This case concerns one of our Constitution's most precious rights—the freedom of speech. "Open speech by a private citizen on a matter of public importance lies at the heart of expression subject to protection by the First Amendment." Courts have also emphasized the importance of the free flow of truthful, non-misleading information within the doctor-patient relationship. The State has attempted to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case. Despite the State's insistence that the right to "keep arms" is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights. The right to keep arms refers to the right to "retain," "to have in custody," and "to hold" weapons, including firearms. A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient's right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms. The Act—directed at ensuring patients' privacy rights concerning firearm ownership—does not implicate rights that the Second Amendment protects.

Gun control laws remain a contentious issue across the US. Previously, states took more or less restrictive approaches to gun control based on local state legislation. In June 2008, however, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense, overturning the District of Columbia's restrictive firearms law. Two years later, in June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago [opinion; JURIST report] that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government, thereby overturning Chicago's ban on handguns and raising considerable uncertainty about what amount of regulations of firearms was permissible. In July 2010, just four days after the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald, the Chicago City Council [official website] unanimously approved a new gun control ordinance that bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, including porches and garages, with a handgun. Shortly thereafter, a group of Chicago citizens, supported by both the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Firearm Retailers [advocacy websites], filed suit against the city [JURIST report] claiming the new gun control ordinance infringes on their constitutional rights.