Just Say No To Rick Scott For Senate!
Remember the Republican traitors who voted for the Florida Bill: docs.google.com
Posted on 03/16/2018 9:42:27 PM PDT by ransomnote
The guns and ammunition of a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point, Florida, resident were confiscated by police in what is reportedly the first such seizure under gun control laws signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) last week. The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”
The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Let the black booted thuggery begin bought to you by the republicans in charge,,,,not the democrats. It was the republicans that gave them this new law that bypasses due process.
One judge, one writ and you have NO rights
We’ve had the Baker Act here for years, this is not something new that was passed last week.
Who only has 267 rounds of ammunition in this day and age?
Leave the aluminum foil in the drawer.
First this law is in Florida. I don’t know what other states have laws to make sure those who are likely to pose a danger to themselves or others have firearms taken away temporarily after a judge has issued an ex-parte order based on facts presented to him regarding the behavior of said person. Second, since the act is tied together with a person being what is known as Baker Acted you should know there are multiple protections of such a person’s rights written in the applicable statute. Those rights don’t become void just because the commitment for evaluation involved having firearms taken away.
Third, this state in now way has the budget, competent staff, time, assurances of cooperation to so grossly violate multiple laws needed to bring your rantings to fruition.
Fourth, the physicians and other medical providers in this state are not going to take such a crap on the laws and medical ethics involved. It would be a non-starter.
You’d like to think zero, but then you read the posts.
By passing a law, they have declared innocent citizens to be criminals. That way they can point to the number of arrests, and say “see? we are keeping you safe from crime.”
Meanwhile, violent criminals are not arrested, and are allowed to keep their guns.
The Baker Act can be abused and no doubt there is potential abuse for this statute too. I would bet most of the time abuse happens because the people involved are unaware of their rights. Not only that they are very likely not informed of those rights upon commitment. It also probable many in such a situation are not able to fully appreciate them. So if a psychiatrist at the mental health facility decides the 72 hour hold is not enough (and it is rare they don’t decide it is necessary)a person usually does not request a hearing before a judge to challenge that as provided for in statute.
Also the article makes clear abuse also happens when there are incompetent judges, indifferent law enforcement, and malicious unethical persons who have it out for someone. That sadly can be true for just about any proceeding requiring an administrative action. You don’t just scrap the relevant laws because of it. You do throw the book at the people who abuse or ignore it.
The man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”
He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”
Officers said they saw weapons in his home after they were called to check on his welfare. They also found evidence he had “a voluminous amount of notes containing numerous references to former President Barack Obama, that he was killed in the 1980s but came back and now murders children to place their spirits into [the man’s] head, is a member of [al-Qaida], and is [the man’s] enemy,” the judge wrote in his order.
This is a case where the new law worked as intended.
Funny, thanks
The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed.
...
The man was involuntarily committed for treatment in a separate proceeding and it is not yet known when he would be eligible for release, records show....
So apparently, the man was "Baker Acted", as you said, however his involuntary commitment (via the Baker Act) was not the cause of the confiscation of his guns. That was done in a separate hearing, a separate proceeding, under the new law. So apparently, the two (the Baker Act and this new law) act independently of each other.
Now reading the source article it's pretty clear it was probably a good idea to take guns away from this obviously sick individual. But that could have been done with just the Baker Act in this case, there was no need to have this extra law to do it. The new law only makes it easier for someone to "certify" to a judge that you need your guns taken away. I'm not saying it's "easy" to do it, but it's "easier" now, there's a difference and it's called a slippery slope.
No, they just have to show they have been released from custody and is no longer subject to involuntary commitment. That is not the same thing as having to document sanity. In fact that section does not address the competency of the person. (Which is pretty much assumed because they were released.) It addresses the time limit put on returning the seized weapons which is 24 hours after the person can provide documentation that they were released and not subject to involuntary commitment. You’d think their presence would make that obvious but government lubs them some paperwork.
Done in by deeming. The new Amerika.
He forgot the rule of law, shoot first ask questions later. Gun confiscation for any reason is outside the purview of the Constitution of the United States of America. There are not enough men and women in the confiscation business to survive even a short term loss of their numbers.
Perhaps he knows something we don’t. He is going to pass all the tests and come out smelling like a rose, with sufficient funds in the bank to go after his confiscators with a vengeance and win in court?
Well hell, all you need is a good article of explanation and we can just throw human rights out the window. Good job. Once again you find yourself in the wrong forum.
Oh no no no. The media cannot tell you the back story. That would make the leftists howl and prolly open up the mental illness can of worms they don’t want to acknowledge. You just need to accept that the guy had guns and ammo confiscated “just because “.
Thanks, the point needs to be made until it sinks in and before this “deeming” insanity rules the day.
OK, so he can file a Federal Title 18 civil rights complaint against everyone involved. Title 18 provides damages against not just the agencies but also the individual officers and officials. Title 18 is looking over the shoulder of every leo in the country and that's the way it should be.
I am certain that most journalists do not know how to read statutes. The whole seizure of firearms provision in statute rests on a person being taken in for “involuntary examination” which is what the “Baker Act” provides for. The proceedings are separate because first cause must be shown to a judge that the person is subject to “involuntary examination” before an ex parte order for firearm seizure can be issued. I think you’d want it that way.
Also note the statute only allows the police to seize the guns and ammunition the person possesses at the time they are being taken in for “involuntary examination.” But there is an important restriction, “and has made a credible threat of violence against another person.” The statute then reads how the police may petition a court to have other guns and ammo which were not in the person’s possession at the time they were taken into custody confiscated. I am not sure but it reads as though “person possesses” applies only to guns owned by that person and not necessarily all guns in the household. To remove those the police would have to get an risk protection order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.