|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 17, 2018, 01:18 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
It begins. Florida man has guns taken
Florida man has guns taken and involuntarily committed to a mental facility for a psychiatric exam. What I got from the article is, that if you live in Florida, you are fair game for any family member or LEO that could benefit from having you committed under the new law.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-control-law/ After scrolling past all the ads where the article continues (the modern equivalent of the old "continued on page 19F), or whatever) it appears that I might have jumped the shark in this case. This guy seems to really be a nutcase, although I stand by my original contention that the potential for abuse is a problem. My apologies for any confusion.
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons Last edited by pnac; March 17, 2018 at 02:09 PM. Reason: Clarification |
March 17, 2018, 01:55 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Posts: 641
|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...316-story.html
From the article: Quote:
|
|
March 17, 2018, 01:57 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,972
|
"...issued the state’s first order temporarily removing guns from a person..."http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...316-story.html I haven't read the law so I don't know all the details of how it changes things, but frankly, if the information I quoted above is accurate, I don't see a big problem here. I think it's always been possible to confiscate the guns of a person who is a danger to themselves or others. Also, I'm not opposed to temporarily confiscating guns from a person who has lost touch with reality.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
March 17, 2018, 02:06 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 7, 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 2,736
|
pnac,
It's a waste of everyone's time if you only supply half a story trying to make a point that isn't valid. This is the meaning of "fake news". You can't win any arguments going about it this way. Sounds like someone who shouldn't have guns....at least for a while. |
March 17, 2018, 02:06 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2018
Posts: 380
|
Looks like FL has just gotten back to the days of "guys in white coats" and state mental hospitals.
|
March 17, 2018, 02:10 PM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
The guns were taken temporarily. If I understand it, Florida's Baker Act is not a commitment (and the article mentions that the new law allows removing guns from people who have not been committed) for treatment, it's an admission for evaluation. I think all states have provision for this, and it doesn't result in the person being prohibited unless the evaluation leads to an involuntary commitment. |
|
March 17, 2018, 02:19 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
|
March 17, 2018, 02:20 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
You are correct No Second Best, I should have dug deeper into the article. My sincere apologies. On the bright side, maybe I can get a job at CNN, I ought to qualify!
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
March 17, 2018, 02:39 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Posts: 641
|
CNN? That story came from Breitbart.
|
March 17, 2018, 02:49 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
The reference to CNN is that I only reported part of the story. It was sarcasm and I was giving CNN the benefit of doubt that they don't make up ALL their "facts". Sheesh!
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
March 17, 2018, 04:04 PM | #11 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The sad story is there are thousands of guys just like this one who are not even charged, let alone reported to NICS. Most of them are harmless; but that one who isn't hoses all of us.
|
March 17, 2018, 05:01 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
|
|
March 17, 2018, 05:28 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2017
Posts: 316
|
How quickly we forget, this nation was founded by crazy men with guns, when a government tried to take them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
March 17, 2018, 06:04 PM | #14 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
To my knowledge, the 11th Circuit has not yet addressed that issue; but it isn't crazy to say a Baker Act could permanently make you a prohibited person even if you are later released and have no problems. |
|
March 18, 2018, 02:49 AM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
No one can argue that dangerously unstable people should have guns. They shouldn't. Nor should they have knives, fire, chainsaws, or functional motor vehicles, or voting rights, among other things.
The trap is, who gets to decide that, before they actually do some harm??? We have a process in law to do that. The standard, since the law was passed, was that the process had to be completed, BEFORE rights were legally denied. The new "red flag" laws make it legal to "temporarily" remove guns before the legal process even begins. There are, absolutely, cases where doing so is the best thing for public safety. HOWEVER, one cannot really know it was the best thing until after the legal process works its way through, and a judgement is made. SO, we all get tarred with the same brush, just in case. The big risk we all face is, who decides who is, and isn't dangerously crazy, before the authorities get involved??? Just as is the case with restraining orders, the potential for abuse via false accusation is huge. And, it doesn't even need to be a deliberately false accusation. There are people today, and in ever increasing numbers, that believe you and I are dangerously crazy just because you HAVE guns. That alone is enough reason for them to call the cops, and they think they are doing the right thing by doing it! This isn't just a double edged sword, its a double edged sword without guard, quilions, or even a grip. Can it be wielded without injury? Yes, but one must be extremely careful, and to date, there is no evidence that the authorities will be any more careful with it than they are with any other laws...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|