It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law

[INVAR]

I loathe and despise the creatures who insisted to us that "reasonable regulations" never lead to confiscation - and that such talk is *paranoia* and *unhinged*.

The truth is borne out by the lessons of history - and what just happened in Florida.

While everyone was cheering about how good and 'reasonable' this expansion of whom government declares 'mentally unstable' - it was simply what we said it would be: a justification of confiscation.

And it happens under A REPUBLICAN administration both in the state and in the federal.

AND I might add - this is EXACTLY what the Soviets did to their citizens they decided to make public examples of.  They declare you a danger because you will not submit to the commie line. Your property is forfeited and your guns are taken. You are placed in re-education (or in our case - a mental institution until you come to their way of thinking). Meanwhile politburo supporters and family now own your property and you have to live off the crumbs the commie overlords throw your way the rest of your life.

So Trump got his 'Seize guns first, due process later" fulfilled in this case, which IMO - destroys the entire concept of America.

The FISA Court ideal just got expanded to include a whole lot more people.   

Police seize first firearms under Florida's new gun-control laws

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.

...four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”.

...“This is not about the Second Amendment and it’s not about the NRA. We need commonsense gun laws and this is a commonsense gun law that gives police officers new tools they need to help us protect our community.”

The justification for this is based on what was gleaned during a welfare check by police:

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.

[SZonian]

A Broward County judge on Friday issued the state’s first order temporarily removing guns from a person under Florida’s new gun-control laws.

Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others.

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 also taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment under the state’s Baker Act. But the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under the 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.

The man is also prohibited from trying to purchase or obtain guns or ammunition from any source.

[excerpted]
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

This guy sounds genuinely bat$hit crazy, but then any of us could be falsely accused of such by someone we've had some disagreement with...slippery slope to be sure.

[MOD8]

Merged.

[INVAR]

This guy sounds genuinely bat$hit crazy, but then any of us could be falsely accused of such by someone we've had some disagreement with...slippery slope to be sure.

Exactly.

An ex, a neighbor who has a grievance, some moron who hates what you said at your kids' school basketball game.

Given the amounts of abuse we have already seen coming from the Alphabets and other government agencies who are used as praetorians and pit bulls to go after those groups targeted for harassment or action - this 'grab the guns first, due process later" shit is the precursor to defacto gun confiscation without the classification of it being called a gun confiscation program.

That a Republican spearheaded this bill, more than showcases the fact that the Republican Party is just as complicit in the erosion of our liberties as the Democrats are if not moreso.

[libertybele]

A Broward County judge on Friday issued the state’s first order temporarily removing guns from a person under Florida’s new gun-control laws.

Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others.

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 also taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment under the state’s Baker Act. But the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under the 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.

The man is also prohibited from trying to purchase or obtain guns or ammunition from any source.

[excerpted]
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

This is a really tough one to digest as I am a strong supporter of the 2A.  He has the right to possess a firearm under the 2A, but under the new law (as I am understanding from the article) law enforcement is allowed to temporarily remove weapons from his possession if he is considered dangerous to himself or others and he was placed in care under the Baker Act where he will undergo psychiatric evaluation.  If I recall part of the application for conceal carry and allowing one to purchase a fire arm is that if you have been treated for a mental illness, etc. you may be denied.  So ... who knows if this man has had previous 'episodes'?

There certainly is room for abuse; but our law enforcement officers are now having to make judgement calls.  If they are called and do nothing and allow him to continue to possess firearms and he kills someone, then they will be blamed.  Really it is similar to that of someone drinking and driving; if the police encounter or hear of someone swerving back and forth and the pull them over and do a breathalyzer on them, and find that they are above the legal limit, they can impound their care and take them into custody.  They are not denying the right to drink, they are denying the person the right to drink while intoxicated.

The difference is that the breathalyzer measures the amount of alcohol in the system and is proof of intoxication. Declaring someone mentally unstable is a judgement call.

[skeeter]

This is a really tough one to digest as I am a strong supporter of the 2A.  He has the right to possess a firearm under the 2A, but under the new law (as I am understanding from the article) law enforcement is allowed to temporarily remove weapons from his possession if he is considered dangerous to himself or others and he was placed in care under the Baker Act where he will undergo psychiatric evaluation.  If I recall part of the application for conceal carry and allowing one to purchase a fire arm is that if you have been treated for a mental illness, etc. you may be denied.  So ... who knows if this man has had previous 'episodes'?

There certainly is room for abuse; but our law enforcement officers are now having to make judgement calls.  If they are called and do nothing and allow him to continue to possess firearms and he kills someone, then they will be blamed.  Really it is similar to that of someone drinking and driving; if the police encounter or hear of someone swerving back and forth and the pull them over and do a breathalyzer on them, and find that they are above the legal limit, they can impound their care and take them into custody.  They are not denying the right to drink, they are denying the person the right to drink while intoxicated.

The difference is that the breathalyzer measures the amount of alcohol in the system and is proof of intoxication. Declaring someone mentally unstable is a judgement call.

Maybe the answer is for an advocate recommended by a pro-2A group such as the NRA be impaneled with two or three private psychologists to hear each of these cases as they come up, kinda like a circuit court.

[INVAR]

Really it is similar to that of someone drinking and driving; if the police encounter or hear of someone swerving back and forth and the pull them over and do a breathalyzer on them, and find that they are above the legal limit, they can impound their care and take them into custody.  They are not denying the right to drink, they are denying the person the right to drink while intoxicated.

