Florida will pay $1.1 million in legal fees to attorneys challenging a law prohibiting doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced Monday.
Dubbed the "docs vs. glocks" law, the law placed several restrictions on Florida doctors, prohibiting medical professionals from asking questions about whether or not patients owned firearms.
Passed in 2011, the Firearms Owners' Privacy Act sought to prevent doctors from harassing or discriminating against patients due to gun ownership.
Doctors were also barred from entering information about patients' gun ownership into medical records unless it was "relevant" to medical care or safety to patients or others.
The law received significant pushback from doctors and other medical professionals, who contended "docs vs. glocks" violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.
The law continued to weave its way through the legal system and in February, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the majority of FOPA as unconstitutional.
“The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right,” wrote Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan in a majority opinion. “There is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients.”
One provision of the law -- which prohibits insurers from discriminating against gun owners -- was still left intact.
Florida officials had until last month to appeal the ruling but ultimately decided not to pursue the case further.
Now the state is on the hook for over a million dollars in legal fees, and the plaintiffs have wasted no time touting the number as another failure of the NRA, which it says places the wants of the gun industry over the safety of average citizens.
"Florida taxpayers just paid $1.1 million because of the gun industry's unconstitutional, anti-truth agenda designed to increase gun sales at any cost—including children's lives," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center.
Gross took a shot at Florida for enacting the law in the first place, saying the FOPA had no business being on Florida's books.
"This award is a message to states to think twice before enacting or defending laws that put lives at risk just to boost the gun industry’s bottom line," he said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said lawmakers, too, should heed the lesson of the suit and back away from pro-gun groups.
“Legislators across the country should learn from Florida’s example that if you side with the corporate gun lobby instead of your constituents, you endanger the safety of children and families, impinge upon First Amendment rights of doctors, and force taxpayers to pay millions to unsuccessfully defend unconstitutional laws," said Jonathan Lowry, co-counsel for the Brady Project. "Thankfully, in this case justice prevailed and the Court recognized that doctors have a First Amendment right to tell the truth about guns, and the risks they can pose to children and families.”
State lawmakers passed the FOPA in 2011 after learning of an incident involving an Ocala woman who was told to find a new doctor after refusing to answer questions regarding whether there were guns in her home from a local pediatrician.
The NRA wasted no time responding to the plaintiffs' assertions, laying into the groups over the case.
"Our opponents wouldn't recognize the truth if it pinched them on the nose," said NRA lobbyist and past president Marion Hammer. "Just because some activists judges agreed with them doesn't make them right."
Reach reporter Allison Nielsen by email at allison@sunshinestatenews.com or follow her on Twitter: @AllisonNielsen.
READ MORE FROM SUNSHINE STATE NEWS
Plea to DEP: Don't Let Waste Management Turn the Panhandle into Flint
