Posted on 03/16/2018 9:42:27 PM PDT by ransomnote
There is no human right for a person who has been found to be a danger to himself or others to be in possession of a firearm. The restriction could well be temporary, it might even become permanent. But it is not a violation of a human right. Any more than it violates a felon’s human rights to ban them from owning a firearms.
This situation should remind everyone of the financial records privacy of a few years back. Switzerland folded after international pressure in the name of chasing law breakers. What have you got to hide is the liberal answer to no privacy whatsoever.
Legalized cop stealing; find out who has a nice collection and just confiscate them for the good of the community. Maybe some Food Saver vacuum sealers might be used until this stupidity ends. When will they confiscate guns in Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc?
Thanks for bringing up Title 18. I haven’t looked it up but it sounds like one might have to be tinted other than neutral, to be granted a win under Title 18.
Have any examples of folks winning a civil rights complaint under Title 18?
Just a quick correction to my other reply. The separate proceeding in this instance would be the “Risk order of protection.” Though the Baker Act is separate proceeding, the order to seize guns not seized when the man was Baker Acted would be done based on the petition for a order of protection.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. You have to admit this guy, whatever his mental state, is not accused of shooting up a school.
Did you bother to read the bill which amends FS 790.401? There is no legalized cop stealing.
(e) A petition must: 1. Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent;
2. Identify the quantities, types, and locations of all firearms and ammunition the petitioner believes to be in the respondent’s current ownership, possession, custody, or control; and
So, you actually defend keeping guns in the hands of a clearly certifiably crazy person?! This was given due process, taken to court, judge agreed. It was some midnight decision by a sheriff. If this guy was your neighbor in an apartment building, would you be okay with him having guns? Seriously?! If he starts shooting at imaginary people, how many walls and people will those bullets go through?
Thanks for info, 2:49am caught up with me before I could reply. I posted it to http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3640355/posts?page=6
Great photo.Yep, that is a perfect argument against new “common sense” law.
I did. Thanks.
The NRA has already filed a Federal lawsuit. IMO the law violates the Florida constitution.
People actually think I'm stupid.
He didn’t start shooting at imaginary people, nor is he accused of shooting up a school. He really isn’t accused of breaking the law is he? No, he is accused of being a nut, and some strange behavior based on nuttiness, like cutting power to his neighbors. Had that not happened, we would not be having this discussion. I am not sure when the last case was prosecuted and won against a nut. Pretty broad use of the word nut.
This case is not over and I will reserve judgement until the final bell. Please remember he is not accused of shooting children in a gun free zone, or anyone else for that matter, and while you are at it, please don’t tell me what I do or don’t defend, or ask stupid leading questions. I can speak for myself without your help.
Thanks for addressing the real issue of finding yourself in the wrong forum.
so that is how you discuss a topic?
Answer my question, you okay with the crazy person having guns on the other side of your wall if you are in same apartment building?
What does it take for you to agree to take the guns away from him? That he kills you or a family member?
Do most Germans take advantage of being able to get a gun?
For some reason I thought they were another France.
And think what a dem president and congress will do with this.
I never understood why dems and obummer didn’t go nuts when they had the presidency and the congress.
Probably mutal agreement between dems and RINOs to not rock the boat too much.
Oh they and he DID damage. But they could have done more.
Oh they and he DID damage. But they could have done more.
...and your point could have been, just be patient and wait awhile, the Republican’s will be back in office and do “our” work for us.
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.