The difference is that the breathalyzer measures the amount of alcohol in the system and is proof of intoxication. Declaring someone mentally unstable is a judgement call.

Except the problem with that analogy is EXACTLY the problem I have with it in regards to liberty. 

Because the state has been granted the power to stop crimes in advance - and conduct fishing expeditions to 'make us all safe' - I now get to enjoy road blocks on Friday and Saturday nights.  Roadblocks where I have to pull over without any kind of moving violation; show my papers; show that my car is properly registered, taxed and emissions and stuff all up-to-date; and I must answer questions to the cops about where I have been and where I am going.  All without so much as any probable cause as to my detainment and questioning.  If I refuse to answer the cop about where I have been or where I am going, I get to be removed from my car, have it searched and be forced to take a breathalyzer simply because I refused to comply with answering a question about my whereabouts and destination.  If I have cash on me, I can have it confiscated because it can be declared 'drug money' without so much as any evidence and God forbid my sidearm is in the glovebox because that becomes a whole other problem if you encounter a new cop with a big chip on their shoulder.

Yeah, you can tell yourself that this is the price we have to pay to be safe from drunk drivers and mentally unstable people with guns.

But then liberty is still revoked and limited.  And as Adams said - once liberty is lost - it is NEVER regained. 

Fact of history and human nature.

How much more do we want to surrender of it in the name of safety?

[roamer_1]

Maybe the answer is for an advocate recommended by a pro-2A group such as the NRA be impaneled with two or three private psychologists to hear each of these cases as they come up, kinda like a circuit court.

Nah. They'll just appoint folks on the committee that will rubber-stamp the state - just like what happened in CA under Reagan's abortion law.

[libertybele]

Maybe the answer is for an advocate recommended by a pro-2A group such as the NRA be impaneled with two or three private psychologists to hear each of these cases as they come up, kinda like a circuit court.

Ok, but in the interim, before a case is heard to determine if one is in a mental state where they are either a danger to themselves or others, what should be done?  The new law states that weapons can be temporarily confiscated.  Another problem that I forsee is what the person would need to do to get their weapons and ammunition back?  Certainly after they had their weapons temporarily confiscated, I think it would be nearly impossible to get a conceal carry permit or that their permit would be revoked.

[libertybele]

Except the problem with that analogy is EXACTLY the problem I have with it in regards to liberty. 

Because the state has been granted the power to stop crimes in advance - and conduct fishing expeditions to 'make us all safe' - I now get to enjoy road blocks on Friday and Saturday nights.  Roadblocks where I have to pull over without any kind of moving violation; show my papers; show that my car is properly registered, taxed and emissions and stuff all up-to-date; and I must answer questions to the cops about where I have been and where I am going.  All without so much as any probable cause as to my detainment and questioning.  If I refuse to answer the cop about where I have been or where I am going, I get to be removed from my car, have it searched and be forced to take a breathalyzer simply because I refused to comply with answering a question about my whereabouts and destination.  If I have cash on me, I can have it confiscated because it can be declared 'drug money' without so much as any evidence and God forbid my sidearm is in the glovebox because that becomes a whole other problem if you encounter a new cop with a big chip on their shoulder.

Yeah, you can tell yourself that this is the price we have to pay to be safe from drunk drivers and mentally unstable people with guns.

But then liberty is still revoked and limited.  And as Adams said - once liberty is lost - it is NEVER regained. 

Fact of history and human nature.

How much more do we want to surrender of it in the name of safety?

I fully understand your statement and am not an advocate for random roadblocks and checks as in most cases there is no legitimate reason to stop people. That's the difference. I do feel that the police have the right to pull someone over if they are displaying signs of driving impaired. You are breaking the law if you drive while intoxicated. The point that I was trying to make by my analogy is that in the case of driving impaired , that impairment is obvious, by erratic driving.  Just as the new law states that law enforcement has the right to temporarily confiscate a gun for erratic behavior that would indicate that they were either a danger to themselves or someone else. The problem as pointed out by another poster, would occur if you tick off your next door neighbor for example and they say you were acting irrationally and they know you have guns. So ... then law enforcement has to make a judgement call when they come for your weapon. That's the biggest problem I have with the new law. They have to make a judgement call based on the information they were given and their assessment of someone. 

I think this new law is just a lawsuit waiting to happen.  There's too much room for abuse.  If we look at the case in Parkland, had everyone in law enforcement done their job and confiscation was an option, yes, the new law would have saved lives.  However, obviously, had the new law been in effect and law enforcement dropped the ball as they did, it wouldn't have made any difference.

[RoosGirl]

@INVAR

Specifically commenting on the "It Begins" portion of the subject.  We didn't expect them to pass a shiny new law and not use it, did we?

[Optiguy]

As I read the guy’s wacky comments, I just kept thinking about the level of delusion accepted when a man says he’s a woman.

[INVAR]

@INVAR

Specifically commenting on the "It Begins" portion of the subject.  We didn't expect them to pass a shiny new law and not use it, did we?

LOL RoosGirl!

Funny how the 'shiny new laws' are always shining at us little people and never the people who make them.

[RoosGirl]

LOL RoosGirl!

Funny how the 'shiny new laws' are always shining at us little people and never the people who make them.

That's pretty simple, the people who make them are always quite sane and we are not.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's pretty simple, the people who make them are always quite sane and we are not.

Makes perfect sense!  No, wait....

[Slip18]

Makes perfect sense!  No, wait....

I posted on another thread, "You are a nut."  Uh-oh, ya think anyone heard me?