That's a separate issue. The patient is not required to give the doctor any information about his views on guns or whether he owns any. No information to doctor = no information on health record. And as noted above, the patient is free at any time to change doctors.

It is not good political strategy to "protect" the Second Amendment by trashing the First Amendment.

The problem isn't doctors discussing firearm ownership issues with patients, the problem is what gets done with that information after the visit is over. Does it get added to your health record? Does it get reported to the state or your health insurance company? Will it be used as part of a 'people with severe psychological problems shouldn't own guns, so let's do a search of health records for firearms owners who have ever been prescribed medication for stress or depression'?

The problem isn't the doctor-patient conversation, it's what's done with the record afterward.

As long as the doctor-patient relationship is consensual, doctors should be free to talk to their patients about any subject under the sun. And the patient has an equal right when talking to a doctor. No one's rights are violated in either case. If the ruling gets to the Supreme Court I hope it is upheld.