have to prove I sold that gun to keep my social security, I'll just trade it in for another that doesn't have a steel grip. The recoil of that Sig somewhat uncomfortably stings that "web" spot between my hand and my thumb.
I have three other handguns anyhoo (one a smaller caliber pocket pistol) plus a carbine and a shotgun.
The chiropractor I see once a month does not care. He once told me he sees plenty of guns. I put the little holstered Sig and my spare clip in a small plastic basket with everything else in my pockets before he goes to work on me. .