The issue has been called Docs vs. Glocks, a term that understates the gravity of this controversy.

When two rights contained in the Bill of Rights fall into conflict, it creates a crisis that the courts must resolve.

The current case involves a Florida law that restricts the free speech of physicians to advise their patients about the dangers of guns. Supporters of the law say doctors have no business talking about guns; just stick to medical care. Opponents of the law say discussions of gun safety are within the purview of physicians.

Doctors have every right and duty to talk to their patients about swimming pool safety, child-proofing electrical outlets, using seat belts, texting while driving, keeping chemicals out of the way of children and making sure guns are safely stored.

So lets say the doctor repeats a warning from the Jacksonville sheriff that 1,000 guns have been stolen from cars in the past two years and that this is a serious threat to public safety. Under the Florida law that could be seen as stepping beyond the bounds of health care.

Because the physician-patient relationship is special, perhaps the patient listens this time and takes action to keep gun away from possible thieves.

But gun rights advocates see that speech as overstepping the bounds for physicians and a potential threat to the right to own arms.

So the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are at odds in this case.

The battle has raged in the courts with three-judge appeal panels affirming the Florida law.

The latest ruling by a wider panel of judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down key provisions of the Florida law.

Any restriction of speech must receive a higher level of review, the appeals court stated.

In fact, there was no evidence that physicians took away any firearms.

No amendment is absolute. There are limits on free speech, for instance. And no single amendment trumps all others.

As one judge said on the panel, this speech prohibition could go both ways.

A state legislature motivated by anti-gun sentiment might have passed a similar law to prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to own firearms. Such a law would be equally unconstitutional.

As a reminder, the Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court underlined the right for individuals to own firearms but it also listed several examples of the sort of restrictions that would be constitutional.

JUSTICE SPEEDED UP

Crime is so serious in Jacksonville that any move to speed up the wheels of justice deserves support.

Therefore, Mayor Lenny Currys request for $250,000 to obtain ballistic results faster deserves City Council approval.

State Attorney Melissa Nelson said this special system can obtain results on gun and ammunition used in crimes in a day or two rather than the 12 to 18 months currently.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is swamped with requests.

Now there is a better chance of solving crimes shortly after they happen, Nelson said at a press conference.

This is what the public expects.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

EXAMPLE OF POTOMAC SWAMP

Several news organizations are boycotting the annual White House Correspondents Dinner due to the war taking place between the mainstream press and the Trump administration.

Where were they during the Obama years when that administration was waging an unrivaled attack on the press? Obama talked a good game but his administration played extraordinarily tough with journalists.

At least The New York Times had ignored the dinner previously.

The event, broadcast on cable, broke down what ought to be a professional barrier between journalists and the people they cover. Washington already has too much movement from media to government to lobbyists.

Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post ombudsman, suggests cancelling the event. In contrast, Major Garrett, the CBS reporter, notes that the event highlights excellent reporting and awards scholarships.

Fine, have the event without the politicians.

MORE FAKE VOTER FRAUD

White House aide Stephen Miller protested recently on Sunday morning talk shows that there was massive voter fraud with liberal Democrats from Massachusetts voting in New Hampshire. In fact, President Donald Trump claimed that thousands voted illegally there.

Miller provided no evidence, just his firm belief. Look at the facts:

New Hampshire is a Republican-dominated state. Its state officials found no evidence of massive voter fraud.

New Hampshire has a voter ID law.

These bogus urban legends need to be debunked, which is why a thorough study of voter fraud is justified.

LIBERALS AND CONSPIRACIES

Well, look at the people concocting new conspiracy theories. Theyre liberals.

Apparently when your party is out of power, people tend to gravitate to wild speculations.

Losing the presidential election made Democrats more likely to blame secret conspiracies for the state of the world while making Republicans less willing to indulge these sort of claims, The New York Times reported.

One rumor claims the bumbled refugee ban was part of an elaborate plan for a coup. The Snopes urban legend site is seeing more fake news and wishful thinking from liberal corners.

And guess who is discovering states rights? California Democrats in the state legislature hired former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to represent them in battles with the federal government. And a secession movement is growing there.

The rest is here:

Tuesday's editorial: Physicians win back free speech rights - Florida Times-Union