Florida Mental Health Gun Restrictions Pass Senate

[dakota.potts]

Something I am very PO'd about. Florida Senate Unanimously cleared a bill passing stricter mental health regulations on firearms. Stricter, in this case, not meaning smarter. Basically anyone who voluntarily decides to check themselves in for treatment can no longer own a gun.

All this does is stigmatize mental illness further and I guarantee you it stops people from seeing therapists. How many of you would seek help if it meant you could no longer buy a gun? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. As far as I understand it, this also extends to rehab for drug and alcohol abusers.

In reading the bill, it doesn't seem initially too bad. It only covers someone who voluntarily submits after certain criteria are satisfied (A doctor determines you are a danger to yourself or others AND a petition for involuntary commitment would be filed in the absence of your voluntary agreement). However, there seem to be no restrictions on what an examining physician must do in order to say that you are a danger to yourself or others. I also see no provisions for getting your state rights back after they have been taken.

Here is the text of the bill
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill...illText/er/PDF

I don't speak legalese very well so I could easily be missing some things.

[BigDinFL]

It only covers someone who voluntarily submits after certain criteria are satisfied (A doctor determines you are a danger to yourself or others AND a petition for involuntary commitment would be filed in the absence of your voluntary agreement).

If you are a danger to yourself and others, and someone wants to Baker Act your butt, then you are NOT mentally stable and fit the criteria for denial of gun ownership

[dakota.potts]

I agree. But I don't like how there are no specifications for what can be considered as such, or no formal process (at least to my reading).

[Vanya]

Agreed, Dakota.

I'd have to read the text of the bill, but as described, the problem with it is that it circumvents any kind of due process, without which it's unconstitutional to deprive a person of rights. It's as if a police officer were to say to someone accused of a crime, "We can do this the easy way, where you agree to go to jail for a year, or we can do it the hard way, where you insist on a trial, which will cost you money, inconvenience everyone, and you'll probably go to jail anyway."

Of course, due process is becoming a rather quaint concept in any case...

[KyJim]

I can understand the intent of the bill. My biggest problem is that there is no expiration period. It would mean someone with suicidal thoughts who voluntarily admitted themselves following an involuntary examination would be forever barred from owning a firearm in Florida. If you have a tough time of it at age 20 due to girlfriend and school problems, you can't buy that shotgun 20 years later.

[dakota.potts]

KyJim, that's the other point I made. I see no provisions for regaining state eligibility. The bill makes a point to clearly distinguish that you can lose your state OR federal rights to own a gun, but never states how you can regain your state rights.

I'm afraid of the scenario where Johnny goes and tells his therapist he's having a hard time with his anxiety. Johnny's therapist, not understanding guns, decides that anybody going through a tough time doesn't need guns, declares him a danger to himself (or others), and Johnny has to give up his rights to guns for life. He could still buy from a private sale without a UBC (unless in a county where these are in place) but who's to say where it goes from there? State wide UBC's? How about a broader definition of mentally unstable? What about the next time we get a mass shooter who's on Zoloft so now anybody on an SSRI or mood altering drug is added to the list?

I understand where the law is coming from but there aren't enough safeguards, in my opinion. There is a fairly big push to get Governor Scott to veto it.

One of the things that disturbs me more is the fact that it passed with 117 yea votes to 1 nay. That can't be a good sign at all.

And I'm a little curious that this bill is NRA backed.

[Vanya]

Apparently the NRA has decided that someone has to be thrown under the bus in order to placate the anti-gunners, and the mentally ill get to be the throwees.

A quick look at the text of the bill suggests that there is something at least vaguely resembling due process with regard to voluntary commitments: a judge must review and approve the finding that the person is a danger within 48 hours. This isn't the same as an actual hearing, however. It also specifies that a person may petition the court for relief from the firearms disability, but no time frame is spelled out. It also seems to place the burden of proof on the disqualified person to appeal the judgment, rather than requiring a hearing before the firearms disability is imposed.

But unless I'm missing something, the portion of the bill that applies to voluntary commitments seems only to prohibit the person from purchasing firearms and from obtaining (or keeping) a permit to carry, but not from possessing them. There's no provision for confiscating firarms, and the text refers only to purchase/transfer and to eligiblity for concealed carry permits.