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.
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.
Do you know what “ex parte” means?
It’s an expedidited hearing, with only *minimal*, and often inadequate notice to the other side. Meaning, you may get no more than a phone call letting you know your right to keep your guns will be adjudicated by an Obama/Clinton appointee in 48 hours.
Good luck hiring competent counsel and preparing your case.
But, hey, it’s only Florida, right? It could never happen anywhere else.
Your guns are not going to be taken ‘temporarily’.
Are you at all familiar with the political positions of the AMA? You think physicians won’t wlillingly participate in this? They will be front and center, oh, naive one.
Your argument that the state lacks inadequate resources to ‘bring my rantings to fruition’ suggests a lack of familiarity with how governments operate. They will get the money, don’t worry. Of course, it will be your money. And mine. That’s what happens when you’re busy burying your head in the sand.